U.S. soldier guilty in killing of unarmed Iraqi man

A 26-year-old soldier from Georgia has been convicted in the killing of an Iraqi man last June, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and AP report.

A military jury in Hawaii found Army Spc. Christopher Shore of Winder, Ga., guilty of aggravated assault but not guilty of third-degree murder. He faces a maximum eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Shore has blamed his platoon for the killing near Kirkuk. Sgt. 1st Class Trey Corrales faces an April 22 court-martial for premeditated murder. He's accused of ordering Shore to shoot the unarmed civilian, then planting an AK-47 near the body.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/us-soldier-guil.html
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:: Shore has blamed his platoon for the killing near Kirkuk. Sgt. 1st Class Trey Corrales faces an April 22 court-martial for premeditated murder. He's accused of ordering Shore to shoot the unarmed civilian

So it's the usual "He told me to do it" defence again, eh?
_________________
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
U.S. soldier guilty in killing of unarmed Iraqi man PgkowJT

U.S. soldier guilty in killing of unarmed Iraqi man PgkowJT

Yup... just like at MI6... "when the minister tells us to do it..."
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

The question is why. Being unarmed means absolutely nothing to me. What matters to me is, did the man in question deserve it, or were they just playing hunting? In the first case, he should be given a medal and not prison time. In the second, he should be stripped naked and crucified, in Iraq itself preferably, in view of the natives. Then the body should be dumped in the ocean. By "he" I mean everyone involved.

andrergsanchez wrote:: The question is why. Being unarmed means absolutely nothing to me. What matters to me is, did the man in question deserve it, or were they just playing hunting? In the first case, he should be given a medal and not prison time. In the second, he should be stripped naked and crucified, in Iraq itself preferably, in view of the natives. Then the body should be dumped in the ocean. By "he" I mean everyone involved.

Right, seems every time the situation doesn't exactly suit you, you'll end up questioning all and sundry... but when it does suit, then it's practically 'self-evident' and needs no more than your pronouncement of the penalty which should be imposed... usually flogging or murder... there goes that 'objectivity,' straight out the window...
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:: Right, seems every time the situation doesn't exactly suit you, you'll end up questioning all and sundry...

Huh?

Quote :: but when it does suit, then it's practically 'self-evident'

Huh?

Quote :: and needs no more than your pronouncement of the penalty which should be imposed...

To judge is the duty of every man who wishes to live, and to live in freedom. I have not pronounced penalty, because I do not know the circumstances involved. The man might have been an insurgent, who just happened to be unarmed at the time. The man could have been seen cooperating with insurgents. The soldier who shot him could have been mislead by his superior to think that this (or something else) was the case. Or, they could have been engaged in a raw act of aggression. What I can do, without knowing the details, is say what the alternatives are. And those are the alternatives.

Quote :: usually flogging or murder...

Murder implies that the killing in question is wrong, unlawful. The proper term is killing. It is proper to kill those who do not wish to live a civilized life, as they have chosen the life of the animal. Animals are food. Existance on this earth is conditional, it is not the intrinsic right of every living being.

Flogging is merely a means to inflict pain upon those who have not broken the fundamental law of civilization, but have still commited acts of aggression that are harmful to others. Civil penalties are not sufficient. If you steal something, it's not enough to give it back, it's not enough to give it back with interest. It's not worthy of death, and prison is barbaric, but some punishment is necessary. Flogging is a temporary painful punishment, for temporary and painful crimes.

Quote :: there goes that 'objectivity,' straight out the window...

How so?

andrergsanchez wrote:

CovOps wrote:: Right, seems every time the situation doesn't exactly suit you, you'll end up questioning all and sundry...

Huh?

Well I'm just noticing a recurring theme when it comes to us ANCAPS celebrating the demise of soldiers, how you're not too happy about it... 'coz you're a randian statist underneath the skin... right?

Quote :: but when it does suit, then it's practically 'self-evident'

Huh?

Same thing... but if it's a non soldier who killed...

Quote :: and needs no more than your pronouncement of the penalty which should be imposed...

To judge is the duty of every man who wishes to live, and to live in freedom. I have not pronounced penalty, because I do not know the circumstances involved. The man might have been an insurgent, who just happened to be unarmed at the time. The man could have been seen cooperating with insurgents. The soldier who shot him could have been mislead by his superior to think that this (or something else) was the case. Or, they could have been engaged in a raw act of aggression. What I can do, without knowing the details, is say what the alternatives are. And those are the alternatives.

The epistemological position is this: You have no right to speculate over things for which there is absolutely no evidence and nor has anyone raised any such issues. It would be the equivalent of me speculating that the dark side of the moon is perhaps made of cheese, or cake, etc... because let's face it, mankind has not been there, so who knows, maybe it's true?
My approach would be completely arbitrary and invalid, to be dismissed by rational minds.

Quote :: usually flogging or murder...

Murder implies that the killing in question is wrong, unlawful. The proper term is killing. It is proper to kill those who do not wish to live a civilized life, as they have chosen the life of the animal. Animals are food. Existance on this earth is conditional, it is not the intrinsic right of every living being.

