Not fussed who tries him, so long as somebody does and give him a punishment appropriate for such a crime!
No.
He'll get his in our court system.
He's fucked for life.
He'll get his in our court system.
He's fucked for life.
Well considering the hold the US has over the Iraqi government, does it really make a difference as to which side tries him?
Is that your view on the issue legally, or morally, or both?whittsend wrote:
It is implicit when one consents to serve that one will not be left to the mercy (or lack thereof) of a foreign power for actions undertaken on Uncle Sam's time; and that one will, instead, be held accountable to the UCMJ.
The lack of a Status-of-Forces Agreement with Iraq would seem to strengthen the majority view that he should be tried in Iraq, not the other way around...whittsend wrote:
Do we have a SOFA with Iraq? Probably not.
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty unambiguous to me. More importantly, it also makes sense from a moral viewpoint, as well as in terms of Iraq's sovereignty (or lack thereof).globalsecurity.org wrote:
Negotiating a SOFA begins with the assumption that the presence of U.S. military forces is in the interests of the host government as well as the U.S. government. The starting proposition is that the host country exercises complete authority over all of its territory and over anyone who is in that territory, subject to any agreements that make exceptions to that authority.
That's probably what they told this guy when he signed up too. It's highly dependent on how you define "Uncle Sam's time", and whether any attempt is made to be consistent in that regard. Speaking of which, Green is not being "held accountable to the UCMJ" -- he's currently being processed through the US civilian courts.whittsend wrote:
It is implicit when one consents to serve that one will not be left to the mercy (or lack thereof) of a foreign power for actions undertaken on Uncle Sam's time; and that one will, instead, be held accountable to the UCMJ.
And not US civilian law either, then, presumably.whittsend wrote:
Given the fact that, unlike in, say, Germany, one is always 'on the clock' in Iraq (there aren't too many three day passes given out for a trip to Baghdad or Basra), the jurisdiction is clear: He can only be held accountable under UCMJ, and not Iraqi law.
I think what's "fair" and what's "for the best" are matters of opinion. A huge majority here seem to think it fair, and for the best, that he be tried in Iraq.whittsend wrote:
Furthermore, I have signifiicant doubts regarding his ability to get a fair trial in Iraq, so this is probably for the best anyway.
"Can", maybe. But it seems they considered this and decided against it. Why?whittsend wrote:
I'm pretty sure that he can still be charged under UCMJ.2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
However he was discharged before the crime had been discovered. Which made him a civilian again.
Green's alleged crimes did not take place on a US base, and were not committed against a US entity. He is not being held accountable under UCMJ, despite his alleged crimes having occurred on "Uncle Sam's time", by some definitions.whittsend wrote:
If you commit a crime in German territory you are accountable under German law, under the terms of the SOFA. If you commit a crime on a US base in Germany against a US entity, you are only accountable under UCMJ, unless I am mistaken.2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
If i screwed up in Germany...not mattering if I am military or not. Which I am, i would still be subject to Germany's laws not the military's or the US's. However if i did it in the US i would get double shafted by the military and the US. LOL
This being the case, how his trial falls under US civilian jurisdiction is a mystery to not just me, but apparently everybody who has posted on the matter so far. No doubt an "explanation" for this will appear at some point, allowing everybody to adopt a position they find most consistent with their stated worldview.
It just hasn't appeared yet, so all we have to go by in the meantime are our own instinctive, moral reflexes.
