Did you or did you not, Beagle, post this in your very first posting in this thread?
That’s no disqualifier about the facts. That’s a flat statement that “the families are due a substantial cash payment.”
It may have nothing to do with U.S. soldiers being “wrong.” Perhaps it is a custom to pay relatives of victims in order to officially conclude any grudge the two familes (government) has. So maybe this is our way of trying to have fewer grudge-holding familes around (if we are really doing that.)
Clegg lied in his testimony and stated that the car was heading toward one of his colleagues, when in fact it was driving away. He knew there was no threat. There was a question about whether it was even a proper roadblock, per se. At least one of the witnesses said the soldiers were simply hiding in a ditch.
The laws differ in the six counties. There are special non-jury courts (known as Diplock courts after the Chair of the commission which recommended their establishment) which initially were supposed to hear terrorist-related offences but came to be used for any “major” crime. Clegg’s case was heard in one of these courts, he had no option to have it heard by a jury.
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”
sorry Aro thats a real red herring, in the context of a normal society you would be right, this was northern ireland, where terroists have rammed checkpoints, and have also shot at soldiers at checkpoints, there was no way that that soldier could have known that the occupants of the car were not terrorists trying to evade capture, the driver of that car was a stupid little prick who should have known better, and most people dont think that clegg has been let off, he was a scapegoat to appease the terrorists and their supporters.
Erm, this isn’t “another” example. This is the Lee Clegg case. And as stated above, the car was driving away, not heading “straight for a colleague”.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your rant, or anything :rolleyes:
You shouldn’t be killed for stealing a car, you should be arrested. If the shooter then lies in court to make his story seem like his life was under threat then there’s some rotting in the state of Denmark.
There should be strict controls of soldiers in these areas. They should be able to defend themselves/civilians with lethal force if needed but also restrained by strict procedures and rules. In NI anyway there has been lots of talk about a shoot to kill policy (read John Stalkers book). There have been incidents when the Army said killings were 100% justified and afterwards were found to be questionable to say the least ( http://www.bloodysundaytrust.org/ ).
If you’re under threat from a terrorist then kill the bastard if you have to but if the threat is moving away and may be just a kid acting the bollocks then you should be a bit more restrained. I also seem to remember BBC Panorama doing a special on this and the soldier had a thaigh killing party after the event (no cite)
Ruadh, the above passage you quoted was actually a quote from me, without the quote tags in place.
Can we not just move past the NI examples and discuss the possible success and merit of the proposed case against the US soldiers?
the_bean, if you wish to discuss NI internal politics and security forces actions start your own specific thread and I’m sure you’ll get many contributions.
Oops, sorry.
Last paragraph still stands though.
I’m still waiting to see where the crime is in the case in Iraq, not the case in Northern Ireland. Near as I can tell those are two different cases involving two different countries’ militaries.
Possible negligence as per the example already linked leading to a possible civil case. If it holds water it will move forward if not it will be thrown out. Now are you still convinced that there was 100% no negligence on behalf of all US soldiers? I really don’t see the problem.
The courts can sort it out.
The question I am asking is *“should US troops be subject to the same scrutiny and held to the same level of accountability for their actions as the British troops are in comparable situations?” *
You seem to be suggesting the answer is “no”. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not.
I believe it is the duty of a democratic countries security forces to uphold a more robust standard of behaviour than might normally be expected from other soldiers. And they should not be protected by senior officials (at the expense of innocent civilians) IF it can be shown their actions were not in accordance with acceptable behaviour or international law.
Whether that will be shown in this case obviously remains to be seen.
I’m not suggesting no. I’m suggesting that I don’t see why someone should be punished when they weren’t negligent and acted reasonably. I’m awaiting evidence that the US troops were negligent and acted unreasonably.
I’m also suggesting that your appraisal of the event is tainted by your advance opinion of the Soldiers involved.
I don’t have any advance opinion of the soldiers, US or otherwise, other than they are professionals doing a job. Any professional in any job is wide open to charges of negligence if their performance is in any way short of exemplary. Soldiers should be no different, IMHO.
I do believe that in a combat situation like this the soldiers, as professionals partaking in conflict, should hold a duty of care to protect the lives of civilian non-combatants who are caught up in war zones through no fault of their own. If a situation does occur in which civilians are shown to have been killed by soldiers on active duty, then a through independent enquiry should follow to establish the cause and the truth behind the incident.
