cnn reports on hasen akbar

[robtex]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/14/101st.diary.ap/index.html

If you are unfamliar with the case in 2003 Akbar a converted muslim, threw a live gernade in the tent of his sleeping fellow american soliders. He killed two of them and wounded 15. He had issues with his religion and felt he was defending his muslim brothers by attacking his own unit with the gernade.

I stuck this in politics but it may have more tiers than that. Do you think Akbar was justified in what he did? Was he defending his muslim brothers from a Christian holy war or from a larger enemy in general?

If he is found guilty what should be the penatly for his being a traitor and murder?

Should the current policy change so that if one is a muslim, (or other religion) they can object to a war in a country dominated by that religion ?

What is on the table with Akbar and american muslims being trained to kill middle eastern muslims?

 

[linwood]

Do you think Akbar was justified in what he did?

Not even close.

Was he defending his muslim brothers from a Christian holy war or from a larger enemy in general?

Why the hell would a fundamentalist Muslim be in the US Army in the first place?

If he is found guilty what should be the penatly for his being a traitor and murder?

Life or the death penalty whichever they want to get.

Should the current policy change so that if one is a muslim, (or other religion) they can object to a war in a country dominated by that religion ?

If one has objections to killing humans one shouldn`t join the military.
Thats what the military is ultimately for.

 

[Majikthise]

I believe the UCMJ calls for the death penalty in this case. If you've ever served in the military, this is heinous on a whole different level.

 

[robtex]

footnote on Majik's post UCMJ stands for uniform code of miltary justice.

I am going to take a swing at this. First off I have never served in the military and as such am ignorant to UCMJ and the culture of the miltary.

I am going to concur with Lindwood. The military is not ambigious about its role in society. Even if you are a cook on a ship the ship is still a floating weapon of war and you are on the support staff. In the case of Akbar he did acknowledge that he knew he was there to kill.

His religious affliations while valid and respected should not exempt him from war. While I am opposed to most wars I realize I live in a society that is not and furthermore, Akbar made his own decision to go into a profession of killing while being a muslim. As a matter of fact I do not think any religious conversion is a valid excuse to be exempt from war but in the same breath I realize it may not be realistic to think it is practical to send a newly converted jehovah's witness muslim into war.

In Akbar's case he did not ask to be removed so in the case of this one man it is not even applicable irregardless of what you believe. He chose to stay in the combat zone.

The war in Iraq does have a strong religious presense to it and most of the invading forces are Christian while most of the defending are muslim. But, Akbar again joined the services went to war and than changed sides. He didn't change sides by leaving the base and findng the Iraq resistance forces...he simply wore his american combat uniform and ambushed his fellow soldiers.

This is different than an enemy who slips into the camp tosses a gernade into the bunker and runs off. The soldiers in his unit looked to this man for protection and vice versa. If he defected came back as a resistance soilder fragged the tent or bunker or whatever it was he would be a killer..to join the armed forces, wear an american uniform and frag the tent is murder to me. I do not know how the UCMJ views this but he was a combatant to the resistance not his own forces.

It sets the stage though for a conflict we may well see again which is my interest in it. Muslims and others who are sympathtic to the Iraq's resistance cause, for any reason, who may stage an attack on their own soldiers. Seeing this, I would be in favor of a few things though I don't know how feasible they are:

If he gets life (nobody has been killed for treason in decades as I understand it) and he is paroled at a later date I think his citezenship should be revoked after his sentence is finished and as a condition of his parole. Meaning if he gets out of prision as a wartime traitor and killer of his fellow soilders he should be given access to his money before his arrest and deported. If no country will take him than he is not eligable for parole.

In the larger context I believe that any american soldier who changes sides and comes back to the USA should have his citizenship revoked. That includes selling informaiton to the other side, selling munitions, killing for them, or leaving rank to join their forces. It does not seem feasible for one to wage war on the USA and be a citizen of it at the same time.

If akbar gets death I wouldnt' be opposed to it in this circumstance because this case if he gets life I hope it is in a federal court and that parole is not an option.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that he should receive the death penalty. He is a coward and should have been killed by the military during the episode, but he ran off. BTW: the fact that this guy made it out of Iraq alive in the first place is a testimony to the courage and integrity of the American military.

 

[robtex]

AE, a coward in what way? When you say killed by the miltary the sentence he recieves will be by the miltary.....why would you advocate killing him overseas where the murders happened?

 

[skills101]

I stuck this in politics but it may have more tiers than that. Do you think Akbar was justified in what he did? Was he defending his muslim brothers from a Christian holy war or from a larger enemy in general?

No, and who can tell his reasoning? He's a lunatic.

If he is found guilty what should be the penatly for his being a traitor and murder?

Death Penalty.

Should the current policy change so that if one is a muslim, (or other religion) they can object to a war in a country dominated by that religion?

No. If you're in the Army, and the country goes to war, then you are in that Army fighting that war. You can't pick and choose in a situation like that.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I say we stone him. Let the men that survived the attack have the right of first refusal.

His act goes beyond treason - it is outright murder. To anyone with a military background, it is actually worse than simple murder.

TVOR

 

[linwood]

AE, a coward in what way? When you say killed by the miltary the sentence he recieves will be by the miltary.....why would you advocate killing him overseas where the murders happened?

I think AE meant that it is quite incredible he didn`t wake up in the brig in Iraq late one night with a US issued bayonet sticking between his 6th and 7th rib and left to bleed to death while the gaurd were mysteriously occupied too far away to hear his cries for help.

