Bales sentenced; life without parole
Big week for the military justice system, huh? According to the Washington Post, SSG Robert Bales was sentenced this morning, too;
Bales did not recount specifics of the horrors in court when he testified Thursday or offer an explanation for the violence, but he described the killings as an “act of cowardice, behind a mask of fear, bulls— and bravado.”
“I’m truly, truly sorry to those people whose families got taken away,” he said in a mostly steady voice during questions from one of his lawyers. “I can’t comprehend their loss. I think about it every time I look at my kids.”
Of course, I figure that the perpetually outraged will find fault with the sentence, but the judge gave the harshest punishment he could under the circumstances.
Thanks to Chip for the link.
Category: Breaking News
I have hardly contradicted myself. There is no contradiction saying the only way to beat these people is to be in the moral wrong. You can make the choice if the ends justify the means. Hondo, you made an intentionally moronic post to argue against me, but you were totally wrong in your comparison. We hated our enemies then, we dont do that now. Im saying we should be willing to hold the attitudes we had in WW2. Your coment is actually supportive of my stance. I never said I was an expert in afganistan, but love the quotes to make it sound like it was my word. I stated I have studied islam and the middle east culture and I will continue to study it. You are right, I do not value the lives of th3 people there and dont care how many die. I am not advocating their mass murder, I dont care enough to give a damn if they live or die. You can attack me all ya want, it makes no ddifference. Im writing this on my phone so im sorry I hit an A instead of an S, glad it was the only thing from my posts you could actually contradict. So ill break this down in billets so you can understand what I have said, I know its a lot of reading. Our enemies, what ever name you want to give them, celebrate the mass murder of our civilians. The civilian populace of our enemies celebrate those acts of mass murder. While we try to take the moral high road, our enemies use every death as an opportunity to claim civilian deaths and cause us to lose favor with our own people and world wide. The only thing these people understand is fear and big guns. If we are to beat them, we must instill fear in them. The only way to make them fear us isto show that we will take any steps needed to beat them. SSG Bales committed a heinous act. There is no means to justify the murders he committed.… Read more »
Hondo, sure smelled like a Strawman to me.
It’s as if you took a flaming scarecrow, threw it onto the debate floor, yelled “Look, it’s my opponent’s dangerous straw man,” and then you appeared to save the day by dousing the flames with water. All while your opponent mutters, “That’s not my straw man. What just happened?”
YMMV
Hahaha nice RPR
Actually, RunPatRun – what you just described in your last comment is a non sequitur vice a strawman (although some might argue it was more an example of the “red herring” rhetorical technique.) I’d agree with either characterization, actually; the distinction between the two is fairly subtle if not nonexistent.
Look those up if you don’t know what they mean either.
Wanna try again?
Smitty, on a side note. I’m not an officer and was not a POG. You are very far from a stereotypical infantry NCO. You’re arguments, derisive use of POG, mindless sweeping generalizations, and professed hatred of officers are actually more stereotypical of a basic training private.
Feel free to continue making yourself look foolish, but please refrain from attempting to speak for the infantry, or NCOs in general.
I see that marine_7002 already pointed out the fact that you are unsuccessfully back-pedaling on your arguments.
I can’t decide if I’m disgusted or amused by the fact that you’ve never been to Afghanistan. When I read your comments again with that in mind I kind of feel sorry for you. BSing people is one thing, but actually believing your own BS (which you’ve convinced me you do) is just tragic. You’ve come to your conclusions through reason and life experience? What life experience? Your deployment to Iraq somehow equates to life experience in Afghanistan? Shit, I eat Chinese food so I guess I’m an expert on the Far East.
You were correct in one thing. I don’t comment very often. Hondo made most of the points I would have chosen if I thought you could be reasoned with, and he is more knowledgeable than I am so he covered those points better than I could. My tolerance for bigots is very low, so it was only your ignorant (and admittededly intentional) use of “Arabs,” that drew me into the comment section.
Ive back peddled on nothing, but ok. What ever you need tell your self. I study this region and have learned far more from a degree about this area then I ever could have as a .50 gunner. I cant identify a word of farsi, but dont need to to understand the politics and beliefs of the area. Im glad you can feel so superior with out ever arguing againat or contradicting any of my points. Great job. I still find it hard to believe that you could have ever been infantry in an actual combat zone with your haji hugging attitudes and soldier crucifying crusade, but what ever you say. Im content that those here I know as recent infantry NCOs either agree with me or at least understand my points. E-6 up above agreed with me and was greeted with ” I pitty you r subordinates”. If you wish to debate a point, pick one amd ggofor it. If you want to insult and attack, keep doing what ya are doing.
As to experience, I traveled the world after I left the army. Ive been to many places and seen many cultures that the military would never give the oportunity to see. I have engaged in relationships with muslims for the purpose of learning their side. Most revently was a woman named rola abdeljoab who was born in syria and of egyptian blood. I learn by listening and engaging. Have you ever tried either of those tactics?
