Understanding the Afghan Massacre

[Guest]

An American soldier (a staff sergeant) wandered off his base to two nearby villages and massacred 16 Afghan civilians. Nine of them were children sleeping in their beds.

In my opinion, it's pretty obvious that he's suffering from dementia. Otherwise, where is his motive? Has any been suggested?

He served three tours of duty in Iraq, and prolonged stress can cause vascular dementia. He also received a traumatic brain injury which could have been a trigger for early onset Alzheimer's disease. And it's possible to have both vascular dementia and Alzheimer's at the same time.

It's telling that it happened at night, which leads me to the following theory. 1) he went to sleep as usual 2) he began to dream 3) he then got up, as if in a state of sleep-walking and 4) it was in this altered trance-like mental state that he carried out the massacre.

Most of us know when we've had a bad dream. But it's possible that someone with dementia and/or brain injury might not know the difference between a wakeful state and a dream state. So, that means "waking up" can be a continuation of the dream or nightmare state of mind.

The political angle: If my theory proves to be true, will the U.S. military (or civilian court) see it and excuse him from any punishment? Or, will they sacrifice him (execute him) to satisfy the Afghans?

[Guest]

I also heard on the news that alcohol could have been involved as well as a "Dear John" letter from his wife recently.

[Guest]

In my opinion, psychiatric evaluation of this man will reveal he did not commit murder in first degree but probably should be remanded to a psychiatric facility for a long number of years with treatment given.

No way will he be handed over to Afghans for their retribution.

[Guest]

In my opinion, psychiatric evaluation of this man will reveal he did not commit murder in first degree but probably should be remanded to a psychiatric facility for a long number of years with treatment given.

No way will he be handed over to Afghans for their retribution.

Will the Afghans understand such a theory? Just wondering as I do not know anything about the science/art of psychiatry as it exists in Afghanistan. From what I have read of the country-- and that's very little-- it looks like a tribal society existing in a 21st century world.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/afghanistan.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

This link has a lot of information about Afghanistan:
http://www.afg-info.com/

[Guest]

This soldier went specifically to this village and shot up residents and even set some on fire, and then went back to his camp, put down his weapon and surrendered.
Sounds pretty lucid to me. I don't buy many psychiatric defenses. I would say it sounds pretty evident he's guilty. Is he a little deranged? Maybe, but it's no excuse in my book. He purposely went out and shot women and children.

Nobody is more pro-military than I, but this is inexcusable if the initial stories are very close to the truth of this horror.

[Guest]

This soldier went specifically to this village and shot up residents and even set some on fire, and then went back to his camp, put down his weapon and surrendered.
Sounds pretty lucid to me. I don't buy many psychiatric defenses. I would say it sounds pretty evident he's guilty. Is he a little deranged? Maybe, but it's no excuse in my book. He purposely went out and shot women and children.

Nobody is more pro-military than I, but this is inexcusable if the initial stories are very close to the truth of this horror.

Unless there is a lot of information about this man who did all the killings I too find it hard to swallow any kind of insanity defense. Doubt if many people in Afghanistan would even believe in such a defense unless say the Koran or Islamic law covers such ideas??

I am not that knowledgeable about Islamic law to know about the insanity defense in their legal system. It does look like it shows up in Iraqi law but do not know about Afghan law.

[Guest]

This soldier went specifically to this village and shot up residents and even set some on fire, and then went back to his camp, put down his weapon and surrendered.

I read that he went to two different villages. Why two? Couldn't he find enough people to kill in one village? And why kill women and children? And why burn the bodies? What was that supposed to accomplish?

Sounds pretty lucid to me. I don't buy many psychiatric defenses. I would say it sounds pretty evident he's guilty. Is he a little deranged? Maybe, but it's no excuse in my book. He purposely went out and shot women and children.

If he was lucid what was the point of it all? What was his motive? Did he think, "hey, I'll go out and kill a bunch of people and then get exicuted for murder?" Sure, that sounds like a good plan.

Nobody is more pro-military than I, but this is inexcusable if the initial stories are very close to the truth of this horror.

How would the story have to be different in order for you to accept that he wasn't in control of what he did?

The only part that doesn't seem to fit my theory is the part about him surrendering. But it could be that by the time he walked back, he began to snap out of it.

[Guest]

How would the story have to be different in order for you to accept that he wasn't in control of what he did?

The only part that doesn't seem to fit my theory is the part about him surrendering. But it could be that by the time he walked back, he began to snap out of it.

