Private Eddie Slovik/Merged

As a career soldier, I got no sympathy for a deserter and one that did it during wartime deserves no slack: he was guilty and got what he deserved by the UCMJ. If Ike had a buy into that decision, and approved it: then it was solid as his decision to go on and invade Normandy.

Drop the Atomic Bomb: never met a WWII vet that regretted that decision .

I have a great respect for human life and hate to see it taken away or wasted. This soldier made a decision and knew the consequences just like a criminal knows the consequences and conducts a crime.

This soldier had a choice and made the wrong one. He is solely responsible for losing his life. There is no honor due him nor remorse for taking his life merited.

Cowardice, Desertion, Traitors : No Slack in my book: Prosecute and let the Uniform Code of Military Justice sort out the facts and render a verdict.

Death for rape or carnal knowledge? The later could be interputed to mean a consenting affair? Please explain, because that sure went on!

Amen, MILPRILEB!
ARMORKAV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave

Death for rape or carnal knowledge? The later could be interputed to mean a consenting affair? Please explain, because that sure went on!

---

Carnal knowledge usually means sex with an underage minor. So the degree of consent would depend on the age of the partner.

I understand what you're saying about no slack, but what about the other 40,000+? Maybe we could round up any that are still alive and shoot them, too. After all, they have it coming...

"Father Cummings, the Regiment's Catholic Chaplain presents an interesting story and character to follow to the end, as you experience his unusual relationship and influence upon the frontline soldiers he served, as well as his role in the sad and senseless execution of Private Eddie Slovik." -Don Malarkey, author of "Easy Company Soldier" and a D-Day Veteran of the infamous Easy Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division

Quote:

---

I understand what you're saying about no slack, but what about the other 40,000+?

---

If there is injustice in the application of the death penalty, it is that we don't do it enough to make a difference.

Each case has its own set of facts and circumstances, if there were 40,000 other deserters tried by the UCMJ and they did not get sentenced to death, then there must be good reasons specific to each case. Desertion during wartime is a serious offense in the US military of that time and has not changed.

I would like to remind folks that each service member swears an oath to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Slovik swore that oath as did everyone in WWII.

The fact is this man was a deserter and was found guilty. Revisionist history writing or speculating about this deserters execution being anything other than a just decision is outrageous.

Let's keep our focus on those who DID THEIR DUTY in WWII.

I'm not trying to have an argument and I certainly don't need to be lectured about the oath of service. I first took that oath in 1983 when I entered the Army. I took it seriously enough that when the events of 2001 transpired I went back into the military and ended up going to Iraq - because I take oaths I sweat THAT seriously. I have nothing but the highest regard for ALL who do their duty, not just in a specific conflict.

However, the topic of this thread is Slovik, not the millions who have done the right thing. I am not defending Slovik at all. I have previously stated that he got what he deserved. I DO question the decision to execute him. How many of the other sentenced to death for desertion (during WW2) were executed? None. So why did the others get a pass? Did Slovik desert worse than the others? Were the others nicer guys? Who knows. The only point I'm making is if you kill one, you kill all, don't pick and choose. I don't find it outrageous at all to think this might have been an unjust decision, the singularity of the decision points to it.

Quote:

---

How many of the other sentenced to death for desertion (during WW2) were executed? None. So why did the others get a pass?

---

That is the key question. Opponents of the death penalty say it isn't a deterrant (ignoring that it deterrs the person executed from committing more crimes.) The reason it isn't a better deterrant is that the odds of a henious criminal being executed are about those of a person being struck by lightning -- and we don't go around holding lightning rods over our heads, do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey

That is the key question. Opponents of the death penalty say it isn't a deterrant (ignoring that it deterrs the person executed from committing more crimes.) The reason it isn't a better deterrant is that the odds of a henious criminal being executed are about those of a person being struck by lightning -- and we don't go around holding lightning rods over our heads, do we?

---

Opponents of the death penalty are making a phoney argument. The death penalty was never enacted into law to be a deterrent. The word penalty can have two meanings. One, punishment. The other, a fee for damages. It is the second that defines the death penalty which, is a payment for damages caused to society as a whole.

It goes back to English common law where everyone being subjects of the crown if one subject harmed another subject then they did harm to the crown and the crown demanded restitution in the form of payment either in cash, loss of property, loss of freedom or the ultimate loss - loss of life.