@ Baylor14, I couldn't agree with you more!!

The trial of Nidal should have been finished by now.

Without a doubt he murdered 13 and one fetus.

I know I shouldn't say this but, I wish the guards would have finished him off that day.

Good. What this guy Bales did was horrible. Women and children massacred - no less worse than a mass murderer

Nidal is a Muslim and will be found not guilty by reason of mental defect. He will be held and cossetted and given everything he asks for, because this damn government has whiplash from kissing back and forth between the Muslim faction and the illegal aliens.

I will wait for this soldier's side of the story. After four tours in war zones, it's the least he deserves.

So the fact that you bring up Nidal, makes this Bales guy LESS guilty?

Where do you stand on the issue?

@Baylor

There is an enormous variation in the time that it takes a given prosecution to reach trial:

OJ Simpson was arrested on June 20, 1994. His trial began on January 24, 1995.

Casey Anthony was indicted on October 14, 2008. Her trial did not begin until May 24, 2011.

Bradley Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010. His trial is not scheduled to begin until February, 2013.

The reason that some cases take a long time to go to trial is that either the prosecution or defense will request delays to build their case. Bales could have delayed his trial as well.

Two of those cases are not Military.

I think that the pace with which the Nidal case has been moving is an embarrassment. The administration is so afraid of upsetting Muslims that they are bending over backwards or this @!$%# and putting up with ridiculous petty nonsense like this beard issue. He was supposedly a devout Muslim when he committed the murders and did not feel the need to grow a beard then and had no requested and religious exemption. Why should one even be an issue now. If he will not shave himself then tie him down and shave him, but let's get his court martial underway already. As for Bales, I think that seeking the death penalty is unwarranted. e guy went through four combat tours and he finally snapped. If anyone should have a diminished capacity defense it is Bales, not the worthless piece of @!$%# Nidal. I understand that what Bales did was wrong and horrific, but to execute him would be an injustice after what he has gone through for this country.

And the circumstance are very different.

This Soldier snapped.He has had one too many deployments and seen too much crap.I am sure that his multiple deployments have pushed him to the brink more than once,only this time he went too far.Most of you out there have no clue what it is like to see friends blown away.Alot of people have no idea what it's like to be away from your families for an extended time.Try being overseas in a culture radicaly different from the one you were raised in.He was'nt some punk kid that flipped out because things were'nt going his way.So let's think twice before putting the noose around his neck.Mental health advocates!!!! here is your chance to practice what you preach.Let's get this guy away from the gallows and find out what went wrong.This soldier of 11 years and 4 deployments deserves better than to be hung out to dry like haggisbingo says in he #1.2 posts.I would challenge haggisbingo to go through the same 4 deployments this soldier has and be about to come out sane.

Since no date has been set for the trial yet, I'd say it's premature to say it's proceeding quickly.

Baylor -

You bet the cases are very different.

Nidal had witnesses to the fact that he murdered fellow soldiers.

Nidal has documented facts to the communications he had with the top terrorist wanted by the US, dead or alive, on military communications systems, planning the murders, which were... oh, by the way...totally ignored by the military...

And last, but not least... Nidal is a Muslim.

Bales has no witnesses, is a decorated veteran, has done four tours of duty in war zones, was, according to reports acting under stress due to an assault on his unit where a friend had lost a leg and others were killed. Which would not excuse the murder of innocent villagers, especially children.

But would also not explain the dragging out of Nidal's court marshal, nor would it explain calling Nidal's actions "work place violence" instead of high treason and murder.... except the fact that Nidal is Muslim.

People have very short memories. When this story first broke months ago, certain facts came out too. Bales had a head injury from his last deployment and have been assured numerous times, as had been his family, that he would not have to go out again. When he was ordered on this last deployment, he was judged medically unfit to go. Some high ranking officer in effect ordered him to "soldier up" and signed the orders for him to go. While in Afghan, he snapped and went on the killing spree. The one that should be court martialed are the ones that sent him back knowing what could happen.

When the story broke, hundreds of ordinary folks, me among them, sent donations to his legal fund to hire a competent attorney otherwise he would have been stuck with a junior JAG officer as his counsel.