It doesn't matter what his emotional state was. Most people who commit murder do so under some sort of stress.

Now it turns out the "brain injury" story was a bit bogus and this soldier had "been drinking" and suffering "from the stress related to his fourth combat tour and tensions with his wife about the deployments, a senior American official said Thursday", as reported in the NY Times.

It's a sad story, but a soldier in this theater cannot be excused from actions like this because that would send an "anything goes" message to the thousands of soldiers with similar situations, in my opinion.

[Guest]

There is a big difference between a REASON (explaining perhaps why someone did something) and an EXCUSE (meaning the person wasn't entirely responsible).

I'm with Richie on this one.

[Guest]

Wondering where the trial would take place??

Would this be a military tribunal on Afghan soil but with civilian and military lawyers for the defense?

Which law comes into play?? Afghan? U.S. Military? Federal Criminal?

[Guest]

Wondering where the trial would take place??

Would this be a military tribunal on Afghan soil but with civilian and military lawyers for the defense?

Which law comes into play?? Afghan? U.S. Military? Federal Criminal?

He's already been whisked from Afghanistan and is in Kuwait. I don't think he'll be put in Afghan hands. It will be a military trial, I'm sure.

[Guest]

He's on his way to a US military prison, probably Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, I heard today, Friday.

[Guest]

Imagine an Afghan came to one of the villages here and shot 16 people and then set some ablaze...Then imagine what the reaction would be,....Enough said

[Guest]

But, Rubicon, the Afghans are not an occupying force in this country.

[Guest]

But, Rubicon, the Afghans are not an occupying force in this country.

"occupying force"...........you mean we've been there against the will of the Afghan government??

Is this what you're saying??

You have no shame if you deliver this anti-American b.s.

Unbelievable, Buggy.

[Guest]

In accordance with our agreements with the Afghanistan government, the Sargent will be tried under The Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He is not subject to Sharia. For that reason, he will receive a fair trial taking all the issues into consideration.

[Guest]

In accordance with our agreements with the Afghanistan government, the Sargent will be tried under The Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He is not subject to Sharia. For that reason, he will receive a fair trial taking all the issues into consideration.


He might have been able to get a fair trial under Sharia. It. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about Islamic Law.

There is also the issue that it would probably have been better for relations with Aghanistan if this killer of 16 Afghans was tried in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Unfortunately, I cannot find much in the way of reliable information about the law in Afghanistan.

[Guest]

"occupying force"...........you mean we've been there against the will of the Afghan government??

Is this what you're saying??

You have no shame if you deliver this anti-American b.s.

Unbelievable, Buggy.

Read the newspapers, Richie. You will see that Karzai does not want the US forces in the outpost areas. The US has no credibility there anymore. You obviously think it is a good idea to stay in Afghanistan. If we are not an occupying force, would you say "military advisors"? That might be a better choice of wording.

[Guest]

This seems like an irrational act unless you consider this possibility.
If a soldier has experienced the horrors of war with buddies being killed and maimed, and if his personal life is also destroyed by affects of the war on his personality and on his relationship with his spouse and or family..
If he is feeling he has no life to go back to, nothing left.. he could decide the best thing he can do with his life is commit an act so horrific that the citizens of Afghanistan could never forgive the Americans, they would demand our immediate departure..
Then his last act would be to end the war.. the thing he hates most.
I think it is a possibility.
JJ

[Guest]

Read the newspapers, Richie. You will see that Karzai does not want the US forces in the outpost areas. The US has no credibility there anymore. You obviously think it is a good idea to stay in Afghanistan. If we are not an occupying force, would you say "military advisors"? That might be a better choice of wording.

I'm not debating the wisdom of all our actions, I'm was just criticizing your anti-American verbiage.

Karzai would be a nobody hiding in a bunker or another country without the U.S. and he knows it, and you should too. He says what he has to to maintain the civil peace, but you should know which side of the debate to stay on.

[Guest]

Sounds as though you believe the US should stay in Afghanistan on a permanent basis to me. If not, at what point do you say the US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan? By what point, I mean to ask also what you believe should be the objective of the US in Afghanistan?

