Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Peregrine wrote:IIRC there was no doubt about the guy's guilt. It was "alleged" only in the sense that he hadn't been convicted in a court system that was not going to convict him no matter how obviously guilty he was.

All of what you said may be true, but none of it makes it okay for a United States service member to kill someone extrajudicially. I know that you know that.

Relapse wrote:The guy was bragging around about raping the kid. As far as laws go, it's the rule of the strong. The rapist was the law, and the Green Beret was frustrated that nothing could be done. Knocking a guy like that in the teeth is no crime in my opinion.

The guy clearly may be a scumbag and the soldier pushing him down, despite being unbecoming of someone in his position, isn't worthy of being thrown out of the military for.

 Ouze wrote:
The best way to show our respect for the rule of law is to commit extrajudicial killings.

We broke a gak-ton bagging Osama. I'm not mourning the death of the judicial process in response.

The people bagging Osama violated orders by their superiors and violated USMCJ laws?

 d-usa wrote:
The people bagging Osama violated orders by their superiors and violated USMCJ laws?

What's fun about that is that they weren't on the military payroll when they were in Pakistan, they were on the CIA's payroll. Technically, they were civilians.

But no, they didn't. I was referring specifically to Ouze's rather vague comment about extrajudicial killings not being the best way to show our respect for the law. Sometimes, they're the only option.

This guy definitely broke the rules. At the same time, it's hard to care all that much that he did. It's one of those "a desperate man breaks into a pharmacy to steal life-saving medicine for his wife; a window is broken, a life is saved," situations. On the other hand, the rules are the way they are because military discipline breaks down if everybody thinks they can supersede orders they don't like.

There's no great answer. There are good ones, and this is probably the best; the dude beat the gak out of someone the world would be better off without, Big Green made a show of making it clear that brand of initiative in contrivance to direct orders won't fly, and then they let him off because punishing the guy who beat the tar out of a child rapist isn't a good look.

I think Ouze thoughts are probably close to mine:

I don't really care about the laws of Afghanistan, or care if he broke the laws of Afghanistan. But he violated our own rules and orders when he beat up the piece of gak, and those are the laws we should care about IMO.

It's not so much about extrajudicial killings outside of their laws, it's about extrajudicial killings outside of our own laws.

If that explanation makes any sense.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of what you said may be true, but none of it makes it okay for a United States service member to kill someone extrajudicially. I know that you know that.

Ok, sure, I suppose it would have been unauthorized use of government property or something. Deduct the cost of the bullet from the guy's next paycheck, call it a day.

Congrats, you have the same disregard for human life as a child rapist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of what you said may be true, but none of it makes it okay for a United States service member to kill someone extrajudicially. I know that you know that.

Ok, sure, I suppose it would have been unauthorized use of government property or something. Deduct the cost of the bullet from the guy's next paycheck, call it a day.

So he broke orders yes. The guy he beat was a utter gak stain pedo. Would ypu not snap if there was said imune gak stain bragging. Only so far people can tolerate that.
Cut his pay for a month or so, beating the gak out of a pedo is hardly unwarranted.

Lucky he did not take a combat knife to his nether regions.

 d-usa wrote:
I think Ouze thoughts are probably close to mine:

I don't really care about the laws of Afghanistan, or care if he broke the laws of Afghanistan. But he violated our own rules and orders when he beat up the piece of gak, and those are the laws we should care about IMO.

It's not so much about extrajudicial killings outside of their laws, it's about extrajudicial killings outside of our own laws.

If that explanation makes any sense.

One of the items about this situation that really bothers me is that the rapings were happening inside a U.S. base, if I recall the original story correctly.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The guy clearly may be a scumbag and the soldier pushing him down, despite being unbecoming of someone in his position, isn't worthy of being thrown out of the military for.

Yeah, that was my bottom line as well. I don't know if the guy he knocked down really was a child rapist, and of course we're not even pretending we have both sides of the story. We're never going to know exactly what happened or what the rationale was. However, a single isolated instance of one guy knocking another guy down shouldn't generally be cause for getting drummed out even without knowing all the context.

The earlier reference to extrajudicial killings was responding the the incoherent ramblings that the best way to deal with child "rappists" is to dismember them and leave them in a swamp somewhere. Beyond the obvious fact that it's a little weird to show how wrong it is to break the law by breaking the law, it also would have kept us from enjoying the talents of Kriss Kross and Lil Bow Wow.

 jhe90 wrote:
So he broke orders yes. The guy he beat was a utter gak stain pedo.

The latter does not excuse the former. Breaking orders is no small thing.

 jhe90 wrote:
Lucky he did not take a combat knife to his nether regions.