I’m not attempting to slur the US or blame the soldiers on duty that day (unnecessarily) , but nor do I blame the civilians for hurriedly trying to remove themselves from a dangerous conflict area. I can see many reasons, regardless of the guilt of the soldiers, where the right thing to do in this situation is to offer condolences and compensation for the civilians families. It was a terrible tragedy of war whoever is looking at it.
If it so happened it was your family in the car attempting to remove themselves from a desolate war zone, would you still feel the same?
So you agree that they were manning a checkpoint in a combat zone? So you agree that a vehicle failed to stop? So what do you expect the military do–say, hey, that’s one fish that got away? My family’s not prone to running police checkpoints, so I seriously doubt anyone in my family would’ve run a checkpoint in a combat zone?
Nice strawman though.
Morning. Just back in.
Yes, yes and no, I think the soldiers probably acted in their best interests in a difficult situation. But what I don’t like is this attitude of automatic ‘blaming the victims’ in a situation like this. It’s all the Iraqis fault, they made our guys kill them. They had no choice. There was no other option.
There are always other choices. And when decisions are made there will always be consequences.
And if, as you contend, the US forces did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from an independent inquiry, no?
Then why are they refusing to interview eye-witnesses to the shooting? Why are they not allowing the shot-up cars to be forensically examined? Why do they even refuse to visit the scene of the incident to collect evidence, even photographic?
It is my contention that even if the soldiers acted correctly in the situation, they killed unarmed civilians in a combat zone and the families of victims still deserve compensation for their loss.
I will admit I do have a bias in situations like this: it is that of believing that the protection of the lives of civilian non-combatants caught up in a war zone is intrinsically more important than the potential safety of trained, professional soldiers who are in that situation by choice. YMMV.
BTW, why do you consider it a ‘strawman’ for me to suggest that you may act or feel differently about this event if it was your family involved in the incident, than if it was just some anonymous Iraqis you have never met? In which part was I misrepresenting your views? I was merely contending you may see things differently if you have an emotional connection, if you could feel any empathy towards the innocent victims, many of whom were children.
I find that a somewhat unrealistic demand to put on soldiers in a dangerous situation. You can’t really expect that attitude from any military. This incident is just one of those horrible things that happens in war. That is why we call war bad, horrible stuff is bound to happen. That is why starting a war of agression is considered a crime.
The crime, in this case, wasn’t commited by the soldiers but by the people who put them there in the first place.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Article 3:
Article 27:
Bolding mine.
Clearly the articles 3 and 27 refer to and mean to protect POW’s and civilians from being arrested and mistreated.
Would you consider a car driving up to a checkpoint to be ‘in the hands’ of the occupying power?
A car ignoring stop signs makes it unclear whether these are ‘Persons not active in hostilities’. It is a threatning situation.
If you really think that a Soldier in a combat zone should just ignore a vehicle that has run past a roadblock, Aro, then you are immune to reason on this issue.
I agree the situation is a complex one. It was a potentially dangerous scenario, the soldiers were jumpy due to prior bomb attacks at checkpoints, they felt under threat and reacted quickly to the situation. I’m not trying to blame them. But their actions do have consequences. Innocent people died, including women and children. Whether the soldiers acted proper is not my issue. I am arguing that the lives of Iraqi citizens have been lost, and that is NOT a good thing, regardless of the fact it may have potentially saved the lives of US soldiers.
At the moment there seem to be many different versions and descriptions of the events: what was actually there and what happened at the checkpoint?
Was the checkpoint clearly identifiable as a checkpoint? Many eye-witness accounts say “no.”
Were there ‘stop signs’ in Arabic on the checkpoint? If not, why not? Did the soldiers shout ‘stop’ in Arabic?
Was the warning shot given in time to allow the citizens to react to it?
Would it not be natural to believe that innocent civilians may, due to fear and/or panic, react differently than expected in a scary situation?
Did the car actually come to a stop prior to the shooting, was reported by several eye-witnesses? It has been reported the handbrake of the vehicle was fully on when it was shot at.
These are all issues that could be resolved in an independent inquiry into the incident.
Again, even if the US troops acted perfectly professionally and reasonably, their actions contributed to the death of civilian non-combatants. I believe their should be adequate legal recourse for the families of the victims, regardless of the innocent status of the soldiers in question.
When have I said that? Where’s the ‘strawman’ now?
I started out asking for the legal possibility of the case outlined in the OP succeeding and have moved on to argue that the innocent victims who ended up dead deserve compensation for the fact they were killed. What do you consider is so unreasonable about that position?