Is it actually a crime to shoot a Quran on a target range? It is a stupid thing to do because it may hurt relations with Iraqis, but is it a crime? I could see if the soldier stole the Quran or it did not belong to him, but just shooting one? What is the specific crime? The soldier is not under Iraqi law, so it must a military law.
They’ll be criticising burning the American flag next. :rolleyes:
This was in Iraq, though. Might it not have been illegal under local laws? And the soldier was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I am not a lawyer but I’ll bet they can find something appropriate there. Article 109, for example, which says, “Any person subject to this chapter who willfully or recklessly wastes, spoils, or otherwise willfully and wrongfully destroys or damages any property other than military property of the United States shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
What about any of the following articles of the UCMJ?
Article 109 Property other than military property of the United States-- Waste, spoilage, or destruction.
Article 117 Provoking speeches or gestures
Article 133 Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman
Another big one he could be in violation of, Article 92: Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. I would assume that the soldier had been briefed that they were not to mistreat the Quran, especially while in Iraq. There is probably an article in there somewhere about misuse of government property (using a presumably US military weapon to shoot the Quran in question).
OK, after doing more reading, it doesn’t appear that Article 109 would apply if he owned the book himself, but Article 99 says “Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy— [skipping the first two paragraphs]
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;”
I don’t think that Article 117 applies because the gesture was not directed at someone also subject to the code, and he does not appear to be an officer, so I think that rules out Article 133.
Playing armchair lawyer is fun.
Is there an analogous offence to the Queen’s Regulations for the Army 5.085B Unacceptable Behaviour - “bringing the service into disrepute, causing offence to the public, local civilians or other service personnel”?
Apologies on the way inwhich I cite, I have absolutely no clue how to cite legal sources or documents.
There’s Article 134, the “General Article”:
Does military law have to conform to the same rules as civilian law? Most of the stuff posted here seems hopelessly vague.
Well who cares if it’s a crime. You don’t desecrate another human beings holy book. Ignorant punks. And nice job bringing it here. Man, what’s up with you anyway? You need to cut that crap out.
From the inked article:
This say the shooter was “found guilty” of something, and Hammond calls the act “criminal,” but the wording there is still ambiguous enough that it might not mean he was literally tried and convicted of anything.
My guess would be that he disobeyed orders, if nothing else. There must be some kind of standing order not to desecrate Korans.
Not necessarily, but the UCMJ is generally vague in a great many areas to give it the flexibility it needs to do its job. There are numerous other rules and regulations depending on where you are, who you are, and what you’re doing, that flesh the details out a good bit, including local laws that the service members are expected to abide by.
None of us, it seems, are privy to what regulations the soldiers of the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division have to abide by while deployed to Iraq, so we’re left making vague assumptions based on what makes sense (ie: it makes sense that soldiers would be instructed not to desecrate the Quran, especially after we’ve had years of recent experience in the area to find out what pisses people off and how to try and avoid that).
When I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, I went on a couple of trips to the USA to participate in joint exercises.
If, on one of those trips, I had decided to burn an American flag in public, I’ve no doubt I would have been sent home, spent some time in jail, and been released from the Forces with prejudice.
Armies always have a rule against “being a complete and total jackass who makes us all look like shitheads.”
And you need to not shit threads. Thanks.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
Odds are pretty high that defacing a Quran is an actual crime in Iraq, and probably most other nations where Islam is the state religion. I would consider it an almost certainty, but I do not have a cite.
In any event, as others have said, the man is definitely guilty of;
And he should count himself lucky that the Iraqis did not demand that he be turned over to them for justice, or he’d be dead…and very probably in more than one piece.
I thought under the occupation agreement with Iraq, US military personal (and contractors) are not under the jurisdiction of Iraqi law.
How can this be a valid rule? It is so vague as to cover anything.
Military personel are still subject to the UCMJ (unlike the civilian mercenaries who are literally given a license to do anything they want without consequences).
That’s not the exact language in the UCMJ. 
In a situation like Iraq, ground troops will be given a specific set ofstanding orders about how to conduct themselves in-country. I’d be willing to bet (I haven’t verified this, I’m only like 99.99% certain) that the troops in Iraq are under orders not to desecrate Qur’ans or other Muslim holy objects (or places). That takes textual interpretations of the UCMJ out of the equation.
Not a crime for a civilian (and shouldn’t be. Better to shoot paper than snap and shoot up a mosque…) but it is disobeying an order if you are a soldier as I’m sure soldiers are ordered not to do anything to flaunt local laws, disrespect the Iraqis and maybe even specifically to deface or mishandle religious symbols.
In any case, it was a stupid thing to do which is an even greater crime.
For one I don’t think you know what literally means. Unless you can come up with a cite showing this so called license. Secondly Congress changed the law regarding civilian contractors and the UCMJ. In Viet Nam a civilian employee was convicted of a crime under UCMJ but it was overturned because the language of the law stated it was only in times of declared war. The wording of that law has been changed. Now it covers operations like Iraq. Cite . That happened about 2 years ago. The change was proposed by Sen Lindsey Graham. If they are not in the employ of the US government then they fall under local laws.
In every country that American forces are stationed (I’m sure other countries armed forces have similar agreements) there is something called a status of forces agreement. Or SOFA for short. This includes Germany, Japan, Korea… any place where troops are stationed. The SOFA outlines when and where the jurisdiction of the locals end and the UCMJ begins. For instance when I was in Germany the local police were required to contact the MPs when the arrested a GI. The MPs took control of the prisoner and juricdiction over prosecution was argued later. That was part of the SOFA. Part of the reason for having a SOFA is to protect dumbasses like in the OP. He needs to be punished, but he doesn’t deserve to be executed or some other draconian punishment.