Can US soldiers be charged with "war crimes"?

NI solicitors to represent Iraqis

A solicitor firm from Northern Ireland (Madden and Finucane) who represent the families of civilians killed by security forces in Northern Ireland are lending support to innocent Iraqi civilians who were killed by US soldiers at checkpoints in Iraq.

So, points to debate:
[ul]
[li] Is there the scope in US courts for such charges to be brought against combatants?[/li][li] Will such a charge / trial cause a precedent leading to a landslide of similar cases brought against soldiers?[/li][li] Are the charges defendable (meaning; do they have any merit)?[/li][li] What would ‘success’ in this trial mean to the future of war, as practiced today? Would tactics / methods have to change?[/li][/ul]
I realise the incident of the shooting was discussed in this thread and many defended the actions of the troops. If it could be shown (legally) their actions were wrong and their preparation poor would the idea of having soldiers face charges for their actions be a just one? What are your thoughts?

Thanks.

Guilty as charged.

As the USA refuses to accept the international court on war crimes in the Haugue, the answer is no. The reason is: You can’t get a hold of US soldiers. And the US will not try them. Any doubts? See the case of the cut gondola in Italy some years ago.

Also people the US accuses of war crimes will not be put infront of a court. They’ll go directly to camp delta in guantanamo bay.

It is my understanding they are not charging the soldiers with anything under the jurisdiction of the ICC, rather seeking indictments through existing domestic law in the US. And it may not be a criminal case they bring, but rather a civil case in order to pursue damages for the victims. Is this scenario more feasible?

American soldiers can (and have been) charges with war crimes in American military courts and have been found guilty and punished.

Does the name Lt. Calley ring a bell?

Aro
To tell you the truth: I have no clue.
Actually from this side of the atlantic the US judicial system has allways
looked rather odd. But here is my guess on a civil case:
As the soldiers were on duty, the army would have to accept responsibility. (=no
civil case against the soldiers). If the army wants to put the blame on the individual soldiers it has to prove they did something wrong.(=no civil case but a criminal or rather a court martial).
The second thing will most likely not happen or they will be acquited because anything else would be devastating for the moral of the troops. I again cite the Cavalese incident.

Paul in Saudi, any cites?

**Booker57 **

No, who is the guy?

Platoon leader in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. See here.

Was the case about the My Lai massacre brought, on behalf of Vietnamese relatives of those slain. by an external solicitor firm, or was the entire case handed in-house by the US army?

It seems (on cursory inspection) to be a very different scenario.

I’m sure they have. But this is not about a military court. this is about seeking reparations for the bereaved families through civil action against the soldiers (or the government of the country they represent).

This approach has worked in NI against British soldiers misdeeds in the past (although not always). Can it be brought to work in US courts?

With regard to My Lai Cases, please recognize that my memory is a little foggy after some 40 years.

As others have noted, the platoon leader involved in the atrocity at MyLai Village was tried before a general court martial for (I think) some 140 counts of murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but because of a political furor that I never fully understood, the sentence was never carried out. The lieutenant spent several years under arrest in quarters before the case faded away. The company commander was also tried but was acquitted on the principal charges of murder. The battalion commander was also tried and acquitted. As I recall, both the company and battalion commanders used the “fog of war” defense. Charitably, neither may have actually known what was going on at the time it happened but they surely actively concealed what had happened.

One problem with the prosecutions was that there was a sympathetic jury that understood that in a situation as confused and frustrating as Vietnam a commander on the scene might well, with the best intentions in the world, lose control of his unit. Under the situation as it was in 1971 when the cases were tried that defense was accepted by a jury composed of officers many of whom had been in Vietnam and knew what a hell hole it was.

Aubry Daniels, who as a JAGC Captain prosecuted the case against Lieutenant Calley, was not at all happy with the political manipulation of the case and President Nixon’s involvement. He took the highly unusual step of writing directly to the President, much to the embarrassment of the Army higher-ups who just wanted the whole thing to go away. Here is CPT Daniels’ letter to the President. For what it is worth, I agreed with him then and I agree with him now.

