[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I’m quite surprised, I must say. You’re telling me if the security forces in a province where the insurgency is strong started grabbing American forces and charging them with murder (e.g. on account of civilian casualties that occurred during a battle), you’d have no problem with them being executed on the say-so of a single judge? You wouldn’t worry that the execution was politically motivated and/or unfair? You wouldn’t expect the government to intervene?
[/QUOTE]
I think it would depend on exactly how the situation unfolded, as to whether or not I would have a problem with that. I don’t think that US soldiers, acting as soldiers are under Iraqi jurisdiction. (not to mention, of course, that the scenario you set up wouldn’t happen. If the Iraqi security forces started rounding up and trying US troops for something like that, we’d probably say, “Either cut it out or we’re taking our troops and going home”.)
[QUOTE=elucidator]
“Promise? For really and true?”
[/QUOTE]
If the government of Iraq started arresting and imprisoning American soldiers for operations against the insurgents? Then yeah, the American government would probably pull out of Iraq and leave its government to the insurgents’ mercy.
[QUOTE=spooje]
Christ, Giraffe, that happens HERE. See it on the news about once a week.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen defense lawyers claim that a given trial was unfair. I’ve never seen defense lawyers (falsely) claim that a trial did not take place. Have you? What would be the point?
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Serious answer: If the American soldier (or you, or me) committed a crime under Iraqi law and Iraqi jurisdiction, then he’s subject to the Iraqi judicial system. So, yes, I would feel the same way.
What’s your alternative? To say that Americans have immunity in the rest of the world?
[/QUOTE]
My alternative would be to ensure that accused US military personnel are given treatment as close to the American judicial system as possible.
In the hypothetical case presented by Giraffe, it would depend entirely on the particular terms of the Status of Forces Agreement arranged between the American and Iraqi governments. Even in first-world nations that have very friendly relations with the US, such as Japan, US military personnel are not entirely subject to the local law enforcement and judicial systems, even for crimes committed off duty against host nation civilians. In a host nation where open hostilities toward Americans are commonplace, I would expect that the SOFA terms would have the US military step in to an even greater degree.
[QUOTE=Sublight]
it would depend entirely on the particular terms of the Status of Forces Agreement arranged between the American and Iraqi governments.
[/QUOTE]
AFAIK, we have no Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Mar 30, 2006
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I’ve seen defense lawyers claim that a given trial was unfair. I’ve never seen defense lawyers (falsely) claim that a trial did not take place. Have you? What would be the point?
[/QUOTE]
Point is that defense attorney may well misrepresent the facts of any given situation if he has something to gain and nothing at all to lose. It’s kind of like a hail mary pass. Telling a whopper can work. Just ask our Esteemed Leader.
I’m not saying that these guys are lying or stretching the truth a bit, but it’s certainly within the realm of possiblility.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Serious answer: If the American soldier (or you, or me) committed a crime under Iraqi law and Iraqi jurisdiction, then he’s subject to the Iraqi judicial system. So, yes, I would feel the same way.
What’s your alternative? To say that Americans have immunity in the rest of the world?
[/QUOTE]
And if he didn’t commit the crime, but was convicted anyway? If the justice system in question is so corrupt and incompetent that there’s no way to tell if the accused is guilty or not? Does the American government have any duty to protect its citizens when they’re abroad at all? Or are they entirely at the whims of whatever passes for government in whatever corner of the world they happen to find themselves?
[QUOTE=Miller]
And if he didn’t commit the crime, but was convicted anyway? If the justice system in question is so corrupt and incompetent that there’s no way to tell if the accused is guilty or not? Does the American government have any duty to protect its citizens when they’re abroad at all? Or are they entirely at the whims of whatever passes for government in whatever corner of the world they happen to find themselves?
[/QUOTE]
I believe that US policy is that it doesn’t interefere with the justice systems of other nations. For instance if you’re convicted in Singapore of illegal posession of more than 2 grams of heroin, you will be put to death, even though US law doesn’t have that sort of punishment. As the State Department warns, in its Consular Information Sheets:
How about this: when Iran seized several American embassy workers as hostages, should the US government have done anything? Apparently, Iran decided that being an American in their country was against the law. Should the US have just thrown up its hands and said, “Oh well. It’s their justice system, nothing we can do about it.”?
[QUOTE=Miller]
I was asking what you thought the US should do.
How about this: when Iran seized several American embassy workers as hostages, should the US government have done anything? Apparently, Iran decided that being an American in their country was against the law. Should the US have just thrown up its hands and said, “Oh well. It’s their justice system, nothing we can do about it.”?
[/QUOTE]
Well, but embassies are under the jurisdiction of operating nation, and therefore, the Iranians don’t legally have jurisdiction over the embassy staff.
If you ask me what I think the US should do, I really don’t know. I’m not a specialist in US or international law, and I’m not familar enough either with this specific case or US or international law generally to recommend a change in policy. So it’s my general policy to assume that the US government collectively knows more than I do about this situation and is acting appropriately.
[QUOTE=Miller]
How about this: when Iran seized several American embassy workers as hostages, should the US government have done anything? Apparently, Iran decided that being an American in their country was against the law. Should the US have just thrown up its hands and said, “Oh well. It’s their justice system, nothing we can do about it.”?
[/QUOTE]
No brainer. We should negotiate with the terrorists, and give them weapons for hostages, the proceeds of which we could spend on an illegal war.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, but embassies are under the jurisdiction of operating nation, and therefore, the Iranians don’t legally have jurisdiction over the embassy staff.
[/QUOTE]
Also, weren’t the hostages taken by Iranian students rather than by the Iranian government? I don’t remember reading anything about them being put through the Iranian judicial system.