Some General officer with some common sense (who has the clout) should immediately postpone everything and have his staff examine everything having to do with this case. Once he does, he would be sure to dismiss everything and do a lot of damage control. Otherwise, some Senator/Rep is bound to bring this up in Congress and there will be a bigger mess than there is now.

@Baylor

Yes, all the cases I cited are very different. The point, once again, is that the time it takes for a case to go to trial depends on many factors. Again, I'll point out that Bales certainly could have postponed this further if his lawyers had requested that. You argument that the Hasan trial has been delayed because of a desire to avoid offending Muslims is missing one thing: any proof whatsoever.

@Bob Ramos

"Some General officer with some common sense (who has the clout) should immediately postpone everything and have his staff examine everything having to do with this case."

What do you think a court martial is, genius? It's an investigation performed according to certain rules. What you are calling for is exactly what is happening.

@screminmimi

"Bales has no witnesses..."

That's not true. Multiple witnesses, both Americans and Afghanis, have testified already. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Baylor: I've just reread this entire thread and nowhere does anyone "stick up for him." At most they offer either support for your position or provide some simple information.

How many combat deployments have you got under your belt? He needed help and didn't get it. He could have rode that deployment out on rear D and healed up; but they needed bodies and sent him because they needed to field bodies for combat! That system is broken every man has his limits I say this because 11 series MOS is all males. What could you have done better? Unless you have walked in his boots none of you should be opening your pie holes!

Baylor-

Try to stick to one argument, please. Let's review. You've made a pretty serious accusation (that Bales and Hasan are being treated differently because Hasan is a Muslim) and yet you've provided absolutely no evidence to support that accusation. Whether or not I or anyone else here has experienced combat is completely inconsequential.

In any case the old "if you haven't been there then you don't get to comment" approach is ridiculous. Must I have manned a checkpoint at Auschwitz in order to condemn the guards who worked there?

I have yet to see anyone on these vines trying to defend Nidal.

World War II and this GWOT are very different conflicts you should leave them out of it.

The other thing there has been too much cultural sensitivity with Nidal in respect to his culture. Yes murder is murder my problem is they are in the same Army and both fall under the UCMJ which is totally different from Civilian courts and laws. The Major's crime was committed over three years the SSG earlier this year yet it's going forward. You can have your opinion yes does not make it right or wrong.

This is one case where many can say you don't know what he was going through unless you have been there and walked in his shoe's that's credibility. But since you have not been over there please tell us how you would act around Iraq's and Afghans on your fourth rotation.

So basically thr argument is Bales is getting a raw deal because he appears to be getting treated diffierently than someone else who happens to be a muslim.

Yep, a nation of 12 year old all pointing at each other saying he did it too.

@Baylor

"But since you have not been over there please tell us how you would act around Iraq's and Afghans on your fourth rotation."

I dunno. Maybe I can ask the thousands of members of the armed forces who have completed multiple deployments without somehow sneaking off in the middle of the night and shooting little kids in their beds.

" ...both fall under the UCMJ which is totally different from Civilian courts and laws."

There are substantial differences between civilian courts and military courts, but it's simply not accurate to suggest that they are "totally different." They are far more similar than they are different.

"The Major's crime was committed over three years the SSG earlier this year yet it's going forward. You can have your opinion yes does not make it right or wrong."

For what certainly feels like the hundredth time: Bales' lawyers did not request more time to investigate or file various motions. Hasan's lawyers did. That is the only difference. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. You can acknowledge it or you can continue making wild accusations and insinuations. The choice is yours.

Asking others is no answer what would you do? The number that have made multiple deployments 11 series soldiers only that is in itself is a small minority how many have been burnt out or have been medically discharged. What mitigating factors does Nidal have none he had bad OER's was a friend with Muslim extremist who was his mentor all the signs were there. They have stone walled Nidal's trial many times over a beard B.S. he didn't have a beard before he committed the crime now all of a sudden he is fond of it more B.S. And since you don't know Army regs says you have to shave religious considerations are irrelevant no matter what faith!!