I agree, if the US is going to show it has faith in the new Iraqi govt. it MUST respect it by showing that Americans are not to be an exception to their laws. The perfect way to do this I feel is to turn this man over to the Iraqi govt. Perhaps a good compromise might be to let him have an American or military lawyer representing him at his trial. In my mind what this man is accused of are war crimes. Not unlike Hussein. and degrees of crimes like this do not matter. Committing this act once is enough since you only have one life to forfeit anyway. After a fair trial by Iraq's standards and found to be guilty of course.spastic bullet wrote:
The lack of a Status-of-Forces Agreement with Iraq would seem to strengthen the majority view that he should be tried in Iraq, not the other way around...whittsend wrote:
Do we have a SOFA with Iraq? Probably not.I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty unambiguous to me. More importantly, it also makes sense from a moral viewpoint, as well as in terms of Iraq's sovereignty (or lack thereof).globalsecurity.org wrote:
Negotiating a SOFA begins with the assumption that the presence of U.S. military forces is in the interests of the host government as well as the U.S. government. The starting proposition is that the host country exercises complete authority over all of its territory and over anyone who is in that territory, subject to any agreements that make exceptions to that authority.That's probably what they told this guy when he signed up too. It's highly dependent on how you define "Uncle Sam's time", and whether any attempt is made to be consistent in that regard. Speaking of which, Green is not being "held accountable to the UCMJ" -- he's currently being processed through the US civilian courts.whittsend wrote:
It is implicit when one consents to serve that one will not be left to the mercy (or lack thereof) of a foreign power for actions undertaken on Uncle Sam's time; and that one will, instead, be held accountable to the UCMJ.And not US civilian law either, then, presumably.whittsend wrote:
Given the fact that, unlike in, say, Germany, one is always 'on the clock' in Iraq (there aren't too many three day passes given out for a trip to Baghdad or Basra), the jurisdiction is clear: He can only be held accountable under UCMJ, and not Iraqi law.I think what's "fair" and what's "for the best" are matters of opinion. A huge majority here seem to think it fair, and for the best, that he be tried in Iraq.whittsend wrote:
Furthermore, I have signifiicant doubts regarding his ability to get a fair trial in Iraq, so this is probably for the best anyway."Can", maybe. But it seems they considered this and decided against it. Why?whittsend wrote:
I'm pretty sure that he can still be charged under UCMJ.2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
However he was discharged before the crime had been discovered. Which made him a civilian again.Green's alleged crimes did not take place on a US base, and were not committed against a US entity. He is not being held accountable under UCMJ, despite his alleged crimes having occurred on "Uncle Sam's time", by some definitions.whittsend wrote:
If you commit a crime in German territory you are accountable under German law, under the terms of the SOFA. If you commit a crime on a US base in Germany against a US entity, you are only accountable under UCMJ, unless I am mistaken.2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
If i screwed up in Germany...not mattering if I am military or not. Which I am, i would still be subject to Germany's laws not the military's or the US's. However if i did it in the US i would get double shafted by the military and the US. LOL
This being the case, how his trial falls under US civilian jurisdiction is a mystery to not just me, but apparently everybody who has posted on the matter so far. No doubt an "explanation" for this will appear at some point, allowing everybody to adopt a position they find most consistent with their stated worldview.
It just hasn't appeared yet, so all we have to go by in the meantime are our own instinctive, moral reflexes.
I think he should be tried where the crime was allegedly committed. If he is tried in the US (para 1-4b (6) ) of the U.S.ARMY Corrections Systems: Procedures for Military Executions states that other locations for executions can be used. I would like to see this "other Location" be Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf
It's a complex issue. Did he really do it? Regardless of whether or not he did it, the Iraqi court would likely be biased against him. If they motion to extradite him and succeed, whatever trial occurs needs to be supervised, and he should be under guard.
I say YES, and there is no reason why we should bring him back to America and try him here. Why so the American Tax Payer can pay for it, no thank you. How about we just let him be dealt with by there Laws.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
No.
He'll get his in our court system.
He's fucked for life.
If you commite a crime in another country, be prepared to suffer the consequences!
Both.
EDIT: To clarify -> Murder, torture and rape trial in Iraq; Treason trial in America.
EDIT: To clarify -> Murder, torture and rape trial in Iraq; Treason trial in America.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-07-06 04:01:56)
It seems we are all quick to jump to conclusions....a man is innocent until proven guilty......he should be tried in Iraq but overseen by coalition lawyers to ensure a fair trail.
My 0.02c worth
My 0.02c worth
So you say that Iraqui lawyers wouldn't do their lawyer's job and defend someone even if he's guilty ?
This guy should ask one of Saddam's lawyers to defend him, as we are sure that these do their job.
PS: Yes, he should be judged in Iraq, as it is the place were the crimes were committed.
This guy should ask one of Saddam's lawyers to defend him, as we are sure that these do their job.
PS: Yes, he should be judged in Iraq, as it is the place were the crimes were committed.
Innocent until proven guilty, Herr Kommisar.TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
He shouldn't even be tried.
The man deserves death.
Military crime gets tricky, there are different arrangements for different situations, I understand that this was committed during a combat patrol, this would suggest that it should be handled in a military court, Leavenworth is no easy place to be. Do they handle executions at Leavenworth? Would they do it in a federal pen?
Okay, thanks to everyone who contributed. In the matter of "should the guy be tried in Iraq", I make that...
Yes 25
No 1
I decided against reading too much into the few conditional responses, or the other ambiguous ones, but it's clear they wouldn't come close to cutting into a majority that one-sided, even if they all amounted to Nos.
As is probably clear, I am a big Yes on this. I think it's crucial -- not only from a moral standpoint, but also a tactical, and long-term strategic perspective -- that Iraqis not form the impression coalition troops are above their laws, in their country.
Most of us want to believe the US is helping to build a sovereign, democratic Iraq, and not conducting an "empire-building" exercise in the manner of the European colonial powers of yesteryear. Cases like this are litmus tests for this proposition. It's clear what needs to be done. Let's hope it will be.
Thanks again for your comments, and for keeping a cool head. That might actually be a first in this forum.
