home

Military Penalties In Perspective

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 10:28:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Charles Graner faced 15 years for abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, and was sentenced to ten years.

Air Force cadet Jonathan Belkowitz faced up to 50 years after being found guilty of solicitation to buy and use steroids and making a false statement. He was acquitted of "wrongful use, importation, introduction or distribution."

The judge in Belkowitz' case is recommending dismissal from the Air Force as a sanction for him, but still, why does a drug offense carry up to 50 years while human rights violations and crimes of violence like Graner's carry only 15?

< Iran May Be Next on Bush's Agenda | Zephyr 's Latest Distraction: Policing the Blogosphere >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Military Penalties In Perspective | 20 comments (20 topical)
    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    It's a values thing that only redstaters really get. We have to win the war on drugs. Beating and killing heathens, muslims, and various ethnics is part of our mission to bring democracy to the world, but the war on drugs is a values thing. Makes perfect sense from a certain perspective. Apparently 40% or more of the American population may be seeing the world from this perspective. As Chief Dan George said, there is an unlimited supply of white men, but there has always been a limited number of human beings.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    Clearly it is because drug offenses are important. We don't want people around the world believing that American military cadets would use steroids.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    CA - The judge in this case is a military judge, and the charge is a federal charge. So, why do you issue a completely dumb attack on "redstaters?" It accomplishes nothing and serves nothing but your ego. And you wonder why the Demos lost? Maybe the "redstaters" have become tired of such nonsense from people who - wrongly - think they are smarter, better and moral than the rest of the country.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    "It accomplishes nothing and serves nothing but your ego." This from King Ego. HAHAHA! you make me laugh Jim. ( and what a clever nick you gave yourself. "Poker Player" = pure genius.) Why not address the issue here Jimmy old bean? Surely you can find some bizarre method of defending these sentencing issues? Please don't disappoint me! I await more pearls of wisdom!!

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    PPJ - A pretty good case can be made for the notion that we need to incarcerate folks for "illegal drugs" for lengthier terms than violent crimes still tends to be accepted political wisdom more in the conservative red states than in blue states. Although I haven't done a scientific study of this, I and other editors have posted tens of thousands of news articles to an internet archive that can help shed some light on this, at least in a qualitative way. Go to the Media Awareness Project site search tool, and look at the stories which can be selected by state and topic, such as "incarceration" or "mandatory minimum sentences". IMHO, the idea that drug use is a bigger moral threat than prisoner abuse or violent crime can be readily discerned in such states particularly as TX, OK, VA, NC, SC, UT etc. than in the states which voted blue, and the numbers of incarcerated persons and size of the prison systems seem to bear this out. J

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    Dearest No Name I have noted several times in the past that we need to ratonalize our drug policy, and I feel no need to defend my position. My comment was just to remind CA, and yourselves if the shoe fits, that attacks on people you must have as an ally to win is dumb. No Name - At least I identify myself. You appear to want to be able to take whatever position you want today, with no connection to what you wrote yestertday.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#7)
    by cp on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    simply put, the use of illegal drugs could destroy the integrity of the military, abusing pow's won't. or something like that. remember: cut twice, measure once!

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    PPJ - Silly, because he wants to help the Democrat party continue to lose like the redheaded stepchild at a buffet. I would put the point the other way: why doesn't this abuse merit the same penalty as the drug charges? I should note, before the ad-hominem attacks begin, that I am very much for fewer laws more evenly enforced. And that goes double for 'personal harm only' drugs like pot or 'roids. I also am for removing firearm restrictions so I can own that gatling gun I've always wanted, but that's a different point entirely. -C

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    Cliff - Yeah, but CA means well. He doesn't really want to help the Repubs. He just can't stand to miss a good rant. BTW - "I also am for removing firearm restrictions so I can own that gatling gun I've always wanted, but that's a different point entirely." Do your neighbors understand to not seriously pi*s you off?

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    nice try "Jim" or "Poker Player" or whoever you are....for all I know you could be a 43 year old guy still living in your mother's basement. There is no identification here...all the names you see are bogus, so it really is a pointless argument isnt it? You still make me laugh tho :D keep posting Jim!!!

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    Dearest No Name The chief reason for using a moniker is to allow that person to develop a history that will support their views. Without it, you can be against the war today, and for it tomorrow. What it does is give substance to your comments. If you don't want to use one, fine with me. But you will get very little respect.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    And you wonder why the Demos lost? Maybe the "redstaters" have become tired of such nonsense from people who - wrongly - think they are smarter, better and moral than the rest of the country. And these "red-staters" can think of no better revenge on us pompous elitists than another four years of a guy whose policies will actually f--k them over 10x worse than any Democrat ever has or ever will. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 06:54:39 PM EST
    I would hazard a guess that this is merely another example in the battle of property rights against human rights. And in such a battle, it is never surprising that human rights always loses. If you are dealing in illegal drugs, then you are amassing an enormous amount of extralegal income outside the legal revenue stream - which ain't being taxed. If you are using illegal drugs, then you are turning yourself into the worst kind of consumer: the kind of consumer that uses OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY to get their fix when their own money runs out. How in the hell can anyone have any respect for human rights if they do not FIRST have respect for property rights? Well, at least in THIS country. Actions speak so much louder than words.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    ernesto - No, make that: "And these "red-staters" can think of no better revenge on us pompous elitists who think they are so smart than another four years of a guy

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 07:37:59 PM EST
    PPJ - I only own a few guns (Kimber 45, Browning 9mm, Browning 22, Ruger 357) and the odd rifle or two (Daisy 22, Browning 30-06, Alba 5.62, K-S 8mm, Tec-9mm, FN-Fal 308) and one shotgun (Mossberg 12). What makes you think I'm well armed relative to my neighbors? I got a lot of vets in my hood. -C

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    why does a drug offense carry up to 50 years while human rights violations and crimes of violence like Graner's carry only 15?
    Because sometime in the last 100 years, our once great nation went insane, losing all contact with a little concept I call "common sense". PPJ, Cliff...It seems the majority of both the right and left favor a complete overhaul of US drug policy, with a few exceptions. Any thoughts on why it never gets done?

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#17)
    by cp on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    forget the guns, i want my own f14 tomcat! ever since i saw my first one, off of oceana, back in the fall of 74, i wanted one of those babies. the very best you can do with a gun is take out maybe a dozen people at a time. with an f14, i can take out an entire city at one time, and still be home for dinner!

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#18)
    by cp on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 08:38:46 PM EST
    sorry, got off on a tangent there! kdog, to answer your question, there is a very simple explanation: money. the drug companies, the politicians, the penal systems, law enforcement, all have a financial vested interest in retaining the status quo, with regard to the ridiculous drug laws. if the "war" in iraq is as successful as the "war" on drugs has been, be prepared for a very, very long haul. your grandchildren's grandchildren will be stationed in baghdad.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    if the "war" in iraq is as successful as the "war" on drugs has been, be prepared for a very, very long haul. your grandchildren's grandchildren will be stationed in baghdad. As the MIC and the PIC (Military and Prison Industrial Complexes) chug merrily along. Meanwhile the only war Uncle Sam ever gave up on was the "War on Poverty". I guess there wasn't enough profit potential there for the heavily subsidized private sector.

    Re: Military Penalties In Perspective (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    cp - Get you an A-6 with a good weapons officer to run the systems. Better armour and heavier load.

    Military Penalties In Perspective | 20 comments (20 topical)