On “The Big Story” with John Gibson, Judge Andrew Napolitano just discussed the U.S. soldiers who are facing charges for killing an Iraqi family. Judge Napolitano said that the soldiers—in a crime that was pre-planned—allegedly took turns raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl in front of her family before killing the entire family. The judge says the evidence against the soldiers (which includes confessions to other soldiers) is overwhelming.
Of course these soldiers have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, but hypothetically speaking, if they really did these unspeakably horrible things, and if they really planned this atrocity ahead of time, how could anyone exclude the death penalty from consideration?
If I had my way, they would be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and turned over to local Iraqis for whatever punishment they might want to dish out (if we actually did that, I’m sure these soldiers would come to think of the death penalty as very humane).
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Besides the obvious atrocities committed in the crime, these poor excuses for human beings did far more than what they’ll be charged with: They undermined and damaged the US soldier’s reputation in the international community. They injured our relationship with the Iraqi people. They violated their oaths. They committed acts of terror. They put every other US soldier at greater risk. They gave the terrorists propaganda weapons. They directly acted against their own countrymen by giving the terrorists exactly what they want and need to fight us.
To top it off – they’re pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.
I’m not an advocate of the death penalty, but there hardly seems a better justification of it.
Post a Comment