Yes 25
No 1
I decided against reading too much into the few conditional responses, or the other ambiguous ones, but it's clear they wouldn't come close to cutting into a majority that one-sided, even if they all amounted to Nos.
As is probably clear, I am a big Yes on this. I think it's crucial -- not only from a moral standpoint, but also a tactical, and long-term strategic perspective -- that Iraqis not form the impression coalition troops are above their laws, in their country.
Most of us want to believe the US is helping to build a sovereign, democratic Iraq, and not conducting an "empire-building" exercise in the manner of the European colonial powers of yesteryear. Cases like this are litmus tests for this proposition. It's clear what needs to be done. Let's hope it will be.
Thanks again for your comments, and for keeping a cool head. That might actually be a first in this forum.
He should have been but looks as if hes not in the army any more, its ok the federal court will tear him up.
My condolences to the Iraqi people, everyone has their bad apples.
My condolences to the Iraqi people, everyone has their bad apples.
Don't you just love a well balanced and sensible debate. It gladdens me that so many have actually answered sensibly to this issue and it hasn't descended into being an idiot fest (which I heartily feel there is a place for, just not here).
A resounding yes and I think I know why! The majority of people who would have something to add by taking an opposing stance basically are incapable of constructed a learned opinion and instead we get this:
Today 09:43:16 -1 A question of sovereignty ffs idiot
Thanks for you input to the debate, it'll be flushed down the toilet like the shit it's anonymous author obviously usually delivers. I could give a crap about karma, but if you want to contribute to the topic then please join the debate.
Cheers for playing.
Doc
A resounding yes and I think I know why! The majority of people who would have something to add by taking an opposing stance basically are incapable of constructed a learned opinion and instead we get this:
Today 09:43:16 -1 A question of sovereignty ffs idiot
Thanks for you input to the debate, it'll be flushed down the toilet like the shit it's anonymous author obviously usually delivers. I could give a crap about karma, but if you want to contribute to the topic then please join the debate.
Cheers for playing.
Doc
Last edited by DoctorFruitloop (2006-07-07 03:48:13)
I am glad this thread has been started as I think the question raises some interesting points, which might have been missed. For the record, I think the guy should be tried either in Iraq or by the International Criminal Court, which has been set up to handle warcrimes and been ratified by most major countries, with the US being a notable exception. I would lean towards Iraq as I think muslim law would provide a more fitting sentence, if he is guilty of the reported crime.spastic bullet wrote:
Cool heads only, please. If you can't comment without making unfounded assumptions, I suggest you give this one a miss. Hypotheticals are okay, but make it clear they are hypothetical.
Should this guy be tried in Iraq?
There are parallels between this case and the terror suspects being held in Guantanamo Bay. They have allegedly carried out criminal acts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where should they be tried? The place where they carried out the acts for which they are being held?
Also, there is a British guy who allegedly hacked into some US military computers from his UK residence. Where should he be tried?
Islamic law is not "used" in Iraq, at least this site says so : http://gulf-law.com/iraq_law.html
I'm afraid it might set a dangerous precedent allowing soldiers to be tried in civilian courts which might have hidden agendas against them, the US military tribunals are not known for being lenient, if anything they are known for meteeing out severe punishments and sacrificing some soldiers once in a while to protect overall US interests. Send him to Club Gitmo to await his senetencing trial if he's found guilty, everyone should love that. (I almost said Abu-Ghraib but that might provide too much fodder for the jihaad propaganda machine)
He would be put to death, rape is worse than murder over there, especially from a foreigner.herrr_smity wrote:
YES let him become Abdul bubbas prison bitch
Look I will just say yes and no, I believe he should be tried over there, because its their rules and he made our military look like shit. When we are not all like that. but I also believe the Army is biting themself in the balls per say because they are authorizing year long deployments with little to no time off between OIF's. Yeah after a while you get a little nutty, seeing the same people every day, same desert, same sand/dirt, its a culture shock to the Soldiers, and while I back them fully on what they are doing for the people over there, and over here, I honestly believe this wouldnt happen if the deployments were more like 7 months like the Marines normally do. Year long tours that close together in an enviroment where all the freedoms you have come to embrace and enjoy are suddenly ripped away from you for 349 days off the year. You miss X-mas, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, the 4th, the list can go on. Now dont get me wrong, this is an embarassment to the US military and his superiors specifically, but as I said, being "over there" for that long can make anyone a little bonkers. Just my two cents, just try to see it that way constructively before any of you go on a Karma tangent like most of you always seem to when someone has an opinion.
Thats more of a Federal Matter, or an International law, so wouldnt he get tried on neutral ground, International Courts maybe?aardfrith wrote:
Also, there is a British guy who allegedly hacked into some US military computers from his UK residence. Where should he be tried?
yes..
