Frag that

Soldier gets death penalty for killing officers in Kuwait

Hasan Akbar has been sentenced to death.


  1. Yes Bram, very clever indeed. Then the soldiers in Abu Gharib should have been sentenced to strip down and perform sex acts on each other, and then been beaten up and tied up.

  2. Jason: Not that I’m defending at all what happened at Abu Gharib, but there is a big difference between abuse of Iraqi prisoners and attacking your own officers. Don’t pretend that they’re in any way related.

  3. According to Bram, the punishment must fit the crime. I simply extended this primitive line of thinking to Abu Gharib. It is completely related when one discusses punishment. Also, I see that you would like to see that you would like to bring back being executed by a firing squad. How quaint.

  4. Bram didn’t really say that the punishment should fit the crime, only that those wronged should have a chance to ‘get back’. If you had said that the wronged Iraqi prisoners should dole out the punishment, maybe I could buy your ‘they’re related because we’re talking about punishment’ argument. Akbar didn’t attack by firing squad. If Bram had said kill him by sneak attack with rifle and grenades, maybe I could buy your ‘they’re related because we’re talking about punishment’ argument. Where did you see that I want to see the return of the firing squad? Not that I’m opposed in any way to the firing squad. I just don’t recall calling for its return. And how is a firing squad ‘quaint’ when compared to lethal injection? I’m not one who really cares about ‘poetic justice’, at least for death sentences. Quick and easy if that’s the sentence. Firing squad would be fine by me.

  5. ‘Firing squad would be fine by me.’ I’m with you Murdoc on this one…. To quote GARY GILMORE: ‘LET’S DO IT!’ At least Gary had the balls to refuse a hood and look death in the eye!

  6. Okay then: The wronged Iraqi prisoners should dole out the punishment. I somehow doubut you would be as okay with Iraqi prisoners brutally assaulting these pathetic ‘soldiers’, as you would with what Bram proposed.

  7. Thanks for the defense Murdoc. I hadn’t looked at this comment string in a while. I was not suggesting some kind of vengeance type punishment – just commenting on the method of execution. I was referring to the fact that firing squad is – or at least was – the traditional method of execution for a soldier. This sounds corny, but I would consider it more honorable than euthanasia. Not that there is much honor in this situation at all, but I (most soldiers I would think) would rather die in uniform standing at attention than strapped to a bed and drugged. There is also the aspect of taking care of your own. Now that he has been found guilty, it should be a matter for the 101st to take care of internally. Kind of like the old adage that ‘a man ought to shoot his own dog’ if it goes rabid. Instead, some anonymous prison officials and medical technicians will do it.

  8. As for the Abu Gharib nonsense, the soldiers in question are in the process of being punished. The Federal / military prison sentences and dishonorable discharges presently being meted certainly represent severe punishments. I wasn’t there and was so disgusted I could not pay close attention, so I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the punishments are appropriate. I do have a guess: If Charles Graner – just convicted of the equivalent of a Federal Felony and sentenced to 10 years at Fort Leavenworth and a Bad Conduct Discharge – had the option of getting his ass kicked while wearing panties instead – he would take the beating. I hope he finds religion at Leavenworth because his life on Earth is pretty much ruined.

  9. I wasn’t defending this wannabe Al-Qaeda ‘soldier’. I think he should suffer for what he did. All I was trying to say is that ‘an eye for an eye’ isn’t really the way to go about things, otherwise we would be beaheading and torturing these people.

  10. Jason: My mistake. I thought you must be taking exception to Bram’s suggestion that soldiers attacked by this fragger should levy the punishment. I apologize for my misunderstanding and for my badgering about exactly who should administer the punishment. I should have realized what you were getting at when you called a firing squad ‘quaint’. I thought that was just an offhand comment and not your main point. So, you never responded to what makes a firing squad ‘quaint’ and lethal injection fine. (Or is it maybe that all execution is ‘quaint’?) I guess I could see drawing and quartering, or stoning, or crucifixion, or burning at the stake all as ‘quaint’ methods of execution. But I guess I see a firing squad, especially for a convicted soldier, as a completely acceptable (and maybe even preferred) method of execution. I’m all for simplicity, and the easiest way for the Army to kill someone is with a bullet. (If it’s execution in general that you disagree with, I’ll simply agree to disagree. That’s not a discussion I’m interested in having for the thousandth time in my life. I’m sure I’ll have more opportunities in the future if I should change my mind.) As far as ‘otherwise we would be beheading and torturing these people’, my guess is that you’ll have a lot of takers on that proposition. And although I don’t agree, I do sympathize with those who would want that in at least some cases.

  11. Nope. Not an eye for an eye thing. I’ll leave that for the Almighty to administer or withhold in the next world.

  12. Having come across this discussion about the traditional means of executing deserters, fraggers, etc., I thought I might enquire about the traditional means of executing war criminals. I believe after Nuremberg the preferred method was hanging by piano wire. I am not sure if the criminal got to choose the gauge of the wire. Bush wouldnt know the difference; Cheney would have to choose a thick one or his head would come off. Rumsfeld would take the Goehring out. Also, just curious…anybody know if any soldier in Vietnam was even charged with fragging?