I don't understand something. We have become a society of pussies that doesn't understand what war used to be. In far past wars you don't trust anyone, and regardless of wearing a uniform, they erred on the side of caution and killed anyone who was questionably working for the enemy. Cruel, sometimes, yes, but true and there are Americans or their offspring walking around today because of it.

Civilians? @!$%# em! If they were on the side of good, they would eliminate the scum in their society, so we wouldn't need to be there. I am sorry if this offends the liberals in the crowd, but all people are "not" the same and some deserve to die. The world is over-populated anyway.

"We have become a society of pussies that doesn't understand what war used to be. In far past wars you don't trust anyone, and regardless of wearing a uniform, they erred on the side of caution and killed anyone who was questionably working for the enemy."

This isn't remotely true of all wars. One thing that constantly amazes me is how our military is more or less based on concepts that come from a much earlier period in European warfare (think the Napoleonic era, although it's roots stretch further back). All these ideas of ranks, command structures, honor, and rules of war are taken from men who certainly didn't think that war meant slaughtering everyone in the enemy's country until they offered their unconditional surrender. In fact, the vast majority of wars fought in that era ended with treaties, not the destruction of one party. And while many civilians were undoubtedly killed, no one at that time thought that it was permissible to intentionally target them.

"Civilians? @!$%# em! If they were on the side of good, they would eliminate the scum in their society, so we wouldn't need to be there."

Is it seriously your contention that a toddler is morally responsible for failing to "eliminate the scum in their society?" You must be very proud of yourself.

JS you're full of BS, think about all of the men and women that have gone through multiple deployments and did it right. What about them? This is the right verdict...Putz...

I see our punishment system totally out of wack. Someone who commits a serious crime and get's a life sentence in prison and we the tax payers pay for their stay. Someone who kills a cop or multipule civilians get's the death penalty. Prison should be for those who who killed a cop or multiple civilians as a place to rot in hell on earth while those who committed serious crimes that now place them in prison to rot should be the ones we execute, or at least given the choice to rot or given a way out. Those who have killed should be forced to live only in a hell on earth.

#1

Hear, hear!

We are collapsing from within.

.

Well, if the Ft Hood Massacre was just "work place violence" isnt this just another example?

jihadist Army major Hasan gets delay after delay and the American gets probable death sentence?

People have very short memories. When this story first broke months ago, certain facts came out too. Bales had a head injury from his last deployment and have been assured numerous times, as had been his family, that he would not have to go out again.

Gee, Hillary gets a concussion and doesnt have to testify but they made this guy deploy!

I've got to admit that I feel really sorry for our brave military personnel. They have to fight the enemy abroad and then they have to fight the enemy here that sent them abroad. After all, we are the only country in the world that gives medals to it's soldiers who don't fire when threatened by the enemy. Thanks to the libs, the focus of all wars, except when a dem is in the WH, is "what is our exit strategy?" Thank the Gods today's dems weren't running WWII! We'd all be speaking German now and being frisked every time we entered an airplane and be banned from owning guns to protect ourselves and we'd have the Gestapo in the streets demanding to see identification and inquiring about our business and our reasons for being out of our houses.

@AWOL-746438, everyone's breaking point is different, he may have PTSD and that is why he did what he did and is not fighting for delays.

Nidal needs to face a firing squad asap

While I see these as senseless murders, I think the death penalty might be the wrong thing. This soldiers mind had to be warped from what our guys have to live with in this war. Lock him up and study his brain but putting him to death is a bad choice since many of us are responsible for these wars and what they do to our people as well as the enemy.

Still surprised how fast this trial has proceeded the due process has been amazing!

The article said the prosecution is seeking the death penalty not that the case was nearly wrapped up or proceeding any faster than any other case. So I'm not sure where that nonsense came from.

Personally I think they should make an example of Bales and hand him over to the local afghan authorities. Nothing is a worthy defense of what this a-hole did.

I don't understand something. We have become a society of pussies that doesn't understand what war used to be. In far past wars you don't trust anyone, and regardless of wearing a uniform, they erred on the side of caution and killed anyone who was questionably working for the enemy.

John, when was it that U.S. forces indulged in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in their beds?

Was that in WWII?

Was that in WWI?

The Civil War?

