dmcoco84 5 #1 March 21, 2013 http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/fort-hood-shooter-cant-dodge-death-penalty/63367/ Good! Shave his beard and kill him. That is not a member of our Armed Forces... its a Terrorist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 March 21, 2013 I think life in prison might be a more severe sentence than death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #3 March 21, 2013 More like life in prison with this song played in high volume on a continuous loop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ You just got rick rolled motherfucker! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #4 March 21, 2013 Quote More like life in prison with this song played in high volume on a continuous loop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ You just got rick rolled motherfucker! No, no! Use this one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf79MCuQ8jM"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #5 March 21, 2013 QuoteI think life in prison might be a more severe sentence than death. NO, the hours before the switch is pulled is more severe. He'll be praying believe me. And shitting his pants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 March 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteI think life in prison might be a more severe sentence than death. NO, the hours before the switch is pulled is more severe. He'll be praying believe me. And shitting his pants. More likely he will be dreaming about those 72 virgins. That's why life in prison would be a better punishment. He can be the bitch for everyone at Leavenworth or spend his life in solitary confinement, praying to Allah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 March 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think life in prison might be a more severe sentence than death. NO, the hours before the switch is pulled is more severe. He'll be praying believe me. And shitting his pants. More likely he will be dreaming about those 72 virgins. That's why life in prison would be a better punishment. He can be the bitch for everyone at Leavenworth or spend his life in solitary confinement, praying to Allah. why do i really care if he suffers or not? i just want him out of circulation so he can't repeat his crimes. As cheaply as this can be conducted, the better ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #8 March 21, 2013 >why do i really care if he suffers or not? You mean you wouldn't pay $$ to Pay-Per-View to watch him die a slow and gruesome death? What kind of monster are you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #9 March 21, 2013 Quote Quote Quote I think life in prison might be a more severe sentence than death. NO, the hours before the switch is pulled is more severe. He'll be praying believe me. And shitting his pants. More likely he will be dreaming about those 72 virgins. That's why life in prison would be a better punishment. He can be the bitch for everyone at Leavenworth or spend his life in solitary confinement, praying to Allah. 72 virgins isn't what's waiting for him, more like 72 large pineapples waiting to get shoved up his ass every day. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #10 March 21, 2013 Quote>why do i really care if he suffers or not? You mean you wouldn't pay $$ to Pay-Per-View to watch him die a slow and gruesome death? What kind of monster are you? Nah, just want him killed in accordance with Shariah... stone him; just like they treat their women. Wouldn't object to some psychological torture first though... Spice Girls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #11 March 21, 2013 Quote Quote >why do i really care if he suffers or not? You mean you wouldn't pay $$ to Pay-Per-View to watch him die a slow and gruesome death? What kind of monster are you? Nah, just want him killed in accordance with Shariah... stone him; just like they treat their women. Wouldn't object to some psychological torture first though... Spice Girls. Spice Girls??? Too easy. Try Culture Club's "Do you really want to hurt me?" "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 March 21, 2013 > Just inject him with air...watch his heart explode > How about a tree shredder. >Nah, just want him killed in accordance with Shariah... Wouldn't object to some >psychological torture . . . To sum up here: Republicans feel that the government is not competent to process disability claims, check people's backgrounds, ensure healthcare coverage or even take military action against terrorist threats within the US. But it is perfectly competent to decide who to torture and execute. Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #13 March 21, 2013 I'm not going to LET you plead guilty, so we can punish you more? Even though you are guilty... Is this allowed to happen because it's a military court? Seems kind fucked up to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #14 March 21, 2013 Quote>why do i really care if he suffers or not? You mean you wouldn't pay $$ to Pay-Per-View to watch him die a slow and gruesome death? What kind of monster are you? NO, I wouldn't pay a cent to see him die in any fashion as he's not worth my time. However, I only suggested pay per view due to you saying it cost more to execute a prisoner than to keep him for life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 March 21, 2013 QuoteIs this allowed to happen because it's a military court? According to the article (I haven't looked it up), Yes. QuoteSeems kind fucked up to me. If it's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I haven't looked it up), then that was written by Congress. It would take another Act of Congress to change it, so lobby your Congressman and Senator. Maybe Lawrocket or Davjohns know it off the tops of their heads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 March 21, 2013 Shave his beard?.... When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #17 March 21, 2013 This isn't about justice its about retribution, what a total waste of time and money, whats the point of a kangaroo court just take him out and slot him and stop making a mockery of the justice system.