|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an amazing turn of events, a follow-up story revealed that the marine begged for leniency on behalf of his wife. He deserves a good swift kick in his ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the marine begged for leniency on behalf of his wife
Does that mean that he can now retaliate with impunity (clear evidence of learned helplessness disorder)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:11 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The sentences apply to different crimes!
The one who threw the grande was prosecuted by Court Martial since he was a serving marine, she in US Federal Court since she was a civilian - different jurisdictions - different standards, different rate of penalty. He committed the crime when on active service and in a War Zone which implies added culpability, big time. Time was this would have been a hanging offence. He was a fool and arguably got off lightly.
The Judge remained "unmoved" by the charade put on by the woman and seems to have lamented the fact that the law prevented him from imposing a more severe penalty on her for comitting a crime in war zone - calls the crime "unfathomable" etc. At any rate, she didn't get the minimum as she requested.
DA questions motives of victim.
She does not get 87 months - or 7 years, 3 months.
She gets 12 years and 3 months - of which five years are on probation, which is equivalent to parole. If she, after she gets out, were to offend again within these five years, or breaches parole or whatever, in she goes for the rest. How close that is to the maximum allowable, I don't know, but it is a considerable chunk of time - and quite rightly so. This is not a "slap on the wrist".
Neither the judge nor the DA were taken in by the tears and the pleas and some harsh comments were made regarding both Wendi and Houston, the loving couple. The "what about my children" plea didn't work.
However, she co-operated in her paramour/co-accused's prosecution (aka as she sold him down the river)and this - if not always, at least most of the time - leads to reduced sentence. Maybe this was the case here, too. We will never know for the cases were heard in different Courts under different jurisdictions.
It is the victim, Houston Glass, who intends to exploit the situation - not the woman. He ain't no "lily-white soul" either. His pleas for clemency for his wife are highl;y suspect - as the DA remarked. They seem to be calculated to provide added talk-back fodder, which translates into $$.
Moreover, we all know and are aware of the "sexual discount" accorded to women in sentencing - and regrettable as that may be, there's nothing new in that.
There used to be the principle of the "auctor intellectualis" to be held equally culpable as the actual "doer of the deed". This seems to be the case here, too ("You attempted to commit murder in a war zone and diguise it as a terrorist attack".) We will never know to what extent it may have been applied here or not, for the same reasons as mentioned before and above: different courts, different codes.
An excellent report of an excellent decision.
This not a case of anti-male discrimination.
Prospective Female Criminals, however, should take note, though - maybe the tide is turning and that at least one judge no longer seems to buy into the feminist argument of a woman being less culpable than a man.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't see this specifically as a case of anti-male discrimination in sentencing, I saw it as an example of female manipulation, getting a man to do her dirty work for her, and then when it goes wrong - as you so rightly say - selling him down the river to save her own skin.
Before anyone starts flaming me, I'm not saying that all females do this, I am saying that most of those who do this kind of thing are female. There is a difference in male and female methods, and women more likely to recruit proxy attackers to do their work for them, as in this case.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
There have also been numerous cases of men using women as decoys or proxies in the commission of crimes. Often, in such instances, the women have been held less culpable. Indeed, one frequent and justifiable complaint of men is that such women have often been excused of all complicity and treated as "victims" of evil, manipulative, patriarchal males and then appeared on prime-time chat shows which we shall not name. This skewing of guilt is one cause of female violence seemingly being less frequent than that of men.
In this case we don't know who was the prime mover - therefore, one should not judge without knowing all the facts. Was it a case of "I'll blow him up" (his suggestion/proposal which she accepted or, at the very least, did not discourage) or "You blow him up" (an order, which he followed) or any other arrangememnt?
I think the defence may have been trying to play the former card: plead guilty to attempted murder, sell him out and tell'm he made you do it and play the woman card. and remember, the judge is a man - so scrub up, cry a lot and tell him you're a mummy and what about the kiddies! And stress that you're sorry, very sorry. If nothing else, it will get you a lighter sentence.
We don't know, of course, for we don't have access to the discussions nor the transcript and it is dangerous and maybe unhelpful to speculate on what could have been or might have been or any other "what-if" scenario.
What is so heartening in this case is that what ever it was, it didn't work. Indeed, the reported comment by the judge in response to her tears and mommy card was damning and quite father-friendly: "You would gladly have robbed your children of their father, so don't you come the raw prawn with me, sister!" - or words to that effect.
