US Soldiers killing Afghani civilians.

[YogSothoth]

Xtisme, I think the hypocrisy of imposing your own laws on other countries where we can get away with it is highly distasteful and immoral. There are exceptions, of course, don’t think that this is a strictly black and white issue, but in this case, I think the US soldier needs to be given over to the Afghan government, if only as a sacrifice. There is an enormous amount of damage that was done by this, I don’t feel it is in our interests to compound it especially when the details of who did what are in little doubt.

@xtisme

Isn’t he entitled to a fair trial by his peers? Why do you assume a military court would be more sympathetic? Why the assumption that a USMCJ would NOT be a fair trial?

I think its more important in this case to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Unless we can guarantee this guy life in prison or death, I don’t think the Afghans will be placated. Maybe its media bias, but you really only hear about the people who went through a military court and got off with light sentences. I don’t think that we can afford to let that happen

@xtisme

This thread is full of some of the heaviest irony I’ve seen in a while. Liberals are basically calling for blood here, in some instances, and muttering and grumbling because in the past there wasn’t sufficient proof to try (and execute!) some folks and they had the temerity to LET THEM GO SINCE THEY COULDN’T CONVICT THEM! Oh! The HUMANITY!

As a liberal, it doesn’t seem like the facts are in doubt in this case. Because of that, I’m comfortable in calling for harsher punishments. And just because we’re liberal doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with properly reached verdicts.

@xtisme

And why? Well, because they are US soldiers of course! Which seems to be a presumption of guilt in any crime, and that the military court system has the fix in to protect their own! Unlike the world renowned Afghani court system, of course, where we all know that they spell ‘justice’ with a capital J (well, no…not really sure what the Pashto word for justice is, to be honest, but it probably doesn’t start with a ‘J’).

Then may I add also that there is ample irony on the other side of conservatives who are usually tough on crime and willing to jump to any conclusions about innocent captured prisoners in Guantanamo now suddenly calling for thorough investigation? There is sufficient guilt on both sides for you to be not trying to defend your views by resorting to this. Why not just drop this line of reasoning and get back to the case at hand?

@xtisme

Would you be worried if the man in question was black or hispanic, or Jewish or Asian, and being ‘tried’ in the South in the 40’s or 50’s in a kangaroo court before being hauled off to the nearest tree, even if the man in question was presumably guilty? Or do the circumstances not matter, just the results? Are you pro-death penalty in all things, or just in cases like these? Because if the soldier is tried and sentenced in Afghanistan, he’s going to die, regardless of anything else. There is no other option.
a ‘J’).

I would be worried because back then, minorities have been convicted of nothing more than being a different race or ethnicity. In this case, this guy seemed to have copped to it; his actions are not in doubt, nobody has said he didn’t do it, only that there may have been even more personnel involved. I’m confident that this guy is the one who killed those Afghan civilians and that makes me less worried about the Afghan government dragging him around on an execution parade

@xtisme

If he’s tried by a military court he might die as well…but, if he does his guilt will pretty much be beyond question if they are invoking the death penalty against him. He’ll have a fair trial, an appeal, and every chance to present evidence in his defense BEFORE they take him out and shoot him. Or, perhaps he’ll be found to be insane (seems likely that he went around the bend), and instead of being killed he’ll get a life sentence instead, if found guilty. But not if he’s tried by the Afghani’s by Shari law, since afaik there aren’t any mitigating circumstances for acts such as these, regardless of mental state…at least not in that particular region.

I’ve never really been a fan of the mental health defense, so it doesn’t bother me that they wouldn’t reduce his punishment in any way

@xtisme

I see. So, if a foreign national commits a capital crime in the US, despite if there is an extradition treaty, then the US should be free to try, sentence and execute said national regardless of circumstance? Even if the guy in question is in the hands of the authorities from this other country? They should have to turn him over to the US so we can try and execute him? And, assuming this is how things really happen (I have no idea), you are cool with this?? And you figure that the foreign country AND their citizens should be cool with it too? I mean, it happened on our soil, so our rules, right?

Again, do you feel this way about every conceivable circumstance, or is this just your attitude in THIS particular circumstance?

The foreign country’s feelings on the topic is irrelevant, I’m talking about what should happen. And yes, I feel that in general, this is how things should be, with few exceptions. I haven’t made a list though of all the exceptions, if that’s what you’re asking. You can give me examples and ask my feelings on them if you want

@xtisme

And other countries probably aren’t too keen on us executing their citizens or using our laws and courts to execute them, even if they are stone cold guilty. In fact, I KNOW that Europeans in particular really, really dislike even though thought of this happening, and much prefer us to send their citizens back to them to try and sentence.