In 1864, as Confederate troops marched through the streets of Frederick, MD, a ninety-five-year-old woman, named Barbara Fretchie waived a union flag in the face of the invading rebel troops, under General Stonewall Jackson. What happened is commemorated in a poem by John Greenleaf Wittier, a portion of which is display below...

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.
A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
Over the face of the leader came;
The nobler nature within him stirred
To life at that woman's deed and word;
"Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog! March on!" he said.....

But we all know what a pussie General Stonewall Jackson was, right John?

Collateral damage, including the death of civilians, has always been a by-product of war. But the intentional targeting of sleeping civilians, in an occupied territory is something this nation has never done or condoned.

LevTolstoy2 & dman-353357

How many cities have we carpet bombed? Who was it that dropped nukes on Japan? Your holier than though belief doesn't wash. Or is it your belief that if a President orders it he is a hero and the US is absolved? I am not stating that what this man did was right, just that condemning him considering what was asked of him may not be the proper course.

It is quite possible that the US is going to make an example out of him to appease our enemy. That is how politically correct we have become. Giving aid and comfort to our own enemies.

Both Nidal and Bales deserve death for disgracing their country and the pre-meditated murder of innocent persons.

They are rats and hanging them for what they did sends a strong message to anyone thinking about emulating their behavior.

All this whining about Nidal's "special treatment" is just partisan BS. The Army is many things, efficient is not one of them when it comes to bureaucratic delays.

Get over yourselves and have a little dignity, god damn it.

I can respect a person who doesn't believe in the death penalty. There is no administrative double standard for Nidal and Bales. Both are very likely to die for what they've done. Nidal knew what he was doing, as did Bales. I don't think any military tribunal is going to fall for any kind of temporary insanity defense; it almost never works even when the defendant has a serious mental illness.

Be an adult.

@Rt Typo spoken like a true pogue

How many cities have we carpet bombed? Who was it that dropped nukes on Japan?

John737278 - We were at war with Japan when we dropped nuclear bombs on that country. We were [unofficially] at war with North Vietnam when we bombed Hanoi. We were at war with Germany when we fire-bombed Dresden.

Perhaps the news has not reached whatever dark cave you dwell in, but we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are involved in a civil war, and we are in [uneasy] alliance with their government. One does not bomb, nuke, or otherwise kill one's allies.

Moreover, all of the bombing of Japan, of Germany and of North Vietnam was done in pursuit of strategic goals, as determined by the Allied High Command. Sarg. Bales was acting on his own impulses, which impelled him to slaughter men, women and children while they slept. This was not to further any strategic aim of the U.S. or its NATO allies. In fact, it directly undermines our efforts to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

We did not allow such behavior when we occupied Germany and Japan following WWII, and we certainly should not be tolerating it today. Sgt. Bales wanted to go out hunting for humans, and he did. He deserves whatever fate lies in store for him, perhaps to die like a dog.

Your remarks seem based not on any understanding of military strategy, or of the realities of war, but on the belief that the lives of Afghans are not worth worrying about. One does not have to be "holier than though" to look down on you and your attitudes.

BTW: The correct phrase is "holier than thou", NOT "though". English is not your first language, is it?

Sorry, "Holier than thou".

Please don't treat me like an idiot, Graduated with a 4.0 and accepted into the institute of technology as a junior in high school. Want to compare brain pans? It just so happens that I haven't had an english class or used the phrase in thirty years.

So you are stating that if it is strategic, killing innocents is ok? We had already kicked Japan's butt and they were on their way down when we dropped the bombs. We did it in the guise of it potentially saving American lives, but I believe they just wanted to see what it would do. We are not at war with Afghanistan, but we sure as hell are at war with at least part of its population. Perhaps you should ask some of our servicemen if it feels like war, when they are getting their legs blown off and causing Bales to go on a rampage. So, if he were ordered to do this it would have been ok? Making excuses for those at the top is just as bad as protesting those at the bottom.