But I must agree with you - to make men do her dirty work is every woman's prime object in life. This ranges from raking the leaves in the garden and carrying out the garbage - through to paying for her dinner or whatever else, to ultimately laying down his life in honour of her and be despised for it in the process and in the end. And in return he gets - what? Well, I leave that to everyone's private imagination, but whatever it is, it's cheaper to rent.
But, Angry M - my reason for replying to your post was that you were wrong in your assessment/comment - wrong both in the sentence (it was not 7 years) and in the monetary exploitation (it was he, not she, who stood to make the cash). She couldn't have profited, for she had pleaded guilty and would go to gaol. She knew that, for she asked - but did not get - the minimum sentence.
That indicated that either you had not fully understood the article (perish the thought!) or had failed to read it carefully - probably the latter. That was sloppy work and - had you been a student of mine - it would have resulted in a "fail" assessment - or, had I been more generously inclined (and I have been known to be generous on rare, very rare, occasions), I would have sent it back for revision - with suitably encouraging comments, of course. Such a comment could have been my heading "read carefully etc..."
If we constantly and rightly accuse the opposition of "telling lies", "diseminating false information" and generally doing the "wrong thing", we must be extremeley vigilant not to do the same. It doesn't help us win our case.
The encouraging thing, however - and possibly an "untended outcome" of feminism - is that men are gradually and slowly - much too slowly - waking up to the old female ploys and refusing to fall into line. That's what mainly fuels the radfems' rage - and a joy it is to watch, too, to be sure! They realize they can't get away with it anymore!
But, unfortunately, there will always be foolish men who will be seriously damaged. And, equally regrettably, a few rare and innocent females may get hurt in the process, too. Ah well, when making omelettes........
There are few books called "Where have all the Good Girls gone", but there are plenty of tomes that bewail the disappearance of the "Good Men" - although we may perhaps have to point out a possible conflict and likely difference in the meaning of "good" here.
It would appear, then, that women are short of men, not the other way around. "How is a girl going to survive in a world without men?" seems to be their main worry. And then they rent one! For men seem to be disposable to women and subject to instant dismissal without notice or cause but can, strangely indeed, still be sued for damages - aka wife support.
So, if men don't like what women do - let them stay away from them. And let them always remember - it's an open market and the value of women is falling - so don't buy; rent it! Alternatively and if you have to, get one under contract - aka pre-nuptial agreement, properly drawn up and legally enforceable, of course. After all, a fellow needs protection.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Respectful bow)
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:21 PM November 24th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
which is graciously acknowledged.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I have been reading your posts with interest. I find your writing style to be quite concise, well thought out, and deductive. (you're a better technical writer than myself - you bastard!)
Anywho, just had not seen your "handle" before and wanted to welcome you to Men's Activism, to the "fun" we engage in, and express my hope to see more of your writing.
(you're as long winded as I am!)
Be blessed, happy Thanksgiving
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:37 PM November 24th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the welcome and for the blessing.
Much appreciated.
And may the gods smile on you, too.
I much enjoy sharing in the fun!
Neale
(I'm from Australia - we don't celebrate Thanksgiving here - but we'll be with you in spirit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:39 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Not Nitpicking here but its a grenade not a grande for easier reading.
None the less, the military could have if they had wanted to transferred custody and prosecution of the case over to the host country which in this case is Kuwait. The penalty for attempted murder, treason, infidelity is hanging in virtually all Islamic countries. God help you if your a female you stand virtually no chance of being acquitted.
I seriously doubt it would have happened but the avenue is available none the less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:42 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Why, thank you, old darling - that was very helpful! I shall try to be more careful in future.
Try, mind you - not promise!
By the way - it's "it's" - not "its"
And it is "if you're a female" - not "if your a female". Perhaps you have trouble with possessives or does the elusive apostrophe confound you?
Whatever. Punctuation and general grammar also leave a lot to be desired. But you're right: let's not pick nits. Things are lousy enough the way they are.
Still, those in glass houses...........?