[Guest]

This seems like an irrational act unless you consider this possibility.
If a soldier has experienced the horrors of war with buddies being killed and maimed, and if his personal life is also destroyed by affects of the war on his personality and on his relationship with his spouse and or family..
If he is feeling he has no life to go back to, nothing left.. he could decide the best thing he can do with his life is commit an act so horrific that the citizens of Afghanistan could never forgive the Americans, they would demand our immediate departure..
Then his last act would be to end the war.. the thing he hates most.
I think it is a possibility.
JJ

Sounds way too rational for me. Why did he not then kill himself if he feels he has nothing to which to go back? This sounds like an irrational act but probably one he had control over and which he knew was evil.

My great uncle shot himself in 1982. He drove his car to the funeral parlor to do it after writing every family member goodbye letters. He carefully planned his suicide. He was dying of a painful disease and did not want to burden people.

[Guest]

It's a sad story, but a soldier in this theater cannot be excused from actions like this because that would send an "anything goes" message to the thousands of soldiers with similar situations, in my opinion.

Yes, I've been thinking about that aspect too. But I would hope that if he has advanced atherosclerosis (i.e., hardening of the arteries in his brain) that would be something that could be demonstrated in a court of law.

[Guest]

Sounds as though you believe the US should stay in Afghanistan on a permanent basis to me. If not, at what point do you say the US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan? By what point, I mean to ask also what you believe should be the objective of the US in Afghanistan?

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

[Guest]

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

There you go again Richie. Saying something that is spot on confuses me. LOL

[Guest]

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

Not sure you get Sharia law. It is kind of hard to give any good research on it because it is so badly misunderstood. This might help-- http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

This goes into the complexity of Sharia Law-- http://www.salon.com/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/ Read it, you might be surprised with what you find.

[Guest]

Not sure you get Sharia law. It is kind of hard to give any good research on it because it is so badly misunderstood. This might help-- Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034)

This goes into the complexity of Sharia Law-- What sharia law actually means - Islam - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/) Read it, you might be surprised with what you find.

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

[Guest]

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

You mean like the manner and way liberals have acted toward Sarah Palin?
You mean like liberals such as David Letterman, Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Matt Tabbi and Keith Olberman whom according to Peggy Noonan "think they can get away with vulgarity because they are on the correct side of social issues; while other tire of being bullied by the language police." According to Noonan liberals far exceed conservatives in demeaning woman (cite "America's Real War On Women" WSJ 3/17-18/12)

[Guest]

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

Not that simple. Depends on the country and probably even the region that uses Sharia Law.

It is like judging all criminal law in the U.S. on the basis of the Old Testament "an eye for an eye".

I believe there is some stoning of women and men in the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

[Guest]

You mean like the manner and way liberals have acted toward Sarah Palin?You mean like liberals such as David Letterman, Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Matt Tabbi and Keith Olberman whom according to Peggy Noonan "think they can get away with vulgarity because they are on the correct side of social issues; while other tire of being bullied by the language police." According to Noonan liberals far exceed conservatives in demeaning woman (cite "America's Real War On Women" WSJ 3/17-18/12)

Not at all. America hates palin because she is a stupid idiot and has nothing to do with Sharia Law.

[Guest]

Not at all. America hates palin because she is a stupid idiot and has nothing to do with Sharia Law.

The way liberals treated Palin and Bachmann, and even Hillary when she ran against Obama in the primary, is the Democrat War on Women personified.

It is slightly less evil than Sharia Law though.

[Guest]

The way liberals treated Palin and Bachmann, and even Hillary when she ran against Obama in the primary, is the Democrat War on Women personified.

It is slightly less evil than Sharia Law though.

Richie.....

[Guest]

Not sure you get Sharia law. It is kind of hard to give any good research on it because it is so badly misunderstood. This might help-- Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034)

This goes into the complexity of Sharia Law-- What sharia law actually means - Islam - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/) Read it, you might be surprised with what you find.

It's badly misunderstood??; a religion based system of laws that lowers women to chattel property to be ruled by the men in their family. Anytime men have complete power over women and women have few rights, those women WILL be abused, and women under Shariah Law are abused in every aspect of their lives. They do become conditioned to "behave" for their own survival.

I know all I need to know about Shariah Law.

[Guest]

It's badly misunderstood??; a religion based system of laws that lowers women to chattel property to be ruled by the men in their family. Anytime men have complete power over women and women have few rights, those women WILL be abused, and women under Shariah Law are abused in every aspect of their lives. They do become conditioned to "behave" for their own survival.

I know all I need to know about Shariah Law.

Most religions treat women as less than equal, but Muslims are the worst with their Sharia Law.