In general, I feel that as a citizen, you should not be entitled to or expect special treatment in another country. I’m against one country going to some extraordinary lengths to get its citizen back. Sure, rescue hostages and stuff, they haven’t done anything wrong. But I tend not to agree that we should be trying to get our citizens off punishments in other countries. They did the crime over there, they can suffer for it. The entire country should not be seen as enabling their bad behavior.

@xtisme

I thought we were after ‘justice’. Well, actually, based on some of the posts in this thread, I don’t really think folks are after that justice stuff. Surprisingly, the oddest folks seem to be after vengeance here. That exploding sound was my irony meter blowing up repeatedly reading through some of the posts here…especially considering who was writing some of them.

In this case, consistency is justice. Where instances of justice and consistency differ, the case needs to be examined to find out what creates the most fairness to all parties

@xtisme

I have no idea what this even means. Are you saying we should throw this guy to the wolves, even if guilty, and that this will somehow appease the Afghanis into hating us less? Or something?

Yes. And before you say that’s useless, consider that taking him back to the US for trial won’t make them hate us less, so giving him up to them for punishment is at least a chance they won’t hate us more than if we kept him. We need to establish a trend because one guy’s not going to do it. For the amount of years where US soldiers escaped justice when the actions were in little doubt, we need to reverse that with an equal amount of years dedicated to giving up our soldiers to local governments if they commit horrible crimes like this

[cckerberos]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If that’s the case then there doesn’t seem to be much of a debate. If we have an agreement with the Afghani government on that seems to be it.
[/quote]

It’s a little more complicated than that. The SOFA almost certainly contains a clause allowing one party to cede jurisdiction to the other. So the Afghan government should be within its rights to pressure the US to turn him over.

@Martin_Hyde

When we signed the SOFA, there was a secret agreement that the Japanese would never exercise their right of primary jurisdiction unless we said they could.

That’s overstating the case a bit. The Japanese agreed that “the Japanese authorities do not normally intend to exercise the primary right of jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, or their dependents subject to the military law of the United States, other than in cases considered to be of material importance to Japan”. It was a statement of voluntary restraint on the part of the Japanese, not a case of their needing US permission to prosecute. You’re right that in practice it means that the Japanese only exercise their jurisdiction rights about 20% of the time.

[PrettyVacant]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What are you trying to say? There was no trial because the prosecutors couldn’t find anyone willing to testify.

I’m not “trying” to say anything.

He was charged with offenses to which he felt comfortable admitting, so there was no trial.

Wouldn’t you, having been involved in the deaths of 24 people - mostly women, children and babies - and being told the max the judge can give you under these specific charges is 3 months?

No trial, no witnesses.

[PrettyVacant]

@elucidator

Are the Afghans even asking?

Which Afghans, the USA’s client Afghan President or the family of the dead single-shot-to-the-head children?

[AK84]

@Martin_Hyde

A key issue is the element of possession.

It’s one thing if you are arrested for something that wouldn’t be a crime in America over in say, Singapore. I could see America’s State department trying to step in if we had someone facing death for drug smuggling, but Singapore has a lot of other crimes we don’t have, most of those, you will face the punishment as required under the laws of Singapore.

You committed an offense in their jurisdiction, and most importantly “they’ve got you.” That isn’t even really a matter that concerns the U.S. court system.

However, if they charge you with something that isn’t a crime in the United States, and you escape to the United States, we are not going to extradite. We won’t extradite people for things that aren’t also a crime in the United States. Namely because it is explicitly noted in all our extradition treaties, but it is explicitly noted because no American court would extradite an American citizen to some crazy foreign country that wants to chop their hands off for something that isn’t even a misdemeanor in the United States.

That isn’t a perfect analogy to this situation because the soldier involved committed an offense that is certainly a crime in the United States. However, I can also say it is highly unlikely an American court would ever extradite an American citizen to stand trial in countries like Aghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, North Korea etc. Even if I go into North Korea, steal a bunch of priceless gems from the Dear Leader’s palace, and escape to America, no America court is going to extradite me. Not because my action wasn’t criminal, but because no American court will subject an American citizen to the court system of a country like North Korea (we also do not have a formal extradition treaty, so there would be nothing to compel our executive branch to even try to extradite, and they wouldn’t.)