As far as people don't kill one's allies perhaps you have heard of the USS Liberty, taken out by our friends the Israeli's, and our government covered it up. And the reason we are in the region in the first place, killing "their" enemies.

http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/moorer.htm

I don't have any problems with Afghani's, or that their lives should mean any less than mine. I have a problem that politics is costing American lives when our supposed enemy doesn't have the balls to put on a real uniform and stand and fight. And if some innocents get killed, it is their fault for having a society that is not worth them fighting for.

And finally, for your information, it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of idiots. Been here, done that.

I'm saying that bad things happen in war. But war does not give individual soldiers a license for indiscriminant killing, and that the U.S. military does not, and should not allow such behavior.

Moreover, it may have represented the lesser of two evils to drop two atom bombs on Japan, killing, perhaps a quarter of million people, in that it prevented the estimated one million deaths which the high command estimated would result from a land invasion.

But there can be no such justification for the random brutalization of Afghan civilians, either through organized military action, or through the actions of one psychopathic soldier, such as Bales.

I'm not going to get deeply into what happened to the U.S. Liberty over 40 years ago, or your speculations regarding possibly less creditable motives for the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither what the Israelis did, either by intent of oversight, nor how the U.S. Military and Harry S Truman came to their decision on the use of atomic weapons, in any way justifies the actions of Sgt. Bales.

And if some innocents get killed, it is their fault for having a society that is not worth them fighting for.

Perhaps partially true, with regard to true collateral damage from military actions, or at least such deaths are unavoidable. But that in no way justifies the random slaughter of men, women and children, either in their beds, or in peaceful pursuit of their normal daily activities. The U.S. has never condoned such actions, and hopefully, never will.

I would also point out that individual Afghans have very little say over how their country is run, or what manner of society they live in. You take for granted the rule of law in our society. If somebody run amok in a shopping maul, you know the police will deal with them. If you are cheated in business, you have recourse to the courts. We have regular elections, and however much we may dislike the sitting president, be he Bush or Obama, we know that after no more than 8 years he will be gone from office. In Afghanistan there has seldom been any governance, save through the rule of the gun. There a wronged person has far less recourse, and the cost for taking a public stand against corruption may be death.

I wonder, just what would you expect the children slaughtered by Bales to have done to prevent their murder?

And finally, for your information, it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of idiots. Been here, done that.

Which is still no excuse for killing men, women and children like animals.

Sorry, but your position is totally indefensible, and your initial manner of stating it (We have become a society of pussies that doesn't understand what war used to be.) is both offensive and inaccurate.

I've twice now pointed out the logical and moral fallacies of your position. You'll either connect the dots and see these things for yourself, or not. Either way, I have to get back to the business of earning a living.

Good day.

dman-353357

Did I state that Bales was right in what he did? No I did not.

Am I convicting him based on information I have? Unlike yourself, I am not. We don't know if he saw one of the family that was killed place the roadside bomb that blew the legs off his friend and higher command would do nothing about it, now do we? Nor do we know whether they family was collaborating, now do we?

I have not stated that we or anyone should target innocent civilians, just that it happens, and the PC crowd will always get up in arms over it. Tell you what, this would not have happened if we weren't over there in the first place. And now with our remote controlled drone wars, killing civilians is happening all the time. When will we see those operators behind bars? Or the commanders that called for the attacks?

All I am stating is that war is not clean, never has been and never will be. Singling out one man for atrocities he supposedly did to appease foreign populations is just as offensive.

Now, if he knowingly just went out on a killing spree just to kill, I would have to agree but I will not take back my comments that this kind of thing should be expected, and it is sickening thinking people take wars so lightly from 10,000 miles away with such moral certitude of what is right and wrong when they were not there.

Who are you to judge whether my opinions are logical, or for that matter my morals. Just because you may not agree does not make you right.

I don't understand something. We have become a society of pussies that doesn't understand what war used to be

Well, john, context is important. The article is about the impending trial of Sgt Bales for the alleged slaughter of sleeping men, women and children. The above was your opening remark. If it wasn't in reaction to the decision to try Bales, I'm at a loss as to just what the @#$@ you did mean.

Neither article nor the majority of the posters are advocating against war, or bending all swords into plowshares. If the article was promoting some extreme pacifist sentiment, I could understand your little tirade. But it was not, so I can not.

Am I convicting him based on information I have? Unlike yourself, I am not.