First of all, the majority you refer to here is meaningless, the fact that a buch of people with a video-game in common agree on a subject doesn't really lend weight to the point of view. Second, I disagree. Lack of a SOFA over a soldier who is there as an instrument of policy, and not of his own accord, means that soldier is governed through the entity which embodies the policy: i.e. the military. Because he was sent into the situation by the military, and was working for the military, and as there is no SOFA which takes jurisdiction away from the military, clearly his trial and punishment is governed by the military. For Iraq to have any jurisdiction, they would need to have a SOFA in place saying so.spastic bullet wrote:
The lack of a Status-of-Forces Agreement with Iraq would seem to strengthen the majority view that he should be tried in Iraq, not the other way around...whittsend wrote:
Do we have a SOFA with Iraq? Probably not.
This says that a SOFA is confirmation of control. Lack of one is a concession that they do not have full control, which is, in fact, the case in Iraq. Furthermore, a SOFA will not be executed when US forces are not there by invitation, which is also the case in Iraq.spastic bullet wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty unambiguous to me. More importantly, it also makes sense from a moral viewpoint, as well as in terms of Iraq's sovereignty (or lack thereof).globalsecurity.org wrote:
Negotiating a SOFA begins with the assumption that the presence of U.S. military forces is in the interests of the host government as well as the U.S. government. The starting proposition is that the host country exercises complete authority over all of its territory and over anyone who is in that territory, subject to any agreements that make exceptions to that authority.
There isn't much doubt in a soldiers mind when he is on the military's dime, and when he is on his own time. In Iraq, a soldier does not have any personal time. I'm a little surprised to hear he isn't being charged under UCMJ...I would think that US civilian courts would have no jurisdiction over the case.spastic bullet wrote:
That's probably what they told this guy when he signed up too. It's highly dependent on how you define "Uncle Sam's time", and whether any attempt is made to be consistent in that regard. Speaking of which, Green is not being "held accountable to the UCMJ" -- he's currently being processed through the US civilian courts.whittsend wrote:
It is implicit when one consents to serve that one will not be left to the mercy (or lack thereof) of a foreign power for actions undertaken on Uncle Sam's time; and that one will, instead, be held accountable to the UCMJ.
If a huge majority here were in a situation where they were to be judged by people who openly dislike them before any other facts were established, they might have a better understanding of the problem.spastic bullet wrote:
I think what's "fair" and what's "for the best" are matters of opinion. A huge majority here seem to think it fair, and for the best, that he be tried in Iraq.whittsend wrote:
Furthermore, I have signifiicant doubts regarding his ability to get a fair trial in Iraq, so this is probably for the best anyway.
No idea. I'd call this a mistake. He should be tried under UCMJ, as he was under military authority when the alleged crime was committed.spastic bullet wrote:
"Can", maybe. But it seems they considered this and decided against it. Why?whittsend wrote:
I'm pretty sure that he can still be charged under UCMJ.2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
However he was discharged before the crime had been discovered. Which made him a civilian again.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-07 08:10:47)
So raping a girl and then killing the girl and a bunche of other pepole is just a little nuts.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
He would be put to death, rape is worse than murder over there, especially from a foreigner.herrr_smity wrote:
YES let him become Abdul bubbas prison bitch
Look I will just say yes and no, I believe he should be tried over there, because its their rules and he made our military look like shit. When we are not all like that. but I also believe the Army is biting themself in the balls per say because they are authorizing year long deployments with little to no time off between OIF's. Yeah after a while you get a little nutty, seeing the same people every day, same desert, same sand/dirt, its a culture shock to the Soldiers, and while I back them fully on what they are doing for the people over there, and over here, I honestly believe this wouldnt happen if the deployments were more like 7 months like the Marines normally do. Year long tours that close together in an enviroment where all the freedoms you have come to embrace and enjoy are suddenly ripped away from you for 349 days off the year. You miss X-mas, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, the 4th, the list can go on. Now dont get me wrong, this is an embarassment to the US military and his superiors specifically, but as I said, being "over there" for that long can make anyone a little bonkers. Just my two cents, just try to see it that way constructively before any of you go on a Karma tangent like most of you always seem to when someone has an opinion.
"buhu I'm tired of being in the army, I'm going to go rape and murder on these people"
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.whittsend wrote:
First of all, the majority you refer to here is meaningless...
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?whittsend wrote:
For Iraq to have any jurisdiction, they would need to have a SOFA in place saying so.
...
Furthermore, a SOFA will not be executed when US forces are not there by invitation, which is also the case in Iraq.
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?whittsend wrote:
If a huge majority here were in a situation where they were to be judged by people who openly dislike them before any other facts were established, they might have a better understanding of the problem.
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.whittsend wrote:
I'm a little surprised to hear he isn't being charged under UCMJ...I would think that US civilian courts would have no jurisdiction over the case.
...
I'd call this a mistake. He should be tried under UCMJ, as he was under military authority when the alleged crime was committed.
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.