If he had he would be in Leavenworth and then kicked out of the military because this isn't Afghanistan. Even if we assume the other guy was a piece of crap that doesn't give us carte blanche to ignore orders or the law.

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats, you have the same disregard for human life as a child rapist.

No, not at all. The child rapist forfeits their right to live based on their horrifyingly evil actions. The child, on the other hand, has committed no such crime and is an innocent victim. And I think you should be able to tell the difference between enforcing justice when the legal system fails and preying on innocent victims.

 Peregrine wrote:
And I think you should be able to tell the difference between enforcing justice when the legal system fails and preying on innocent victims.

Frank Castle agrees.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats, you have the same disregard for human life as a child rapist.

No, not at all. The child rapist forfeits their right to live based on their horrifyingly evil actions. The child, on the other hand, has committed no such crime and is an innocent victim. And I think you should be able to tell the difference between enforcing justice when the legal system fails and preying on innocent victims.

People who advocate murder aren't at any higher level than other criminals in my opinion. They might feel justified and pat themselves on the back for having done a good thing, but disregarding human life just because somebody else did something horrible just makes them a different king of animal.

When our military can stop our soldiers from raping each other, then maybe we can claim to be the poster point for truth and justice. Until then we can probably stop ourselves from patting each other on the back for having a soldier with the lack of self control to actually follow the laws, rules, and orders he swore to follow while congratulating him on spending 5 minutes of his career, which should be over, beating and kicking another criminal.

 d-usa wrote:
People who advocate murder aren't at any higher level than other criminals in my opinion. They might feel justified and pat themselves on the back for having done a good thing, but disregarding human life just because somebody else did something horrible just makes them a different king of animal.

So you think that a person who kidnaps and rapes a child, then beats the child's mother for attempting to seek help, deserves to live? Sorry, but we're just going to have to disagree on that. If the legal system is corrupt enough to let the guy go then I won't shed a single tear if someone does the right thing and puts a bullet in his head.

When our military can stop our soldiers from raping each other, then maybe we can claim to be the poster point for truth and justice.

Of course we should stop that. But the fact that we aren't perfect doesn't mean that the guy in the OP deserves any sympathy, or that killing him would be any less justified. You don't have to be the "poster point for truth and justice" to understand that raping children is bad.

 Peregrine wrote:

So you think that a person who kidnaps and rapes a child, then beats the child's mother for attempting to seek help, deserves to live?

If you want to find a single instance where I argued that, be my guest.

If only there was some kind of middle ground between being okay with raping a child and beating up the mother, and being okay with vigilante soldiers gaking on the rules and laws they are sworn to follow. Maybe if such a middle ground exists, the world would be a better place. Until then we shall forever be divided into #TeamHighFivePedophiles and #TeamPedophileBrainSplatter.

\

When our military can stop our soldiers from raping each other, then maybe we can claim to be the poster point for truth and justice.

Of course we should stop that. But the fact that we aren't perfect doesn't mean that the guy in the OP deserves any sympathy, or that killing him would be any less justified. You don't have to be the "poster point for truth and justice" to understand that raping children is bad.

You also don't have to be very smart to realize that advocating that a military that rapes 5% of their own members shouldn't be punished for beating up rapists, and that we would be okay if they just executed them, is a very stupid thing to do.

But until we realize that having our own soldiers break our own rules when deciding to dish our extrajudicial justice is a bad thing that shouldn't be tolerated, nothing I post will make a difference and we can continue with our celebration of vigilante fantasies.

We now continue with our scheduled programming of calling for extrajudicial killings of people that rape others, and more powerpoint SHARP briefs for those that rape their own.

 d-usa wrote:
If you want to find a single instance where I argued that, be my guest.

Gladly.

They might feel justified and pat themselves on the back for having done a good thing, but disregarding human life just because somebody else did something horrible just makes them a different king of animal.

So if people who advocate murdering the guy are "animals" for disregarding human life then I'd say that's a pretty clear statement that you believe that the guy deserved to live. After all, if he didn't deserve to live, then there would be nothing wrong with disregarding his life.

If only there was some kind of middle ground between being okay with raping a child and beating up the mother, and being okay with vigilante soldiers gaking on the rules and laws they are sworn to follow. Maybe if such a middle ground exists, the world would be a better place. Until then we shall forever be divided into #TeamHighFivePedophiles and #TeamPedophileBrainSplatter.

Nice job addressing an argument I didn't make. I guess we'll be forever divided into #TeamActualArgument and #TeamStrawMan?

You also don't have to be very smart to realize that advocating that a military that rapes 5% of their own members shouldn't be punished for beating up rapists, and that we would be okay if they just executed them, is a very stupid thing to do.