Well, if you had made that point, this would have been a different conversation. But no where did you caution people against prejudgement of the case. No, you said we had become "a society of pussies", not a lynch mob.

Then you went on to say [your words, not mine]:

Civilians? @!$%# em! If they were on the side of good, they would eliminate the scum in their society, so we wouldn't need to be there.

...and

but all people are "not" the same and some deserve to die. The world is over-populated anyway.

As I said, context is important. The article is about a U.S. soldier accursed of murdering civilians in their bed. You say "Civilians? @!$%# em!" and "...some deserve to die."

What other meaning could one derive your words in this context then some bizarre defense of the alleged actions of Sgt. Bales?

I have not stated that we or anyone should target innocent civilians, just that it happens, and the PC crowd will always get up in arms over it.

This did not "just happen". The deaths of these civilians were not collateral damage from any legitimate military action. These were murders which Sgt. Bales is alleged to have carried out.

All I am stating is that war is not clean, never has been and never will be. Singling out one man for atrocities he supposedly did to appease foreign populations is just as offensive.

You still do not get it, do you?

Sgt Bales is not being singled out. He is not one soldier out of 100 being unfairly targeted because he accidentally shot a civilian. He is charged with intentionally targeting and killing civilians for no better reason than he just felt like doing it. That is a crime in any army not commanded by Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan.

Who are you to judge whether my opinions are logical, or for that matter my morals. Just because you may not agree does not make you right.

Whom do I have to be?

You don't differentiate between civilian deaths as a by-product of military strategy and the impulse killings of civilians by a solitary soldier, and you wonder that I question the morality and logic of your position.

I wonder that you wonder.

I don't know if you are still around but I had to work. I guess my version of logic and morality is not the same as yours. Of all the things that I have stated you failed to pick up on the one that defines my argument. That being that the world is over populated anyway. I really don't care for most people and see them as a virus, spreading and destroying the world we live in. Quite honestly, it wouldn't bother me if a few billion were removed to let the earth heal.

If that means that I am cold and heartless, so be it.

Of all the things that I have stated you failed to pick up on the one that defines my argument. That being that the world is over populated anyway. I really don't care for most people and see them as a virus, spreading and destroying the world we live in.

Well, John, then by your logic it shouldn't matter much if o'l Sargent Bales gets the needle (or the firing squad). Since you count "most people ...as a virus", he'll just be one less viral entity polluting your world.

Have a happy holiday.

They will seek the death penalty, but I doubt that he gets it given the probable PTSD.

Just because he may have PSTD doesn't excuse his actions! Are you arguing for release when other mass killers have a documented mental illness? Doubt it.

Really Brian? Would you say the same if some person from another country walked into town and slaughtered innocent children and adults because he wanted revenge? With your logic Mr. Manza, if he were alive today, should not be taken out back and shot? I spent 2 tours over there and saw my fair share of unspeakable things, but nobody ever went out and gutted 13 people.

Yes it probably is PTSD. I would like to know if he was prescribed any psychiatric meds at any time. If you will look at the statistics, just about every instance of shooters (school, soldier, etc.) involves some sort of anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, or other drug commonly prescribed. If you want foot notes, I'll provide them if MSNBC will allow it. That being said, major media outlets kowtow to the pharmaceutical companies so I doubt it will get posted here.

I was in Iraq in 03 and 04.........The Major was a shrink, he didn't go out on patrols. He sat in the FOB all day, and drank coffee at the DFAC. PTSD ???? Magna Cum Laude lol.......

Big Daddy----- I see where you are going with this and you are probably correct.This whole issue could also be blamed on the failure of his leadership.It is the JOB of every leader to know their troops and look out for there well being.Someone in his chain of command should have been able to spot this problem and remove this soldier before it became what it is.Being in the military myself i personally review all new soldiers 201 files, and a fourth deployment would send up alot of red flags to me.

Unfortunately for Bales, a diagnosis of PTSD is not a get out of jail free card. It's incredibly difficult to prove insanity. Essentially, you have to prove that the accused was not only mentally ill, but that they lacked the capacity to distinguish wrong from right. There's a host of facts in this case that suggest that this wouldn't apply to Bales.