However, you are quite correct - it is extremely unlikely - indeed, well nigh impossible to imagine - that the US would have handed over the trial of a US citizen for a crime committed against a US marine on a US base during a US-war to a "foreign", no matter how supposedly "friendly" power's jurisdiction - especially if executions were possible. The mind boggles! To have foreigners, even - perhaps especially - reputedly "friendly" ones, try and possibly execute a US citizen - even, or perhaps especially, a woman - for a crime against a US citizen - why! that's a casus belli! And one doesn't go to war with one's friends in any case - at least not while one still needs them. And Kuwait was - and, last time I looked - still is - a "friend" so, presumably they are still needed.
So an option it was not - for it would have set an unacceptable precedent. Precedents like that have to be - and are, generally - avoided like the plague. If the prospect of a local trial had ever been canvassed (and we don't know if it has) and if the Kuwaiti Government had had any sense (and we know it has), it would have refused to try the case. They need the US, too.
If your point was that the US kept the trial "in house" so as to "safe" the culprit - a woman - from possible execution, I think you're off-target. Perhaps that was not your point.
And in any case - none but criminals have to be afraid of the law. "You don't like hanging? - don't offend. Them's our rules and you know that. Don't say we didn't warn you." I think that's called a deterrent?
And in any event, if Islamic countries supposedly kill women for adultery, that's the other extreme perhaps of rewarding them for it and punishing the innocent men and children, even those as yet unborn, as is done in many "civilized" countries. Maybe neither should so readily take to the moral high ground?
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This woman plotted a bombing attack on American troops, why wasn't she charged with terrorism? If she'd succeeded it would have looked like terrorism, and isn't that the distinction? Violence that causes terror is terrorism.
Half-baked Patriot Act is only good for prosecuting doctors in Oregon and confiscating Cheech's bong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
If the perp had been a MAN, beleive me HE would have been charged with terrorism.
But it was a woman this time and as we all know; "It's different"(sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you are a troll looking to make us look bad, or someone who genuinly feels this way I would ask you not to post so glib and counter productive reply.
If you are of the former catagory (Troll) then I really can't say much to you because in reality you don't really care about our issues and you put that comment there for the sole purpose of "fishing" to get US to say follow statements of hate, or to copy and paste it to show WE hate women. Neither will happen or is the case. We want equity and parity under the law and not "revenge" on any woman walking down the street. It is, ironically, that same "revenge" on the innocent that led so many of us to be involved in the movement we are in.
If you are the latter case, a man who was wronged, then I express my sadness that you were so deeply hurt as to say what you said.
It is no secret, and I do not mind expressing, that I am involved in the men's/father's movement partially due to a false accusation of rape.
I disclose this to you to let you know that if you are a man who was wronged and you were venting that I truly understand your anger. Many of my first posts were of the "the cork has come out of the bottle at long last" variety.
I would, again, tell you that I DO understand your frustration, rage, and your deep seated mistrust of the opposite sex.
But, I would also ask you to consider a few things.
1) This board is HIGHLY visible I mean that it is linked to many men's sites and consequently it is ALSO frequented by many lurking feminists who LOVE to see us spew anger.
2) Once you post it's "out there" forever. After I had passed my "venting stage" I became, and am now, a voice of moderation (lol, ok, not always!) and one who wants to solve the problems. Sure, I wish to punish the wrong doer, but I do not think that creating more women who despise men by our adopting feminazi tactics will serve our needs.
3) I hope that if you are a man wronged that you become involved here. We do letter writing campaigns, help teach each other how to counter myths, and offer mutual support.
I hope you take my words in the spirit offered: with the best intentions.
Respectfully,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon, this is a young woman who is striding to improve society to benefit men and boys who are tyrranized by feminist-bigots and that's a very damning post to our site and cause. Like LSBeene said, some feminazi troll can come here and cut and paste your comments and put it on her feminazi blog. Hell, she could use it as a way of shutting us down because the mass populous will assume that we're misogynistic masculinazis who want to put women back in the kitchen and keep them pregnant all the time (I like to see somebody try to do that to me, I hope they like kicking and screaming fury).
I understand that so many men on here have been wronged by our "Justice" System, but let's not stoop so low as the feminazis and say things like "I hate this sex." I just say that I hate some members of my sex. Don't generalize in your hatred. Hate the bigotted feminists of my sex of course, but don't hate women like me who are trying to help you.
But then again you could just be a feminazi troll who is trying to pretend to be a Men's Rights Activist and sabotage our site. So a big 'fuck you' to you feminazi, if that's true. We aren't women-haters. We're just feminazi haters ;-)
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
