^^^^ This, what clubleaf said. Spot on. My take:

No video - he deserves no attention, even in death. Get seven active-duty combat veterans for the firing squad - all volunteers. No 19-y/o, wet behind the ears, PFC MP right out of AIT. You want guys who have already killed enemy combatants. Attendees: installation commander, provost marshal (who gives the order to fire), public affairs officer (PAO) and senior medical officer. One official Army photographer who takes only two pictures - one before he's shot and one after. Anyone directly affected by his actions (anyone he wounded or spouse of anyone he killed) can attend, if they request to view the execution. Everyone else - off the range. No media whatsoever. Execution at sunrise. Media gets two photos and a statement from PAO. Burn his body and throw the ashes into the Gulf of America. Warning to all attendees after the execution - keep your mouths shut.

If this is live streamed, you know this asshole is going to be yelling aloha snack bar at the top of his lungs, over and over, until seven bullets rip his heart apart. Unless gagged. Is this what we want on live TV?

Zero attention at all.

Take the trash out behind the barracks, a bullet to the back of the head, feed him to the hogs.
No grave, no place to remember him at.

Media release:
“Nifal Husain? Yeah, whatever it’s name was… well… he’s dead. Next question?”
And move on.

An interesting (to me) development:

“Catholics serving in the U.S. Army should not participate in the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan that the Pentagon is planning to livestream in December, a prominent U.S. archbishop said on Monday.

“In an unusually strongly worded statement, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who oversees the spiritual care of Catholic members of the U.S. armed forces, raised a series of objections to the unprecedented plan to broadcast the execution of Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in a 2009 shooting spree.”

The basis for his prohibition was not completely clear to me from the article, but seemed to focus on the planned live streaming that would make it a barbaric “public spectacle.”

https://www.armytimes.com/news...tm_campaign=army-dnr

^^^^^
Army/Military Times mis-reported and mis-quoted what was actually said. Their headline said “must not” participate; and then the story said “should not” participate. Different words, obfuscation, and quibbling over what is being reported.

This is what he, Archbishop Broglio who oversees for Catholic military members, actually said: “I oblige any Catholics assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused from this action contrary to the teaching of the Church,” Broglio said.

Once again, the editors of “Military Times” are putting words in others mouths and give wrong impressions. Do we have an “agenda” at work here?

Thanks.
At least it wasn’t a video.

Added:

“As I would in the case of a procured abortion, I oblige any Catholics assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused from this action contrary to the teaching of the Church.” [Emphasis added.]

I would argue that “I oblige” is pretty much the same as “must.” That doesn’t excuse the sloppy paraphrasing by the Army Times, but I believe the Archbishop’s intent was reported correctly in essence.

Full statement here.

I am curious, though, what “agenda” you are referring to.

(And to make clear, I don’t have any special fondness for the AT, it was just where I found the reference to the statement. I should, however, have confirmed the exact statement before posting and will try to follow my own principles better in the future.)

I have been skeptical of anything reported in Army/Air Force/Military/Federal Govt Times etc ever since they were owned by the Gannett Media Corp.

I know that Gannett Corp eventually sold them to Regent L.P., but that doesn’t mean they have changed their spots.

And the “agenda” to which I alluded is the same with all news media, and that is to discredit the Trump Administration and those involved in it.

You know, the Army has Riot Shotguns in their inventory. And 00buckshot.

Perfect for dispatching traitors who shoot their own troops.

In fact I think all military executions should be done with shotguns. The OINC of the squad won’t have to use his sidearm much, if at all.

The notion that “all” news reporting businesses’ overarching goal is to discredit the President and everyone associated with him is simply wrong. The Wall Street Journal is an obvious exception to that claim. It is true that they avoid the one type of TDS, but I’ve seen no “derangement” in their reporting either.

I don’t agree with all of their criticisms of the Administration, but very often the things they do criticize are exactly those I criticize as well when I’m able to hold rational conversations with my friends.

On the other hand, just today a WSJ opinion piece discussing the murderer’s execution pointed out the many problems associated with sometimes-lethal injections that are avoided by an execution by gunfire. Yes, like many of us even on this forum, the piece expressed (very mild) doubt about the wisdom of televising the event, but that’s hardly an effort to discredit the President and everyone associated with him.

As for the Army Times, it’s a news reporting business as well, and that’s what it does: report news. And it’s hard for me to imagine anything much more newsworthy than a high religious authority’s telling members of the armed forces that they are “obliged” to avoid an official duty that he disagrees with. In fact, I don’t recall anything comparable in American military history. There were undoubtedly other examples that I don’t remember or am not aware of, but they were obviously very few.

I also found it more than a little odd that the archbishop’s primary objection to streaming the planned execution was that it was an insult to the murdering terrorist’s “dignity,” although he also used the opportunity to state that the church also opposed capital punishment at all. Are both of those positions expressed by a high authority of the Catholic Church good for members of the armed forces and the general public to know? I believe so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

quote:

I also found it more than a little odd that the archbishop’s primary objection to streaming the planned execution was that it was an insult to the murdering terrorist’s “dignity,” although he also used the opportunity to state that the church also opposed capital punishment at all. Are both of those positions expressed by a high authority of the Catholic Church good for members of the armed forces and the general public to know? I believe so.

The Catholic church is pro-life, from conception to natural death. The Catholic church is against abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. The Catholic church is consistent in its support for all human life.

Speaking only for myself, I disagree to some extent. I believe capital punishment can be justified on the basis of self-defense moreso than on the basis of punishment. Individuals have a right to self-defense, and so does society as a whole.

However, I do think capital punishment should be rare. There have been instances where innocent people have been wrongly executed. Prosecutors have made names for themselves by bringing capital murder cases to well-publicized trials.

quote:

The Catholic church is pro-life, from conception to natural death.

So what is the teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to serving in the military or law enforcement, where one might have to kill ("an unnatural death") in the line of duty? Just curious.

This was the primary point I was trying to make about finding the archbishop’s statement odd, not that he was objecting to capital punishment per se, and which is probably more common than not these days:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
the archbishop’s primary objection to streaming the planned execution was that it was an insult to the murdering terrorist’s “dignity”

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
the archbishop’s primary objection to streaming the planned execution was that it was an insult to the murdering terrorist’s “dignity”

Yes, I find that odd too.