We have possession of this guy, we can’t morally give him over to a court system where we do not believe he will receive a fair trial. It would be an immoral act. It would be a different matter if we didn’t have possession of him, but we do. It’d be a different matter if we were talking about turning him over to Germany, Japan, South Korea, or some other country that has a criminal justice system where you can expect a fair hearing and due process. Not the same sort of legal process as you’d find in America, but you still have rights and protections.

Just because this man has acted immorally that does not excuse us acting immorally towards him.

I’ll bow to your superior knowledge of the American legal system, but I must admit I am surprised, that the US take such a position whereby anyone who commits any crime in any country designated or deemed"bad" cannot be extradited. I also am rather startled that the US has decided the ignore/ decide it can live with inevitable consequence of such a policy, viz that every criminal, fugitive, dead beat dad, defaulter from that country or third parties will will try to end up in your jurisdiction and that unlike every other jurisdiction on earth the US has decided that it will not in any circumstances extradite someone to a specific country, no matter what the alleged crime, charge, evidence etc etc, especially in light of my most humble and limited experience whereby the US has extradited people to face trial overseas for matters which are not even offences in the US or the several states. But then you know best.

[PrettyVacant]

Indeed, the USA wouldn’t want to allow any** immorality** to creep into international due process.

Hence extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo and the desire of the Bush Administration to circumvent Habeas Corpus for even US citizens.

Any or all of that might just be considered an immoral act.

[AK84]

@Ibn_Warraq

You mean the Afghan court system which a few years ago sentenced a man to death for “abandoning Islam” to become and atheist and only relented at the last moment, declared the man insane and ordered him deported?

You’d trust those medieval barbarians?

Please, they make Khomeini look like Carl Sagan.

I really hope if I am ever to be deported to Afghanistan, you are not my lawyer.
Because if you are going to highlight extreme cases, then you will never going to ever get anyone deported to any jurisdiction.

I mean afterall, the largest state in the United States was willing to send a man down for 25 years for stealing a Pizziaand eventually this was reduced to “only” five years.

I am sure there are lots of arguments for not handing him over which do not rely on stereotypes and downright xenophobic comments such as “those medieval barbarians”.

[MrDibble]

@Odesio

Licensed to practice law in both the United States and Afghanistan?

Yes

Who cares if the prosecutor is a civilian if the judge and the jury is made up of members of the military?

Oh, I’d like it if the jury was also civilians, but the prosecutor would have an impact on what the jury gets to hear.

In what way specifically would they serve the interest of justice in a way a military prosecutor would not?

Is this a serious question?

What about a crime that takes place during an actual war? Let’s say a soldier is accused of raping and murdering a woman in Germany in early 1945. Who tries him? The Federal government? The state the soldier is from? Germany is out of the question since we’re at war with them.

Preferably, hold for civilian German trial later, once the shooting war is over. Failing that, military trial - I don’t see why the soldier’s home state has any say in the matter.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Ibn_Warraq

You mean the Afghan court system which a few years ago sentenced a man to death for “abandoning Islam” to become and atheist and only relented at the last moment, declared the man insane and ordered him deported?

You’d trust those medieval barbarians?

Please, they make Khomeini look like Carl Sagan.

Like I said, I don’t know anything about that aspect of it. That definitely makes me question the morality of handing someone over to that system, though.

[Martin_Hyde]

@AK84

I’ll bow to your superior knowledge of the American legal system, but I must admit I am surprised, that the US take such a position whereby anyone who commits any crime in any country designated or deemed"bad" cannot be extradited. I also am rather startled that the US has decided the ignore/ decide it can live with inevitable consequence of such a policy, viz that every criminal, fugitive, dead beat dad, defaulter from that country or third parties will will try to end up in your jurisdiction and that unlike every other jurisdiction on earth the US has decided that it will not in any circumstances extradite someone to a specific country, no matter what the alleged crime, charge, evidence etc etc, especially in light of my most humble and limited experience whereby the US has extradited people to face trial overseas for matters which are not even offences in the US or the several states. But then you know best.

Many countries are like this. Do you think Denmark, Sweden, Norway, UK, Finland, France et al. would extradite someone to Iran for trial?

They won’t even extradite someone to the United States on a capital crime unless we give them assurances the prosecutor will not seek the death penalty. If you as a country are morally opposed to something, like the death penalty for example, I don’t think it would be right to extradite someone to a country where that person might be put to death.