@ Smitty, Just to clarify. People who don’t agree with your hateful views on an entire religion, race, ethnicity, geographical location (I’m still unclear on your qualifiers for Arabs) are “Haji huggers,” and leading a “soldier crucifying crusade?”
The reasons they don’t agree with you are:
Not enough time outside the wire.
Not infantry.
Not college educated.
You don’t condone what Bales did, but you feel that it’s the only way to win.
You’re not willfully ignorant, but you intentionally use the term Arab to describe people you don’t like who are not in fact Arabs.
You’ve never been to Afghanistan, but you condemn its civilian population because you knew a Syrian woman, read a book, studied international politics?
I’m not sure how Farsi even ties into the discussion because it’s spoken by less than 1% in Afghanistan.
I don’t understand your points because they don’t make sense. I’m not the first to point that out (read the comments). I do see why you’ve chosen to argue with me though. I don’t comment often and I have no reservations about calling you a fool. You’ll probably remember that we don’t gloss over things like that in the infantry.
I pity the subordinates of any bigoted leader who preaches hate.
I’m sorry that you broke your back, but I’m thankful that you are no longer leading soldiers.
If we had stumbled onto this discussion in a bar I would have ordered you a beer and asked you to go drink it somewhere else.
You don’t contradict yourself, just the other voices in your head apparently.
I laid my points out in billet form, choosing not to read them is the only reason to not know what they are.
I dont preach hate, I preach apathy. I told my guys every time we left the wire, id rather 1000 of them dead then onw of my guys. That stands for any american. If we are at war, then lets fight a war. Leave the hippy shit at home, and realize that in war horrible things happen. SSG bales’ actions should not have happened, but we could have capitalized on them instead of making an example of him. I still, and always will, feel that the greatest loss here is that of SSG Bales’ family and his children growing up with our their father.
I have routinely stated that his type of actions are the only way to beat our enemies, but at the same time I do not condone his actions. That is pretty basic to me, its merely a question of do the ends justify the means. Is winning this war worth it if we must lower our selves to their level. Are the american lives saved by ending the terrorist threat for good worth the massive costs of their lives? I dont pretend to have that answer, only my opinion. Since I can not say that my opinion is the right answer, I can not use it to justify SSG Bales actions. Does that make it simple enough for you?
“… that his type of actions are the only way to beat our enemies.”
Really?
Bullshiite!
Now we are getting somewhere. So other then making them think every attack they commit will result in the mass murder of their families, what will make these people stop attacking our civilians? They clearly do not care for their own lives, so we cant just fight the people that commit the attacks
Smitty: you might find pp. 2-6 of this document of use:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA498017
What you’re suggesting is an action called a reprisal. They may be conducted when duly authorized by competent authority. When so executed, they fall within customary international law provided those with a clear connection to the enemy are the ones targeted for reprisal action.
Bales had neither authorization to commit a reprisal, nor did he restrict his murderous rampage to those with connections to the Taliban or al Qaeda. Rater, Bates was merely a thug on a liquor/stress/steroid-induced individual killing spree.
Two-year-old children, unarmed youths, and sleeping women are not legitimate military targets.
I guess I missed all the fun… Hondo my point way back in #7 (my only comment) is that to me defenseless non-combatants are killed all the time. They are collateral damage during a drone strike, or the intended victims of our bombing campaigns which was my WW2 reference. Curtis LeMay stated that he would be tried as a war criminal if we lost for his part in planning our bombing missions. He has been called the American who ordered the deaths of more civilians than anyone in the history of the United States and he’s also called a hero. It has long been my contention that the nation has lost its’ desire to call an enemy and enemy and treat them like we did in WW2, by burning them to death by the tens of thousands until their military surrendered their nation without condition to the United States. Pretending that we are not at war with Afghanistan is a mistake, we are invaders in their land. If anyone thinks that they don’t feel their sovereignty has been violated to satisfy our desire to get the Taliban/AQ that’s a wrong headed view point. We will see how quickly American core values take hold when we leave versus how quickly AQ/Taliban/Muslim Extremism takes hold again. While I understand the view point that Bales is a monster, for myself I am not certain I see the difference in shooting a kid in his bed while he sleeps, or burning him to death in his bed while he sleeps with firebombs….unless the second one is easier to stomach because we are not up close and personal when we do it and we can pretend it has a greater “strategic” value. Even when we know it was done to send a message that we will indiscriminately kill the civilians of our enemies. Had Bales killed that family while they slept with some indiscriminate indirect fire the result would still be dead children, we as a nation are uncomfortable with a soldier who looks civilians in the eye and shoots them dead. But we have… Read more »
VOV: the “school solution” is that the possibility for civilian casualties is weighed against the military utility of the attack being considered. If the civilian casualties are deemed excessive, a different tactic/response should be selected.