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 March 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteIs this allowed to happen because it's a military court? According to the article (I haven't looked it up), Yes. QuoteSeems kind fucked up to me. If it's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I haven't looked it up), then that was written by Congress. It would take another Act of Congress to change it, so lobby your Congressman and Senator. Maybe Lawrocket or Davjohns know it off the tops of their heads. This morning on NPR they were talking about a military rape case where, in a *very* unusual outcome, the perp was found guilty...only to have the verdict overturned by a general, and according to the existing law, no one can do anything about it."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #19 March 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs this allowed to happen because it's a military court? According to the article (I haven't looked it up), Yes. QuoteSeems kind fucked up to me. If it's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I haven't looked it up), then that was written by Congress. It would take another Act of Congress to change it, so lobby your Congressman and Senator. Maybe Lawrocket or Davjohns know it off the tops of their heads. This morning on NPR they were talking about a military rape case where, in a *very* unusual outcome, the perp was found guilty...only to have the verdict overturned by a general, and according to the existing law, no one can do anything about it. That case sucked. Poor lady. The guy get off. I saw her talk on TV. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #20 March 21, 2013 QuoteI'm not going to LET you plead guilty, so we can punish you more? Even though you are guilty... Is this allowed to happen because it's a military court? Seems kind fucked up to me. He took an oath to defend the constitution of the united states and he broke that oath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #21 March 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'm not going to LET you plead guilty, so we can punish you more? Even though you are guilty... Is this allowed to happen because it's a military court? Seems kind fucked up to me. He took an oath to defend the constitution of the united states and he broke that oath. I'll resist the urge to make a 2nd Amendment joke. Anyhow, he didn't break any oath if he's found NG by reason of insanity. We'll see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #22 March 21, 2013 Thats a good point. Now we have to proceed just like many of my years in the military. Hurry up and wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #23 March 22, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'm not going to LET you plead guilty, so we can punish you more? Even though you are guilty... Is this allowed to happen because it's a military court? Seems kind fucked up to me. He took an oath to defend the constitution of the united states and he broke that oath. It's not that that bothers me. Having a system of justice for the general population, and then a separate system where legality and due process don't apply if the powers that be don't want it to (for whatever reason) just seems wrong to me. This is irrespective of his crime, or the punishment. If the law is there to execute him, use it. If the law need amendment to ensure that people don't abuse a guilty plea for a more lenient judgement, change it. But having a fundamental result that can be changed at the whim of one person seems wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #24 March 22, 2013 Reading the article, it is against the UCMJ to allow someone to plead guilty to a capital offense. He wanted the charges to be reduced to unpremeditated murder which is a non-capital offense and plead guilty. The article said "she refused to let him plead guilty", when it should have said, "she refused to reduce the charges against him so he could plead guilty" For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #25 March 22, 2013 QuoteHaving a system of justice for the general population, and then a separate system where legality and due process don't apply if the powers that be don't want it to (for whatever reason) just seems wrong to me. This is irrespective of his crime, or the punishment. As I began explaining in my earlier thread, it's been enshrined in US law since the Revolution, and was provided-for initially by the Constitution, and almost immediately thereafter by Act of Congress when the country was still in its infancy: History of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice So if one wanted to see the UCMJ revised to reflect this concern, that would take an act of Congress. And if one wanted to eliminate entirely Congress's authority to establish rules and regulations for the military that are separate from what civilians enjoy under the Constitution, it would require amending the Constitution itself to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