The United States at the Federal level obviously has the death penalty, but we still might view it as immoral to extradite someone to a court system that has no due process protections (again, I don’t know anything about the Afghan court system.)

To put it in very simple terms. Someone in Nazi Germany in 1941 shoots 10 people and then flees to the United States. He’s a German national, Hitler’s government asks for extradition. I wouldn’t be a fan of this murderer (let’s assume he murdered school children), but I also could not justify turning anyone over to a Nazi court, where show trials and summary executions were the norm. There is a greater morality here above and beyond anything else that would prohibit doing that in good conscience. The strongest test of morality is when dealing with evil people, not when dealing with good people. That’s precisely why it’s important even evil people get our best moral treatment.

Legally I’m no scholar at all, but it does seem that in general most first world countries have various legal doctrines, statutes and what have you, that prohibit extradition when the person is going to some country with no rights, no protections, and heinous (to the extraditing country) forms of punishment.

[Martin_Hyde]

@PrettyVacant

Indeed, the USA wouldn’t want to allow any** immorality** to creep into international due process.

Hence extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo and the desire of the Bush Administration to circumvent Habeas Corpus for even US citizens.

Any or all of that might just be considered an immoral act.

Are you arguing then we should continue to commit more immoral acts because we’ve already committed previous ones? Is that really the moral philosophy you want to adopt? Commit one sin, might as well commit 5,000?

[PrettyVacant]

Nazi Germany?

LOL.

[Martin_Hyde]

@MrDibble

Failing that, military trial - I don’t see why the soldier’s home state has any say in the matter.

That’s a valid view but the weight of history and precedent is firmly against it. War crimes have traditionally been tried by international tribunals, tribunals set up by the victorious party in a war to try the defeated, or by the armies of the respective belligerents. Right or wrong there is very little precedent in international law for a view that war criminals should be tried under the jurisdiction of the physical location they committed their crimes.

For lots of practical reasons it either comes down to a cabal of the victors (in the case of trying war criminals of a vanquished enemy) or the belligerents try their own people.

[Marley23]

@PrettyVacant

Nazi Germany?

LOL.

Enough already. PrettyVacant, you’re not making an argument - you’re just being unresponsive and annoying. Please post some real responses and debate points, or else simply stop participating in this thread.

[PrettyVacant]

I’m sorry. What I should have done is rattle on for paragraph after paragraph telling people the way it is, then tell them I’m “no legal schollar” and evoking Adolph Hitler.

Or maybe just link to a decent extradition overview, and let people inform themselves:

Extradition

I’m sure that’s what a Nazi would have done.

[Martin_Hyde]

@PrettyVacant

I’m sorry. What I should have done is rattle on for paragraph after paragraph telling people the way it is, then tell them I’m “no legal schollar” and evoking Adolph Hitler.

Or maybe just link to a decent extradition overview, and let people inform themselves:

Extradition - Wikipedia

I’m sure that’s what a Nazi would have done.

So it is your contention it is morally acceptable to extradite a criminal to any country they’ve fled from, regardless of the nature of that country’s legal system?

[PrettyVacant]

Extradition treaties are what they are for very godd reasons. Read the ‘Bars to Extradition’ section from the link you quoted. It’ll save you writing out endless posts on something that’s pretty basic and simple.

[Martin_Hyde]

@PrettyVacant

Extradition treaties are what they are for very godd reasons. Read the ‘Bars to Extradition’ section from the link you quoted. It’ll save you writing out endless posts on something that’s pretty basic and simple.

We don’t have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan that requires us to turn soldiers over to them.

Is there anything relating to the topic of this thread you’d like to talk about? Or are you done now?

[PrettyVacant]

Why on earth are you talking about extradition?

I don’t know how you got onto that subject but it’s not relevant to this thread.

[Martin_Hyde]

@PrettyVacant

Why on earth are you talking about extradition?

I don’t know how you got onto that subject but it’s not relevant to this thread.

All you’ve done in this thread is make stupid posts bashing the U.S. military’s legal system based on some bad guys who didn’t get punished to your satisfaction. You’ve made virtually no argument at all about this specific incident in Afghanistan and what should be done with this soldier or how the United States should handle this situation. That’s actually what the OP started this thread to discuss, if you’re just interested in random bitching about military courts then I don’t see that you’re actually engaged in this thread so there’s little reason for anyone to give much attention to what you’re saying here.

To at least make a good faith effort at dialogue, what do you think should be done in this situation, by the United States?