The soldiers in Europe knew almost nothing about the MyLai incident until it broke in the papers. To its credit, Stars and Stripes, the house organ for US Forces in Europe, covered the thing throughly. Army lawyers had a little advanced warning of the prosecution. Just before the whole thing broke with the of filing charges against the platoon leader, the company commander, the battalion commander and various others, all the Judge Advocate officers in Europe were called to a special meeting on an unknown subject in Frankfurt at the big headquarters complex at the I.G. Farbin Building. My office got about three hours notice of the meeting, none too soon since it took two hours to go from downtown Kaiserslautern to downtown Frankfurt. The notice was not an invitation, it was an order–everybody report to Frankfurt. When we got there we were all put in a conference room with MPs guarding the door and checking people in by name. Once inside we found The Deputy The Judge Advocate General of the Army, a senor officer that almost all of us had met at one time or another. He proceeded to brief us on the whole thing, the charges, the defendants, the evidence, the prosecution team and the appointed defense team and that the whole thing would be made public the next day. Until then we were to keep our mouths shut. After the matter became public, he said, there was no official position and we were free to discuss the cases. The point of the briefing, he said, was to make sure that we were getting our information from a reliable source. With that we were dismissed.

Negligence is not a war crime. Well, not the way that term has traditionally been used. Now, apparently, the world plans to try out all their ‘legal’ opinions on jus ad bellum masquerading as jus in bello on the US.

If, as has been claimed, the car refused to obey the troops at the roadblock – how is that a war crime? Crime against humanity? Violation of the Geneva Convention? Yes, the families are due a substantial cash payment. That’s how legal systems (used to) work most everywhere.

Will the soldiers be charged with negligent homicide? Maybe. I think it’s a lousy case, based on the facts as I now understand them. So, are the soldiers ‘guilty’ of something? Probably not, but the US is liable for whatever negligence caused those deaths.

Interesting idea…

Well considering the nature of US laws and courts… anything goes. I have seen things close to ridiculous winning cases in the US so why couldnt these guys win ?

Like someone said thou… its more about reparations than putting soldiers in jail. Criminal convictions wont be the case… but civil case just might. Those soldiers will only go to jail if the investigations bring up something they did wrong according to army rules… and army punishment would follow.

Considering that so many civilians were killed and depending on election being close or far away they have a good chance of getting some money.

From my previous link:

I think this action is definitely more about extracting a little money from the US for the victims than about chasing convictions of the soldiers. IIRC, none of the soldiers in any dubious situations in NI have faced jail terms, regardless of guilt. But the British government has paid money out – even to the families of 3 IRA men (in possession of a ready-to-go car bomb) shot dead by the SAS in Gibraltar. I would not be surprised to see this tactic succeed although I would be very surprised to see any soldiers actually punished for it.

Are there any top limits ($) set for awarded damages in civil cases like this?

Why should the families be entitled to a substantial cash payment? Consider for a moment an analogy which could take place in, say, California. A roadblock is set up for random checks of driver license and vehicle registration. The police officer standing outside of any vehicle sees a civilian automobile coming straight at him. He indicates to the driver of that auto to stop. The vehicle continues to come straight at him and the police officer, to defend his own life, fires at the driver of the vehicle.

Where’s the crime? Where’s the wrongful death?

The Pentagon map people are seriously screwed up. Remember the Chinese Embassy? Saddam’s ‘bunkers’? The UN food depot in Kabul? “No lift on the maps.” Some bureaucrats or military officers, not be that difficult to ascertain, must be fired or dishonorably discharged.

Buy commercial aviation maps! Stay current! Consult your satellite pixs, fugnuggets! They make private sailing charts also! Somewhere there is a bureaucrat bitching about old software or TPS reports… GAH!

Monty, lets take another example from NI:

Army set up a road block, as was common practice in the '80’s & 90’s in NI. Two teenage joy-riders steal a car. They unwittingly approach the roadblock, and knowing they have neither Driver’s licences, ID or insurance and are driving a stolen car, decide instead to ram the road block and attempt to drive through it. An inexperienced (English) soldier seeing a car head straight for a colleague opens fire to attempt to stop the vehicle. He accidentally hits one of the joy-riders passengers, a girl named Karen Reilly. She dies.

Do you still think “Where’s the crime?”. Most people think the crime is Clegg ‘getting away’ with it, even after being found guilty.
Mostly, the ‘crimes’ of British Soldiers are seen as not complying with “the standard expected of a democratic government”

Why should the standard of acceptable behaviour be less for US soldiers?

Er, yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/687167.stm

He got off and was later promoted but he did do time. There are other soldiers still in prison IIRC. Maybe if I mention ruadh or manwithaplan they may appear and know more.

I realise I’m mixing up two different cases in my cites here, but the reasons behind the decisions are similar. From my link above: