Gay man attacked by two marines in Georgia / FBI and Justice Dept ponder filing Hate Crime charges

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Cpl. Keil Joseph Cronauer, 22 (left) and Lance Cpl. Christopher Charles Stanzel 23 (right)

Two Marines have been arrested [misdemeanor battery charges] for allegedly beating a gay man in Savannah, Georgia. Keil Cronauer and Christopher Stanzel are accused of attacking Kieran Daly so badly that he suffered bruises on his brain, reports the Savannah Morning News. In addition to the bruises, Daly suffered two seizures immediately after the attack. His friends performed CPR. While Cronauer and Stanzel told police that Daly was harassing them, Daly explained that the two were mad because they thought that he had winked at one of them. The Morning News reports: "The guy thought I was winking at him," Daly said. "I told him, 'I was squinting, man. ... I'm tired.'" Daly said one of the men told him he demanded respect because he served in Iraq. And at least one hurled slurs at him as he tried to walk away."That's the last thing I remember is walking away," Daly said. Because Georgia is one of just five states that does not have legislation requiring stiffer penalties for hate crimes, the marines were released to military police. The station reports that Cronauer and Stanzel are based at the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, South Carolina and are currently restricted to the base.

There are many sad things in the story, but the most perplexing question for me is why aren't these Marines in a brig and just merely confined to their base? This story during Gay Pride month confirms for me precisely the need for hate crimes laws: states and localities refusing to treat these cases in a serious manner. The FBI and Justice Dept are looking into the possibility of filing charges under the recently enacted Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Source.

Here's more information, and check out their commanding officer's reaction to all this. It will make your blood boil!

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Easy to say when your country was neutral throughout the Cold War. Whenever I hear European members of NATO griping about US militarism I'm reminded that they sure were happy to have our nuclear shield against Ivan. And if the proto-EU had had to secure *itself* against the Soviets Europe would not have become the semi-pacifistic hypocritical asshat continent it is.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

You are confusing topics here. First: I mean not only the US army, but basically many armies of the world when I talk about these problems. Second, I am currently living in the US, so yes, the parades are here, and while the US system in particular needs adoration and respect for troops, because of all the class dynamics involved in having to serve in the army, along with other societal dynamics, there is still a problem in how certain cases are treated.

As for neutrality..well, that's a big topic. In reality, Sweden was always and has always been much closer to the US than it was to mother Russia, which stranded Russian Subs in the 80's and other political crises showed, there is a need for neutral countries in the world too, but they are never as neutral as their official stance seems to point at. It's curious that you seem to call criticism of militarism "griping", is it just that you don't agree with particular NATO cases of complaint or is it that you'd rather see that no one complained about any military actions of the world's most powerful country? Do certain rights invalidate certain wrongs and make them unreachable to critics?

Note also, I didn't actually address the topic of militarism in my comment.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yet most armies of the First World, including the Israeli army, have done this without any loss of combat efficiency. They run integrated units of homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals without any problem.

I call it cowardice given you did not intervene either when the USSR was trying its damndest to beat Finland, nor when Nazi Germany and its Finnish ally were fighting to the east against the USSR.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

What are we debating? (if anything)
That there are armies that integrate people of different sexualities more successfully than, for instance the US army: sure!

That the Swedish political stance was not very impressive during WWII: sure! (particularly measured against its Scandinavian neighbors)
(although you're jumping between topics like a headless hen, since I responded to your cold war neutrality comment)

And yet still you avoided answering my question to you: is it just that you don't agree with particular NATO cases of complaint or is it that you'd rather see that no one complained about any military actions of the world's most powerful country? Do certain rights invalidate certain wrongs and make them unreachable to critics?