You know, I also wouldn't feel too much sympathy if a member of the US military that raped someone got beat up. But I think we can acknowledge a pretty significant difference in that a US soldier proudly saying "I raped this child and nobody is going to do anything about it" is going to find that their delusions of immunity to prosecution have nothing to do with the real world.

Some people can be against both extrajudicial killings, as well as pedophelia.

I'm sorry if you can only manage to be against one of those things.

 d-usa wrote:
Some people can be against both extrajudicial killings, as well as pedophelia.

I'm sorry if you can only manage to be against one of those things.

And here's another straw man argument from you. Could you stop doing that?

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Some people can be against both extrajudicial killings, as well as pedophelia.

I'm sorry if you can only manage to be against one of those things.

And here's another straw man argument from you. Could you stop doing that?

No Straw man at all. You explicitely said that a rapist/pedophile"forfeits" his right to live.

If you do not hold human life to be sacrosanct you put yourself in the same boat as people who burn witches.
Now, obviously, you do not want to be one of those but a defender of the innocent and weak.
Problem is , all those witch hunters call themselves exactly that.

How do you separate yourself from them?
Legal principles and higher morals (higher regard for people's rights).
And there your chain of thought has just not come to the logical conclusion, yet, I am afraid.


So, yes, the reaction of the soldiers was understandable, and it is good that he was given lenience.

But no one has the right to take someone else's life (notice the difference between "having the right" and "doing it because they feel it to be necessary" and "being authorized by a higher authority to do so"), punishment should flow from legal proceedings and no yokel GI should have the right or feeling of endorsement to make that call.
V
Obviously, neither should you or me (unless we were both part of the proper legal proceedings).

 treslibras wrote:
No Straw man at all. You explicitely said that a rapist/pedophile"forfeits" his right to live.

If you do not hold human life to be sacrosanct you put yourself in the same boat as people who burn witches.
Now, obviously, you do not want to be one of those but a defender of the innocent and weak.
Problem is , all those witch hunters call themselves exactly that.

How do you separate yourself from them?
Legal principles and higher morals (higher regard for people's rights).
And there your chain of thought has just not come to the logical conclusion, yet, I am afraid.


So, yes, the reaction of the soldiers was understandable, and it is good that he was given lenience.

But no one has the right to take someone else's life (notice the difference between "having the right" and "doing it because they feel it to be necessary" and "being authorized by a higher authority to do so"), punishment should flow from legal proceedings and no yokel GI should have the right or feeling of endorsement to make that call.
V
Obviously, neither should you or me (unless we were both part of the proper legal proceedings).

Except that's not what d-usa said. Their straw man version of my argument is "if you oppose executing the rapist then you're in favor of raping children", which is not what I said. It deliberately excludes the idea that you could be against executing the rapist, but still believe that what he did was wrong and want to see him punished within the legal system. It's just a cheap shot that lets d-usa "win" the argument by accusing me of arguing something obviously absurd.

As for your argument, how I separate myself from the witch hunter is that the witch hunters murdered people for an imaginary crime, while I advocated killing someone who committed a very real crime. I think it should be obvious that there's a very clear difference between murdering someone outside the law for a "crime" that exists only in fiction and murdering someone outside the law because the legal system is corrupt and will let an unrepentant rapist go free.

Also, letting the legal system sort everything out is nice in theory, but depends on the premise of having a functioning legal system. If, as in the case in the OP, the legal system is corrupt and allows people with the right connections to get away with crimes then it can no longer be trusted to do its job. Remember that the rapist was a police officer, supposedly part of the legal system that is supposed to protect innocent victims. That is a pretty clear sign of a failed legal system, I think.

And how do you know that your case is real while all those witch hunts aren't?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how do you know that your case is real while all those witch hunts aren't?

In this case the guy admitted that he did it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And how do you know that your case is real while all those witch hunts aren't?

In this case the guy admitted that he did it.

Well apart from the fact that we do not KNOW (i.e. it is only a claim that he said it) and that he could also be delusional, the issue is not with "punishing the bad people". Obviously, we all want bad people to be punished for the bad deeds they do.

The problem is with "who decides on which base".
If you accept that soldiers can go round and punish people without examination or due procedure because that war zone does not allow for it or it would be too much hassle to bring him to proper justice, then you condone Abu Ghraib. Because that is what happened there:
Dumb soldiers thinking they were the good guys, and those "filthy arabs" the baddies, and the punishment they were given was fine by their soldier's own (non-existing) standards.

Self-justice might be fine in your book, and as an emotional response, it might be OK with me (I am a father of two small children).
For a society, even one in turmoil, it cannot be the answer, since the alternative would be "right of might". And for every "real pedophile" you would kill, there would be 3 wrongly accused, and since you do not want to check on who is who, you are burning witches.