[Guest]

Most religions treat women as less than equal, but Muslims are the worst with their Sharia Law.

The point is that whatever Shariah "officially" proclaims itself to be, we all see with our own eyes the results of life under Shariah.

No thank you.

[Guest]

I think it's a question of 'how far'. Like anything, trying to describe 'Sharia' in one word isn't easy. Let's not forget how badly women were treated in the Bible - especially the Old testament. If someone wanted to implement "Torah Law" or "Biblical Law", I'd be just as much against it at first glance.

To me, one of the main differences is that, no matter how painful or how much it happened in fits and spurts, our society has advanced from strictly religious laws. The last witchcraft trials in this country were 500 years ago. The last ones elsewhere were last week in Africa.

While there may very well be things in Sharia that are innocuous (like aspects of contract law), take a look at the dark side because THAT is where the judgments are going to be. If you can legally stone someone to death for some perceived slight to your so-called 'honor' then your legal code needs work.

[Guest]

The point is that whatever Shariah "officially" proclaims itself to be, we all see with our own eyes the results of life under Shariah.

No thank you.

I think it's a question of 'how far'. Like anything, trying to describe 'Sharia' in one word isn't easy. Let's not forget how badly women were treated in the Bible - especially the Old testament. If someone wanted to implement "Torah Law" or "Biblical Law", I'd be just as much against it at first glance.

To me, one of the main differences is that, no matter how painful or how much it happened in fits and spurts, our society has advanced from strictly religious laws. The last witchcraft trials in this country were 500 years ago. The last ones elsewhere were last week in Africa.

While there may very well be things in Sharia that are innocuous (like aspects of contract law), take a look at the dark side because THAT is where the judgments are going to be. If you can legally stone someone to death for some perceived slight to your so-called 'honor' then your legal code needs work.

I think the point I made is very clear, and I'm not arguing "Shariah Law" as an intellectual exercise, or comparing it to the study of antiquity as in some passages of the Bible that have been severely modified by modern teachers of the Christian religion hundreds of years ago.

We see the present day push of Shariah Law with our own eyes, and it's effects on the society and the women under it's auspices. The practical applications of something is infinitely more important to the discussion than the historical study of it.

There is almost nothing more dangerous in the world right now than the spread of Shariah Law as practiced by the fundamentalists overseeing it.

[Guest]

I think the point I made is very clear, and I'm not arguing "Shariah Law" as an intellectual exercise, or comparing it to the study of antiquity as in some passages of the Bible that have been severely modified by modern teachers of the Christian religion hundreds of years ago.

We see the present day push of Shariah Law with our own eyes, and it's effects on the society and the women under it's auspices. The practical applications of something is infinitely more important to the discussion than the historical study of it.

There is almost nothing more dangerous in the world right now than the spread of Shariah Law as practiced by the fundamentalists overseeing it.

Richie is right about Shariah law. It is dangerous and has spread too far. In the USA, there are some fundamentalist Muslims who have killed women under the auspices of Shariah law - but those Muslims have been punished by US criminal law.

It is not only Shariah law that is dangerous but any extremist religious rule or practice. There is some Caribbean or Haitian religion that has killed children in the name of their religion. These, too, have been punished under US criminal law.

Religious freedom does not trump criminal or even civil law.

[Guest]

Richie is right about Shariah law. It is dangerous and has spread too far. In the USA, there are some fundamentalist Muslims who have killed women under the auspices of Shariah law - but those Muslims have been punished by US criminal law.

It is not only Shariah law that is dangerous but any extremist religious rule or practice. There is some Caribbean or Haitian religion that has killed children in the name of their religion. These, too, have been punished under US criminal law.

Religious freedom does not trump criminal or even civil law.

Thank for for seeing my point, but we also cannot just be concerned with Sharia Law under the umbrella of our own civil protection, we must see the bigger word picture in relation to the spread of this ominous movement.

[Guest]

Afghanistan Shootings: Accused Soldier Flown To Kuwait, Panetta And Karzai Talk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/afghanistan-shootings-soldier-kuwait_n_1346911.html)

On Sharia law, there was a very intense 2008 movie about the stoning of a woman falsely accused by her adulterous criminal husband of cheating on him. He was a political force in the tiny Iranian village where this took place. Religious law can be abused for any number of reasons. With the many checks and balances though in our civil system, I cannot really see this kind of thing happening in the US, unless someone with a very religious agenda comes to power in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stoning_of_Soraya_M.