In practice, the line blurs. But the consideration of alternatives is always required – and was there, even during World War II. The stated US rationale for the air campaigns against both Germany and Japan (which can indeed be questioned) was that we were attacking their economies vice the civilian population via targeting public works and industrial targets in order to end the war more quickly than would otherwise be the case. (Great Britain IMO used more of a “reprisal” justification for their air campaign against Germany, which was predominately low-level night bombing against German cities.)
Regarding Japan, the specific contention was that Japanese industry was largely dispersed in residential areas, thus necessitating their destruction via LeMay’s operations. Weak justification? Yes, I won’t argue that. But the comparison and calculation was still done, and the campaign was also authorized by competent authority – reprisal or not.
What Bales did was very different. What he did was get drunk/stressed out/’roid-raged, grab his weapon, leave base without authority, and go on an individual killing spree. He deliberately targeted civilian noncombatants who posed no threat and were at locations of little or no military value – e.g., their mud huts in a local village. And he did it in the middle of the night while they were sleeping and posed no possible threat to anyone.
I have some personal reservations about both the morality and effectiveness of some aspects of the strategic bombing campaigns during World War II. I have no such reservations in calling Bates a murdering thug who deserved death, and got very lucky in avoiding same.
Oh, so some general light years away from the front has to ok killing civilians. Seems a weak difference to me. Clearly SSG Bales was not cleared nor ordered for his attack. But would the dead civilians be any more or less a horrific act if he had been?
I never said they were legitimate military targets, and will not disagree with 99% of what you have said here, Hondo. But I hardly feel that any flag officer, or collection of them has any more right to decide what is justifiable killing of civilians any more than a shit face drunk E-6
@114 Thanks Hondo, I always appreciate a civil discourse with you, you give me a great many reasons to carefully consider my thoughts and position. I understand that Bales situation was not authorized under any chain of command whereas LeMay had complete and total backing of competent civilian authority (even though LeMay himself has said that he felt he was deliberately killing civilians in areas of little or no strategic value). That makes Bates a killer…but only a killer of the civilians of our enemy. Anyone who fires HE or drops HE munitions in the vicinity of civilians to target enemy leaders will also be a killer of the civilians of our enemies, only those acting under orders are killing civilians as a collateral aspect of an authorized murder of those civilians due to their proximity to something or someone deemed worthy of destruction by their superiors. I use the term murder because an unarmed civilian killed by a deliberate act of aggression has been murdered, after all that civilian was not a threat they just had the misfortune of being near (or possible being near) someone who was or might be a threat. Killing them with the backing of a legal instrument doesn’t make the act any less reprehensible to the dead and their families, it just makes it better in the eyes of the killers. Had Bales been authorized to fire on that village with mortar rounds the civilians would still be dead, his killing them would be justified under the rule of law….for me then this is an issue that revolves around the “legal” killing of civilians versus the unauthorized illegal killing of them, that we are killing them at all is a fact. We’ve been doing it since we arrived. Therefore his case to me is more about a lack of orders for killing them. Without those orders his act is maybe manslaughter or simple AWOL and disobeying orders….hardly worthy of LWOP. So I won’t cry much for these dead civilians, and I won’t care much that they are dead. In fact I don’t think we… Read more »
VoV takes different reasoning, but arives at my same stance. Im waiting on him to be violently attacked
@116 and 117- there is an old SF saying- “You can’t kill ideas with bullets.”
VOV: my friend, above you’re misusing the term “murder”. The term “murder” is a subset of the more inclusive term “homicide”. “Homicide” refers to any killing of one human being by another human. In contrast, “murder” is a specific type of homicide. “Murder” is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of one human by another human. Not all homicides are murder; indeed, not even all intentional homicides are murder. Lawful killings are, by definition, not murder – rather, they are justifiable homicides. Intent is also generally a requirement for murder, hence the distinction made in virtually all societies between accidental and negligent homicides (which are either not a crime or are prosecuted as a lesser crime) and the more serious crime of murder. Virtually all governments recognize this distinction. One way this recognition is shown is by the fact that accidental homicides not involving negligence or other criminal activity are in most places not considered murder, and are often not criminal acts at all. Another way this recognition is shown is that a homicide committed in bona fide self defense or defense of others is similarly not murder. Killing during a wartime engagement is not murder so long as the enemy has the means to resist and has not indicated any desire to surrender. Finally, capital punishment is the lawful, intentional killing of a human by the agent of the state as a punishment for serious crime. That is not murder either. Virtually all religions recognize these same distinctions. Applying the above to war – which is precisely what the commonly-accepted laws of land combat do – reveals a distinction between LeMay’s acts and Bales. Though morally questionable, LeMay’s bombing campaigns (and those of other USAAC and UK Bomber Command leaders) during World War II were unquestionably authorized by competent authority as acts of war – and were thus lawful. Unlike the “Final Solution” or the Rape of Nanking, their primary intent was not indiscriminate mass death; the intent was to damage the economies of hostile belligerent powers. The deaths that resulted were unfortunate and foreseeable, but were unavoidable… Read more »