For the paragons of justice, how exactly would you have reacted if confronted with this vile child rapist's boasting?
Knowing that, legally, you have absolutely no where to go. Would you just stand there, look him in the eye, and walk away?
If so, you're a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.
Beside, the scumbag is still alive, he wasn't killed, just given a well deserved push to the ground, whatever that means.
Personally, I wouldnt care if he accidentally sustained the loss of a couple of teeth during his fall, but that's just me.

I'm just glad I don't live in a part of the world where people brag about boy rape in front of others like it's cool. Last guy that my county sent to prison for child rape received special treatment at the end of a notched broom handle. He had to have surgery on that area. I find it interesting that other criminals believe they are righteous in handing out extra punishment despite their own sins that have resulted in their own incarceration.

 r_squared wrote:
For the paragons of justice, how exactly would you have reacted if confronted with this vile child rapist's boasting?
Knowing that, legally, you have absolutely no where to go. Would you just stand there, look him in the eye, and walk away?
If so, you're a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.
Beside, the scumbag is still alive, he wasn't killed, just given a well deserved push to the ground, whatever that means.
Personally, I wouldnt care if he accidentally sustained the loss of a couple of teeth during his fall, but that's just me.

And neither would I, but that is besides the point. I think we have made sufficiently clear that we had sympathy for the GB's reaction.
It does indeed take a great - or emotionally cold - man to leave a gak bag like that alone.

I was just arguing against Peregrine's "It's cool to kill an alleged rapist".

 r_squared wrote:
For the paragons of justice, how exactly would you have reacted if confronted with this vile child rapist's boasting?
Knowing that, legally, you have absolutely no where to go. Would you just stand there, look him in the eye, and walk away?
If so, you're a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.
Beside, the scumbag is still alive, he wasn't killed, just given a well deserved push to the ground, whatever that means.
Personally, I wouldnt care if he accidentally sustained the loss of a couple of teeth during his fall, but that's just me.

I take care of pedophiles, rapists, racists, and other scum on a fairly regular basis. I have taken care of people covered in neo-Nazi tattoos bragging about what they do to n***ers and f***ots because I'm the only person that is able to care for them because I'm white and straight and any women that ends up in the room gets molested and groped. I've taken care of racist pedophiles with zero regret, and I know what they are capable of doing to my mixed 2 year old daughter at home.

And I do the same thing for them that I do for every other person that I take care off: I try to make them comfortable, relief their pain, teach them how to maintain their health at home, and make sure their needs are met.

And I honestly don't think that makes me a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.

 d-usa wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
For the paragons of justice, how exactly would you have reacted if confronted with this vile child rapist's boasting?
Knowing that, legally, you have absolutely no where to go. Would you just stand there, look him in the eye, and walk away?
If so, you're a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.
Beside, the scumbag is still alive, he wasn't killed, just given a well b push to the ground, whatever that means.
Personally, I wouldnt care if he accidentally sustained the loss of a couple of teeth during his fall, but that's just me.

I take care of pedophiles, rapists, racists, and other scum on a fairly regular basis. I have taken care of people covered in neo-Nazi tattoos bragging about what they do to n***ers and f***ots because I'm the only person that is able to care for them because I'm white and straight and any women that ends up in the room gets molested and groped. I've taken care of racist pedophiles with zero regret, and I know what they are capable of doing to my mixed 2 year old daughter at home.

And I do the same thing for them that I do for every other person that I take care off: I try to make them comfortable, relief their pain, teach them how to maintain their health at home, and make sure their needs are met.

And I honestly don't think that makes me a better man than the overwhelming majority of individuals.

I like what you say, and once again, my hat is off to you because you are in a stressful job and you help people. That being said, what would you do in a scenario where you are on the street, confronted with someone laughing and bragging to you about having just raped a young boy and beaten his mother. Let's say you knew he was telling the truth, because the victims were right there with the evidence of his handiwork all over them. I'm not saying kill him or anything that final. But would you be tempted to go to town on him, assuming you were the only one present able to do something?

I don't think anyone has said they don't understand why the GB did what he did, but that the other guy being awful doesn't excuse the GB of all culpability for breaking his training and orders. His problem was never that the other guy was a piece of gak, it was that the GB should have been better than the idiot. The standard in the USA, or the US military, isn't "are you better than a ow life pedophile?", but above that. Or it is supposed to be.

That being said, it is also understandable why he would lose his cool. Of course understanding and relating to why he lost it doesn't mean he won't face the consequences of doing so, but those consequences should not be expulsion from the service.