110 Years For GI In Rape, Murder Of Iraqi

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't want to get into a big argument about it, but its a little more difficult then you thing.

Most of the normal civilian males do walk around with AK-46's and dress the same way as the insurgents. There have been woman suicide bombers, and old men and kids that have been involved in the attack.

One of the things that happens after an attack is that you need to quickly identify the threats from the non threats, but its not so easy when they look the same.

OK if I understand what you are saying it is at least out of context with the thread. I have no doubt that if someone wanted to disguise themselves as a normal civilian I'm sure they could, but as someone said in a previous post, it doesn't mean you rape it and kill it. The sister was crying out that this crime was somehow someone else's fault.

My only point is that fault only lies with the convicted. not the government for placing them is such a confusing situation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

OK if I understand what you are saying it is at least out of context with the thread. I have no doubt that if someone wanted to disguise themselves as a normal civilian I'm sure they could, but as someone said in a previous post, it doesn't mean you rape it and kill it. The sister was crying out that this crime was somehow someone else's fault.

My only point is that fault only lies with the convicted. not the government for placing them is such a confusing situation.

I already said that, the reason for my post was a previous post where it was said that a three year old could tell the difference between enemy combatants and civilians.

I apologize if I was clear so I will say it again, the rape and murder of a civilian by a soldier is the most disgusting act that can be perpetrated during a war, and the scum bag should have been shot under the uniform code of military justice.

[4X4]

If they commit crimes in Iraq, shouldn't they go to jail in Iraq or at least be subject to their penal system? I think that'd help heal some of the anti-americanism over there. Let this bastid have his nuts chopped off or whatever they do over there. Let the Iraqis do whatever it is that they'd do to one of their own.

[mrdeeds]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If they commit crimes in Iraq, shouldn't they go to jail in Iraq or at least be subject to their penal system? I think that'd help heal some of the anti-americanism over there. Let this bastid have his nuts chopped off or whatever they do over there. Let the Iraqis do whatever it is that they'd do to one of their own.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But it not happen until Iraq is really on its own, though this maybe closer that I would have though a couple of years ago.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If they commit crimes in Iraq, shouldn't they go to jail in Iraq or at least be subject to their penal system? I think that'd help heal some of the anti-americanism over there. Let this bastid have his nuts chopped off or whatever they do over there. Let the Iraqis do whatever it is that they'd do to one of their own.

Nope there is a difference between civilian and military justice systems, if they commit the crimes while serving the U.S. military they fall under the American Military justice system.

If they were civilian contractors who had committed the crimes, then the Iraqi government could demand thier extradition to face local justice.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If they commit crimes in Iraq, shouldn't they go to jail in Iraq or at least be subject to their penal system? I think that'd help heal some of the anti-americanism over there. Let this bastid have his nuts chopped off or whatever they do over there. Let the Iraqis do whatever it is that they'd do to one of their own.

If that were the case, the US would be a signatory of the international criminal court.

(11) It is a fundamental principle of international law
that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does
not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to
be bound. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute
and will not be bound by any of its terms. The United States
will not recognize the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court over United States nationals.

...

(d) Prohibition on Extradition to the International Criminal
Court.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity
of the United States Government or of any State or local government may
extradite any person from the United States to the International
Criminal Court, nor support the transfer of any United States citizen
or permanent resident alien to the International Criminal Court.

(e) Prohibition on Provision of Support to the International
Criminal Court.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency
or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local
government, including any court, may provide support to the
International Criminal Court.

(f) Prohibition on Use of Appropriated Funds To Assist the
International Criminal Court.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds appropriated under any provision of law may be used for
the purpose of assisting the investigation, arrest, detention,
extradition, or prosecution of any United States citizen or permanent
resident alien by the International Criminal Court.

(g) Restriction on Assistance Pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaties.--The United States shall exercise its rights to limit the use
of assistance provided under all treaties and executive agreements for
mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, multilateral conventions
with legal assistance provisions, and extradition treaties, to which
the United States is a party, and in connection with the execution or
issuance of any letter rogatory, to prevent the transfer to, or other
use by, the International Criminal Court of any assistance provided by
the United States under such treaties and letters rogatory.
(h) Prohibition on Investigative Activities of Agents.--No agent of
the International Criminal Court may conduct, in the United States or
any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, any
investigative activity relating to a preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding at the International
Criminal Court.

Linky

[4X4]

Only read CC's post... FW's was chock full of legal crap that I don't care aboot...

But seriously, why the hell not? The american military justice system? Far be it from me to tell others how to heal relationships, but if there's one thing the yankees can do right now it's let invadees punish rogue invadors. But I'm just a guy. Why would I know anything.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Only read CC's post... FW's was chock full of legal crap that I don't care aboot...

But seriously, why the hell not? The american military justice system? Far be it from me to tell others how to heal relationships, but if there's one thing the yankees can do right now it's let invadees punish rogue invadors. But I'm just a guy. Why would I know anything.

I don't agree or disagree with any of the view points on this, and while there are certain advantages concerning the relationship with the Iraqi government I have to bring up a point thats been argued many times on this board alone.

Is trying them in an Iraqi court because it might help the relationship between America and Iraq going to ensure the fairness of any verdict thats decided on? Or does the fairness of the trial go out the window. And if you decide for ulterior motives sake to move this trial to a civilian forum, are the rights of the accused who is an American citizen protected under the U.S. military justice system being compromised?

One thing that I do know is that the USMJ is pretty fair and unscrupulus, they tried the people responsible and didn't try to cover it up.

[feartheflames]

What a horrible way to die, That poor girl