I think that 4 deployments, a possible TBI and possibly PTSD should all be considered (if true) as mitigating factors at sentencing (assuming he's found guilty), and he should not get the death penalty. However, if guilty, this guy is an obvious danger to society, lots of servicemen have had multiple deployments, TBI's and PTSD and they don't go out and massacre women and children, to me that's what makes this soldier different from the vast-vast-vast majority of soldiers.

You're absolutely correct: these are indeed mitigating circumstances. In the end, I'll be very surprised if Bales is executed, though I certainly think he'll be convicted.

Riiight of course he's innocent. No way could an American be a terrorist. He's just sick in the head.

My ass.

His actions put my life and those around me and U.S. soldiers around the world at risk. To be frank if those who lost their children to his despicable act are themselves or know those who likely desire to construct 9/11 part 2 for us, I really wouldn't blame them. Everyone wanted to retaliate after 9/11 whose to say they can't.

In this post 9/11 era, sorry but if you have a head problem.......go call Dr. Phil not go and shoot up innocent people that only triggers more retaliation if nothing is done.

It was President Truman who made that decision and the Japanese had it coming good reason for it.

A) Bombed Pearl Harbor

B) The Marines at the Battle of Wake Island

C) The Soldiers at the Bataan Death March

The A bombs were dropped to save American lives because the Military didn't want a Battle that was Fierce like Okinawa.

Baylor - none of your reasons are justification to taget civilian cities indiscriminately and wide ranging. That was a US war crime and only people like you who don't consider reason think differently.

Those case are plenty enough justification for them getting both bombs! It was well documented that Japan was notorious for committing WAR CRIMES and they got a taste of there own medicine. Ask any Marine or Soldier that fought in the Pacific Campaign. Operation Iceberg the invasion of Okinawa was a Nasty Battle the US did not want to repeat it. If we invaded mainland of Japan the estimated casualties were to be at least 100,000 dead because they knew the Emperor would have orders all Japanese to fight to the death and we would have killed all of them. Read a book educate yourself.

And in WWII the Nazi's indiscriminately bombed the British Isles with unmanned flying bombs, allied forces droped hundreds of thousands of bombs on German and German occupied cities across Western Europe, or the Battle of Kiev on the western front, fields of land mines everywhere, and on and on and on. War is a dity, nasty, terrible thing, and there is a difference between doing what needs to be done to end the war, and just going crazy and using innocent civilians you are supposed to be stationed to protect and improve the life's of as target practice.

Yes, the Japanese were horrible in WW II. However, FDR KNEW about plans to attack Pearl Harbor and did not bother to tell the Navy commanders. And, it is a fact that Japan was trying to surrender prior to the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but they were ignored.

The reasons cited are sufficient but the major reason Truman authorized the A bomb was to save lives - both ours and Japanese. Otherwise, millions of lives would have been lost on both sides.

Tell the whole story!

The Japanese barely voted to surrender it was a tie, only broken by the Emperor and............That was AFTER both bombs had dropped. Even then there was a attempted coup by lower ranking Japanese officers. Mowma....Yes the US had a idea they might be attacked, at Wake, Midway or the Philippines Islands. But nobody......and I mean nobody had any idea that Pearl would be attacked.

It's always odd that people think the Govt. could keep a secret that big. Like people could keep their mouths shut. If FDR he had a boatload of folks killed, to keep the secret. He must have found alot of mute hitmen.

Perhaps some folks still do not know about FDR and Pearl Harbour. Before Peal was attacked, one of our double agents somehow learned about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl. He went to DC and tried desperately to get an interview with J Edgar Hoover. Hoover would not see him because the guy was a foreigner (Austrian). At that time, Hoover had control of domestic security. This was documented on the Military Channel.

Dropping The Bomb on the Japs was a war crime? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one.

I agree, but if they can fix him, what would be the point in holding him endlessly. We put people in that position to protect us (or we like to think that), and yet some who can't handle it shouldn't be judged in the same way someone who kills outside of that situation would be.

