Currently, 8 US troops are awaiting trial in the killing of an Iraqi. If convicted they will face the death penalty. Iraqi witnesses, i repeat, Iraqi witnesses, say the soldiers tied him up, threw him in a hole and shot him. Then they took him out and put an AK-47 in his hands to make it look like he was an enemy.
Apparently there are several different versions of the story being told, but the Iraqi version is why this all came down. I don't know what to believe or what to feel. What do you think? I'll find a reference and post it
edit - http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/hamdaniya.ap/index.html
We shot civilians in Viet Nam and threw prisoners out of helicopters. Not me personally, but it happened. Korean War vet told me they captured two prisoners once, hog tied them and detailed a man to walk them back to Headquarters for questioning. Soon as they got around a bend in the road the guard shot them…said they tried to escape. In those situations you 1) shoot first, ask questions later and 2) develop a hatred for your perceived enemy you wouldn’t believe you are capable of. Also, remember they don't want us in their country; we are messing up their lives worse than they already were.
Originally posted by PocketKingsYou sound like you think the fact that the witnesses are Iraqi makes a difference here?
Currently, 8 US troops are awaiting trial in the killing of an Iraqi. If convicted they will face the death penalty. Iraqi witnesses, i repeat, Iraqi witnesses, say the soldiers tied him up, threw him in a hole and shot him. Then they took him out and put an AK-47 in his hands to make it look like he was an enemy.
Apparently there are several differe ...[text shortened]... nd a reference and post it
edit - http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/hamdaniya.ap/index.html
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by PocketKingsi know nothing about being in a war, but i imagine these troops wake up every morning wondering whether they wil live to see another day. total change in mindset from being on home soil, possibly on edge and capable of doin things they may not do under different circumstances.
I'm suspicious of it
Originally posted by chrissybThis is precisely why troops have chains of command and orders and strict rules. To guard against soldiers 'taking matters into their own hands'.
i know nothing about being in a war, but i imagine these troops wake up every morning wondering whether they wil live to see another day. total change in mindset from being on home soil, possibly on edge and capable of doin things they may not do under different circumstances.
It's debatable, of course, whether any amount of training and discipline can prepare soldiers to cope with the stresses of being in a situation where their lives are constantly at risk. It's also debatable whether American soldiers receive training that is up to the standards of some other nations - I seem to remember that on several occasions the British have been stunned by the irresponsible actions of US troops. Mind you, the British haven't come through Iraq with their reputation entirely intact either.
Despite all that, there has to be a boundary line. I would think that the situation in Iraq WOULD be taken into account in deciding whether a crime has been committed, or at least in sentencing, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be at least possible for a soldier to be tried for murder.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Do you have issue with that they were accused in the first place, or if guilty they face the death penalty?
It will have to be up to the courts to decide the guilt of the case, to assess the evidence. If an Iraqi court of law is professional enough to give Sadam a fair trial it should be good enough for a couple of soliders.
Originally posted by RedmikeI was thinking the same thing. You'd be surprised how many Iraqis there are in Iraq.
Why?
Don't you think that, in Iraq, there's a fairly high probability that witnesses to crimes like this (or any other) will be Iraqi?
Edit - I'd be more suspicious if all 8 witnesses were, say, Icelandic.
To make something of the fact that the witnesses were Iraqi involves an assumption that Iraqis regard Americans with enmity. That's a poor generalisation - in fact, if they all hate you, why the hell did you lead a coalition to 'liberate' them?
IF any witness is identified as being a member of a specific group that is known to be hostile to the presence of American soldiers, there may be legitimate reasons to be suspicious of that person's evidence. But so long as we're operating at a high level of generality, the suspicion is nothing more than prejudice - literally.
PS All Icelanders are eccentric. Bjork is proof I'm right. 😉
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by orfeoenlightened me, thank you.
[b]This is precisely why troops have chains of command and orders and strict rules. To guard against soldiers 'taking matters into their own hands'.
It's debatable, of course, whether any amount of training and discipline can prepare soldiers to cope with the stresses of being in a situation where their lives are constantly at risk.
i saw a documentary not long after they went into Iraq. anyway they were talkin to a British soldier and he is one of those from a special forces unit. he said that if any body says they are not scared they are lying. so yeah, all the training in the world but it still affects them mentally pre, during and post war.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by latex bishopI could be wrong but i think American soldiers are only subject to US military law and would not go before a foreign court, no matter where they are.
It will have to be up to the courts to decide the guilt of the case, to assess the evidence. If an Iraqi court of law is professional enough to give Sadam a fair trial it should be good enough for a couple of soliders.[/b]
Originally posted by chrissybI think you are wrong, in general, but right in this case.
I could be wrong but i think American soldiers are only subject to US military law and would not go before a foreign court, no matter where they are.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm
Iraqi Leaders Question US Troops' Immunity (July 6, 2006)
Iraqi leaders have called for a review of the US-implemented law that prevents prosecution of coalition forces in Iraqi courts. Following reports of several alleged atrocities by US troops against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that immunity from prosecution encourages members of coalition forces to “commit such crimes in cold blood.” This Washington Post article concludes that challenges to the immunity order could widen a rift between US and Iraqi authorities.