Meaningless. There are too many things which make it a non-representative subgroup for it to be any kind of valid representation of the opinions of the population at large. As diverse a group as this appears to be, it would probably surprise us all to know how much we have in common making us a distinct group.spastic bullet wrote:
Not scientific or binding in any legal sense, sure -- obviously -- but "meaningless"? If it was even remotely close, maybe. If bf2 players are somehow way more pro-sovereignty than the general populace, sure. If you believe the opinion of people who live in "free democracies" is negligible, definitely.
If you are expecting me to defend the legitimacy or rectitude of having US forces in Iraq, you will have to wait a bit longer. I'm not, at this time, talking about the hot buttons of whether or not we should be there, or if our conduct there is appropriate. I am stating the facts: There is no SOFA, therefore Iraq has no jurisdiction. If you want to discuss whether or not that is 'right', or if it is likely to hurt our relations with Iraq, perhaps someone else will be happy to oblige.spastic bullet wrote:
All of this seems to undercut the idea that the US is not an occupying force, and that Iraq has sovereignty. SOFAs are always a source of friction between the US and the "host" nation with which they are negotiated. When one is absent, and status is unilaterally imposed, is this likely to reduce such friction?
I have not read much of that thread. With all due respect to Gunslinger (and I do respect him as a brother soldier), in my experience there weren't to many smiles (which is not the same as saying we didn't try to do good things for them, just that it didn't matter; they still hate us). Then again, I was in Al-Anbar for 12 of my 18 months in Iraq. Al-Anbar can easily be classified as the most hostile province in the country, and includes such cities as Ramadi, Fallujah, and Haditha, as will as most of the Syran border with Iraq. Nevertheless, I believe that at least a sizable minority (approaching half) of Iraqis are hostile to US forces for one reason or another, and given what I know about Iraqi behavior, such a trial would be used to vent a feeling of frustration at the presence of US forces. They would convict him regardless of the evidence presented simply to excercise an opportunity to show superiority over US forces. I don't believe an American can get a fair trial in Iraq. That is my opinion based on my experience in Iraq...reasonable soldiers may disagree.spastic bullet wrote:
What if we put together a jury made up of happy smiling Iraqis, like the ones in Gunslinger's pic thread? Again, what kind of sovereign nation is not allowed to process its own criminal trials?
Oh, and as of 3 July I am no longer Sergeant Whittsend, I am Mr. Whittsend. Echo Tango Foxtrot...thank you! (Not that it necessarily interests you, spastic_bullet, but if any of the soldiers I have spoken with in this forum are reading, they might be interested to hear it.)
Yes. He was a soldier under the UCMJ when the alleged crime was committed, and therefore, I believe, he is accountable under that code. US courts have no jurisdiction over Iraqi soil - except insofar as federal courts may take judgements over the military, but that is not the case here. Option 4 is only available when a violation of international law has occured, AND the country in question is a signatory of the various agreements which; a) constitute the law in question, and b) define the IGO in question (I know that cases have occured where international 'law' has been applied to countries which were not signatory, but we both know that is simply a case of force being used against the loser of the conflict; international 'law' cannot be applied against a sovereign nation which is not a signatory of the law in question.) The latter is not the case here, and I don't believe there is any violation of the former if the soldier is tried under the UCMJ.spastic bullet wrote:
There are four options: 1. Try him under UCMJ; 2. Try him under US civilian law; 3. Try him under Iraqi civilian law; 4. Try him under International Criminal Court law.
We can disagree about whether option #1 would hurt or help US forces' image in the region, but it seems practically all of us agree that option #2 makes no sense at all.