I understand, but you don't use the same rationalizations normally when you make up your mind instantly, as you did above. ie. There's no "perhaps it was an accident," "maybe he slipped on a banana and fired the gun, say, by accident..." "maybe someone spiked his drink so he isn't responsible," etc... etc... etc... In other words, you're not as generous in giving the benefit of doubt, to those you instantly condemn, as you are to those you instantly don't... ie. the guy above...

Flogging is merely a means to inflict pain upon those who have not broken the fundamental law of civilization, but have still commited acts of aggression that are harmful to others. Civil penalties are not sufficient. If you steal something, it's not enough to give it back, it's not enough to give it back with interest. It's not worthy of death, and prison is barbaric, but some punishment is necessary. Flogging is a temporary painful punishment, for temporary and painful crimes.

I would think that we could skip the flogging... There's giving it back with interest plus legal fees, plus the persons hourly rate (add up all the hours put in to recover the stolen item) plus the inconvenience/suffering/distress/fear, etc... That damn bill is gonna get pretty steep, so no flogging needed...

Quote :: there goes that 'objectivity,' straight out the window...

How so?

See the above...

_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

CovOps wrote:: Well I'm just noticing a recurring theme when it comes to us ANCAPS celebrating the demise of soldiers, how you're not too happy about it... 'coz you're a randian statist underneath the skin... right?

I rather not make blanket condemnations. See, if someone from Hamas gets killed, the fact they were -in- Hamas is proof enough that they deserved to be killed. However, the U.S. military, and many other militaries for that matter, are not quite as clear. Under certain conditions, yes, they deserve to die. However I do not believe that membership in the military is, at present, sufficient condition for it. I could be wrong, you are free to try and point out my mistake.

Quote :: Same thing... but if it's a non soldier who killed...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying if a soldier gets killed, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to his killer?

Quote :: The epistemological position is this: You have no right to speculate over things for which there is absolutely no evidence and nor has anyone raised any such issues. It would be the equivalent of me speculating that the dark side of the moon is perhaps made of cheese, or cake, etc... because let's face it, mankind has not been there, so who knows, maybe it's true?

My approach would be completely arbitrary and invalid, to be dismissed by rational minds.

What? There are only two options. Either he is guilty of murder, or he is not. If he is not guilty, then this sentence is unjust punishment. If he is, then this sentence is unjust punishment. Either way it's the wrong thing to do.

Quote :: I understand, but you don't use the same rationalizations normally when you make up your mind instantly, as you did above. ie.

How did I "make up my mind"?

Quote :: There's no "perhaps it was an accident," "maybe he slipped on a banana and fired the gun, say, by accident..." "maybe someone spiked his drink so he isn't responsible," etc... etc... etc...

Re-reading my post, I see what you might be reffering to. I focused on the question of the iraqi's guilt. I did so because the article indicates that the soldier shot him purposefuly and fully conscious.

Quote :: In other words, you're not as generous in giving the benefit of doubt, to those you instantly condemn, as you are to those you instantly don't... ie. the guy above...

That's odd. It seems on one paragraph you condemn me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt, then on the other, you condemn me for doing so. I'm confused.

Quote :

How do you measure the monetary value of inconvenience, suffering, distress, fear? And I'm the one who isn't being objective...

The above post is so chopped up it's like dog's breakfast... so:

First, from memory, the guy admitted killing an innocent man.... a trial found him guilty... he even admitted getting the order from his superior... add to this that he is a statist soldier... hell, I'd whack him in a nano-second! May he burn in Spartan Hell!

Quote :: I rather not make blanket condemnations. See, if someone from Hamas gets killed, the fact they were -in- Hamas is proof enough that they deserved to be killed. However, the U.S. military, and many other militaries for that matter, are not quite as clear. Under certain conditions, yes, they deserve to die. However I do not believe that membership in the military is, at present, sufficient condition for it. I could be wrong, you are free to try and point out my mistake.

If they are statists soldiers... well, you know...

Quote :: Are you saying if a soldier gets killed, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to his killer?

No.
Soldier kills (occupation: a professional statist killer); You give benefit of doubt
Civilian say, kills a civilian; No benefit of doubt- fast condemnation follows

Quote :: What? There are only two options. Either he is guilty of murder, or he is not. If he is not guilty, then this sentence is unjust punishment. If he is, then this sentence is unjust punishment. Either way it's the wrong thing to do.

First reread my reply re epistemology.
And since he killed a civilian deliberately and he's a statist killer as well, how the hell is it unjust to whack him?

Quote :: That's odd. It seems on one paragraph you condemn me for not giving him the benefit of t

he doubt, then on the other, you condemn me for doing so. I'm confused.

AAAaaarrrggghhh... lost in translation... should have been clearer... never mind...

Quote :: How do you measure the monetary value of inconvenience, suffering, distress, fear? And I'm the one who isn't being objective...

While largely subjective, it can be done and it can be reasonable... ie. not to high and not too low... but reasonable and which will depend on the full context...
_________________
Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, OZschwitz Contraband
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner
"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann

U.S. soldier guilty in killing of unarmed Iraqi man

U.S. soldier guilty in killing of unarmed Iraqi man

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

Via AnCaps: Law & Enforced Unnatural Order