Part of me thinks he needs to be rehabilitated, and that we owe him that. Trust me, I know so many will say that we can't have soliders killing people like this without extreme punishment, but I dont think that is very fair. We have NO IDEA how this man was affected by that much killing.

John C_1:If he killed 16 U.S. citizens, would you feel the same? They're all individual lives.

The state of mind someone is in when a crime like this is committed makes all the difference. Had this guy come back to the US and do something similar here after going through what he did over there - i'd say there is no difference.

If he is insane he is insane.

n. pl. in·san·i·ties

1. Mental illness or derangement. No longer in
scientific use.

2. Law
a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of
a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal
relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.

b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental
malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the
act committed.

Lanza and Bales. Don't think I have ever heard their music. Is it popular where ever you are from?

I would give him a medal and then a job at the Post Office.

Lethal injection most likely. We are "civilized" now and I don't think we use firing squads, electric chair or hangings anymore.

Oh good grief. Read the story, read the comments and got it stuck in my head this was a Nidal story. I am a buffoon.

You are not a buffoon (great word btw)! But thanks for correcting yourself. :)

Funny how these "gun crazed servicemembers" are responsible for your freedom to call them that. Ignorant.

Yep, had we never invaded Iraq I would not be free to speak poorly of the military. Makes sense to me!

Exactly. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has done exactly nothing for our freedom.

Yet people forget that fact every time they use the argument: They [military personnel] are defending our freedom. 'They' are simply doing their jobs of following orders in Iraq and Afghanistan at this point. There is and never was a connection between Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime, the September 11th attacks and those responsible for terrorism in the US. I believe they knew that then, when Colin Powell went before Congress and the UN Security Council and claimed otherwise. Am I saying he lied? No, he used incomplete intel at that point to validate their cause. The administration among others quickly tried to make the Iraq invasion about spreading democracy and ending human rights abuses, although that remains an issue, then and now, in many other places.

In hindsight the generals probably advised the president that a central base / presence in the Middle East was necessary to do anything about terrorism. That is really how we got to this point. No conspiracy here, just good ol' fashioned politics and influencing public opinion to sway policy.

If teens from Copperas Cove, Texas can be charged with terrorism for making school bomb threats, than why is Nidal only being charged with work place violence? Isn't what he did considered...terrorism?

Thirteen adults and one fetus...American.

He has not being charged with "work place violence" because there is no such crime. He's being charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty and there's a darn good chance that he'll receive it. I'm not sure what other specific charges you think should have been filed.

13 charges of premeditaded murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

also for clarification:

The Defense Department’s refusal to label the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting a terrorist attack has led to a giant legal suit that could cost the U.S. Army and FBI hundreds of millions of dollars

http://kdhnews.com/news/suit-over-fort-hood-shooting-could-cost-millions/article_ea4db162-2bc2-11e2-babd-001a4bcf6878.html

kdhnews.com is our local paper we see more of what's going on then most because it's fallen out of the main stream medias shock and awe.

If by "handled like a god" you mean "held in very restrictive pre-trial custody," then you are absolutely correct!

I'm fairly sure that the only way that the military executes people these days is through lethal injection, regardless of the nature of the offense.

Killing of civilian non-combatants purposefully while operating as or wearing the uniform of the military is is a military offense. This case belongs in a military court.

Of course it "belongs in a military court". So would hypothetically a trial for stealing a candy bar from the PX. But that does not make shoplifting a military offense. Military offenses are those which violate military law or custom but in civilian life may not be a crime at all! A night watchman might be fired, even sued for falling asleep on the job but falling asleep while on guard duty is a crime under the UCMJ and can get you brig time. So can disobeying an order by a superior, or deserting one's post or failing to carry a piece of your equipment. These aren't prosecutable offenses under the laws of any State.

Get my drift?

The US military has always been lax in punishing strictly military offenses. The only soldier in modern times actually executed for desertion in the face of the enemy was Pvt. Eddie Slovik in 1944. The sentence of "death by musketry" was carried out in the field and btw tovarich Lev, it was the last execution of a US serviceman by the military. We're not the Red Army.

Several American soldiers were hanged during World War II for raping and murdering British citizens, however, even one or two whose sanity was seriously in doubt.