Thats what I think he meant anyway...I dunno.

 

[armageddon]

Do you think Akbar was justified in what he did? Was he defending his muslim brothers from a Christian holy war or from a larger enemy in general?
i think that he was somewhat justified because that was what he BELIEVED in but i also believe that he could have gone in a different direction besides killing his fellow americans with an army grenade. i also think he was TRYING to protect his muslim brothers from a larger enemy because he was trying to get American troops out of his home country in case of a war breakout not just against the Christians.

If he is found guilty what should be the penatly for his being a traitor and murder?
not death, definitely. a definite is to get thrown out of the army but another possible idea is to send him back to his home country.

Should the current policy change so that if one is a muslim, (or other religion) they can object to a war in a country dominated by that religion?
yes because they would probably not want to kill fellow citizens who also believe in their faith or can possibly see things the way they see (religion-wise).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Do you think Akbar was justified in what he did? Was he defending his muslim brothers from a Christian holy war or from a larger enemy in general?
i think that he was somewhat justified because that was what he BELIEVED in but i also believe that he could have gone in a different direction besides killing his fellow americans with an army grenade. i also think he was TRYING to protect his muslim brothers from a larger enemy because he was trying to get American troops out of his home country in case of a war breakout not just against the Christians.

If he is found guilty what should be the penatly for his being a traitor and murder?
not death, definitely. a definite is to get thrown out of the army but another possible idea is to send him back to his home country.

Should the current policy change so that if one is a muslim, (or other religion) they can object to a war in a country dominated by that religion?
yes because they would probably not want to kill fellow citizens who also believe in their faith or can possibly see things the way they see (religion-wise).

Well, we all have our opinions. I can honestly say that I disagree with virtually your entire post.

Why deport him? We didn't deport Wayne Gacy or Gary Gilmore - and their crimes were (in my opinion) not as big an act of treachery as Akbar's. I couldn't care less about what religious views a person holds - when you commit murder, your belief system is irrelavent.

Personally, I hope they put him in front of a firing squad.

Callously,
TVOR

 

[Saw11_2000]

Death penalty. Do people have a problem with killing other people just because they are the same religion?

If I ever had to kill someone (I hope I never have to), I wouldn't care if they were atheist or even secular humanist, I would just do it.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Well, we all have our opinions. I can honestly say that I disagree with virtually your entire post.

Why deport him? We didn't deport Wayne Gacy or Gary Gilmore - and their crimes were (in my opinion) not as big an act of treachery as Akbar's. I couldn't care less about what religious views a person holds - when you commit murder, your belief system is irrelavent.

Personally, I hope they put him in front of a firing squad.

Callously,
TVOR

Frubals to you!

 

[skills101]

I say we stone him.

The representative of Common Sense seconds that motion and further suggests we make this a "first-come, first-serve" event, including soda beverages, free seating for spectators, and live music along with it.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I've heard lethal gas is pretty horrendous too.

 

[ayani]

If one has objections to killing humans one shouldn`t join the military. That's what the military is ultimately for.

i agree.

yes, throwing a grenate into a tend full of sleeping men is heinous. so are many of the things US solgiers have done while in Iraq. as are what Iraqis have done to kidnapped hostages. this whole war is messed up, in my opinion.

i don't support executing him. i'm not sure what the military should do with him.

 

[armageddon]

Well, we all have our opinions. I can honestly say that I disagree with virtually your entire post.

Why deport him? We didn't deport Wayne Gacy or Gary Gilmore - and their crimes were (in my opinion) not as big an act of treachery as Akbar's. I couldn't care less about what religious views a person holds - when you commit murder, your belief system is irrelavent.

Personally, I hope they put him in front of a firing squad.

well i can't exactly say i know who wayne gacy or gary gilmore are but putting him in front of a firing squad i KNOW, for SURE, will have no positive effect on anything because it can make the problem worse. fellow muslims can hear/see his death as a rascist act and therefore follow his lead/purpose.

 

[skills101]

fellow muslims can hear/see his death as a rascist act and therefore follow his lead/purpose.

Since when were we trying to appease the muslims? If we were interested in making them happy, or dropping our cause in the name of our own safety, we wouldn't be in Iraq, would we?

You can't try to prevent murders by letting murderers walk.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Short answers:
HELL NO he was NOT justified. He is the worst kind of coward I can imagine.
This IS why the death penalty exists.
Should the military change its policy? To answer this question, ask yourself what would have happened if Christians in the military had objected to military action in Bosnia and been 'excused' from duty. IMHO, you join the military, you follow orders. If you object to fighting, don't join. To call US efforts in the Middle East a 'Christian holy war' is hyperbole at best....but that's a topic for another day.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... but putting him in front of a firing squad i KNOW, for SURE, will have no positive effect on anything because it can make the problem worse.

You are correct - we wouldn't want to have an insurgency against the troops that we have in Iraq - so let's just let murderers walk the streets freely, to appease the wants of the insurgents.

fellow muslims can hear/see his death as a rascist act and therefore follow his lead/purpose.

Race nor religion have anything to do with this. The man committed murder - I don't care if he is black, white, yellow, brown, or chartreusse. I find it odd that you would be worried about offending the senses of a group of people that have been kidnapping and killing innocent civilians, then putting video of their actions on the internet, as a recruiting tool.

Oh - now I see your point. If we let Akbar walk away, send him to the Arab country of his choice, and don't stir the waters, the Iraqi insurgents will just stop the attacks on Iraqi civilians and acknowledge their aggressions. You'll pardon me if I doubt that outcome.

TVOR