Friday, May 8, 2009

Not bloodthirsty, but...

In a war zone, this crime sounds a lot like justice to me. Probation and a fine, I have no problem with, maybe even a lesser fine.

The italicized stuff is bullshit to smooth over ugly reality:

[Federal public defender Michael] Nachmanoff said in court documents that Ayala had a visceral response to learning of Loyd's injuries and in a "perfect storm" of conditions abandoned his years of discipline and made the wrong choice.
Many a soldier in the field would do the same if someone ambushed his buddies the way Abdul Salam did Paula Loyd.


globeisatrocious said...

This is incoherent. The guy was a paid contractor with extensive military experience who put a bullet in the head of a handcuffed man who burned up one woman. What punishment should the recommender of caterpillar treatment of a detainee responsible for burning up 2000 innocent people get? Probation and a fine?

lovable liberal said...

You can't tell the difference between the heat of the moment inside the war zone and considered, memo-justified policy of torture?

That explains a lot.

globeisatrocious said...

And you, the diff between a caterpillar and a slug? Ditto.

lovable liberal said...

Hey, look, over there! Good argument, gia.

Silence DoGood said...

From the article, it happened on Nov 4. That was way before Obama took over so we should be calling for the guy's head and blaming Bush.
(that is sarcasm, BTW)

Hot blooded murder is sad but still a crime. Do you toss all research and reason when you are on a roll?

lovable liberal said...

I read the headline and expected to be outraged at a slap on the wrist. When I read the facts of the case, I was not.

In a war zone with no expectation of justice for a fallen and heinously murdered comrade, I would expect many people to react the way the defendant did. I might even react the same way.

However, it is possible that I'm wrong about this. Draconian punishment would be too harsh, but probation might be too light.

I suppose, SDG, that you think I blame Duhbya for too much. That's the implication of your hackneyed sarcasm (there's a bonehead on the Boston Globe comment threads who jokes that everything is Duhbya's fault on every thread).

The truth is that I don't even have time to blame Duhbya for all the many things that are his fault, so I don't need to fabricate culpability for him.

You, though, you're Questioning Authority, so long as it's not Bushist authority.

Silence DoGood said...

LL - Thanks once again for telling me what I believe not limited by my mere comments.

I have NEVER defended Bush. He is clearly and personally responsible and possibly liable for extreme damage to people and the very planet itself.

I questioned Bush and I will question Obama. And these things are not mutually exclusive outside of your cartoon world.

You might want to actually read a person's comments before you put them in a neat little safe place in which to drop judgements.

Normally this blog at least sees a pretense of research.

lovable liberal said...

So, what was the intent of your sarcasm? Did it have intent, or was it only a gibe in search of a target? Did you know it's a gibe frequently used by Bush apologists? Maybe not, but that's how I took it, quite legitimately.

I really think you mainly enjoy arguing.