While a debate on (among other things) who should have jurisdiction over the trial of the American sergeant accused of murdering 16 Afghani civilians occurs in another thread in Great Debates – “US Soldiers killing Afghani civilians” – I’m wondering why the soldier has to be removed to Kuwait? Why can’t the U.S. leave him in Afghanistan and try him there thus calming this one bit of frenzy? I should think a bit of transparency might help things.
He’s likely being flown to Kuwait for safety reasons. My guess.
Where he’ll be tried is still up in the air. Definitely court-martial by the US military. In Afghanistan if it can he done safely.
Looks likethey’ve moved him to Ft. Leavenworth. My guess is they don’t think he would live long enough to face trial if they left him in Afghanistan.
In the other GD thread we linked to a news article in which they said the military was going to hold the trial in Afghanistan, but it looks like they changed their mind on that very quickly. I’m guessing logistical concerns are probably at play with a trial in Afghanistan, namely being able to do it in a secure location that won’t become a target for major attacks.
I guess there is a potential they will still do it there, when they first moved him to Kuwait their initial stated reason was they lacked the appropriate confinement facilities in Afghanistan to hold him. I think the only reason they moved him from Kuwait to Ft. Leavenworth is political, apparently we didn’t inform the Kuwaitis we were moving him into their country. They found out about it in the news. They were outraged the U.S. would move such a hugely controversial detainee into their country without so much as discussing it with them, so at that point we didn’t have a location in Afghanistan and the Kuwaitis were foaming at the mouth, so I guess Ft. Leavenworth was the only viable option left.
I’m a bit skeptical about this claim about lacking “adequate facilities”. We’re detaining thousands of locals; is this guy supposed to be some sort of Houdini?
I think it’s more about outsiders attacking the detention facility, rather than the prisoner trying to escape from it. They need an adequate facility to guard against outside attack; or just move him to a facility where that’s very unlikely to happen (the US).
Where do courts-martial typically happen for crimes committed overseas? At the scene, or back in the US?
What do they do with Afghani witnesses? Would they need to get them passports and US visas, and fly them to where the trial is taking place?
And that’s not a potential problem in Afghanistan, from people trying to break prisoners out?
Or just not bother with actual witnesses who might contradict whatever official story they’ll decide on.
Holding the trial in Afghanistan would be waving a red flag at the Taliban. Every kook with a belt bomb would be taking a shot. The Taliban might even bring in mortars to try and hit the facility. You’d be endangering way too many people.
Just stirring up the countryside would put our troops in incredible danger.
What was up with those strange initial reports this guy burning all the victims leaving no physical evidence except for witnesses?
Afghan Afghan Afghan. Afghani is a currency. Afghan is a nationality (and an adjective and a dog and a carpet and other things).
(Sorry, it’s been years since I did this. I just snapped and ran amok with my mild irritation.)
My apologies: you are correct, and I’m sorry that I raised your blood pressure to dangerous levels. :smack:
Dammit! Somebody told me the last time we did this that I should stop calling them Afghans because those are rugs. Now I’m confused.
As a general rule of thumb for that part of the world, it seems to me that if the demonym uses the entire name of the country, add an “i” to the end: Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Pakistani, Omani. If the demonym shortens the country’s name, don’t: Afghan, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Uzbek. Exception: Azeris.
It’s generally easier to blow up a bunch of people than it is to get one out alive.
Oh, someone pointed out this guy was the last active duty military guy executed.
So there’s some progress on the abolition of the death penalty in the US, which is a relief.
Well, I think that’s a little too cynical… I think we’ve learned a little from My Lai…
Courts Martial are a little different from regular U.S. civil trials. Witness statements can be taken on the scene; the witnesses don’t actually have to come in to the courtroom.
(I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses isn’t guaranteed in military trials. The reason, as in this case, is obvious: huge logistical difficulties, especially in wartime.)
I’m betting the trial is unusually open, and, if for that reason only, unusually fair.
Wrong wrong wrong. Afghan is a an ethnicity which does not necessarily include only citizens of Afghanistan and upto half of the citizens of Afghanistan are not Afghans. Afghani is a nationality.
I am an Afghan (technically anyway). I am not an Afghani.
Because this is the SDMB, I fucking knew this would happen even as I hit submit.
What you are saying may be true in a south-Asian English-speaking context, but I’ll stick with the Oxford English Dictionary definitions.