Originally posted by aging blitzeryeah thats it the immunity. i can recall quite a few years back US soldiers were getting into trouble in japan and this other asian country where they have a base. and the issue of immunity was coming up then, but i didn't take interest at that time, so don't know much about it.
I think you are wrong, in general, but right in this case.
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 al ...[text shortened]... udes that challenges to the immunity order could widen a rift between US and Iraqi authorities.
Originally posted by PocketKingsThe second point is the one I have real difficulty with. I still don't see how you are so sure that THESE Iraqis dislike US troops, unless you assume that Iraqis who support US troops would automatically support murderous US troops and wouldn't be willing to testify against them no matter what.
Ok, not the direction I was looking to go in this debate, but ok. First of all, I don't identify with either of them. Second, I'm not implying anything about the witnesses as to whether they are friends of the deceased or not, but that they are against the troops being there at all. Third, the scenerio has alot to do with the war. When warring in a forie ...[text shortened]... ittle suspicious then you have alot of faith in humanity, and you will be dissapointed by it.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that the scenario had nothing at all to do with the war. The actions of the soldiers certainly did. But I doubt that the witnesses in a war are any more unreliable than witnesses everywhere.
It's not that I don't find the whole thing suspicious, it's that I don't find it any MORE suspicious than a whole lot of cases in other countries. The only assumption I make about the case is that the soldiers are innocent until proven guilty. The credibility of witnesses on BOTH sides will have to be assessed during the case. That's what's supposed to happen.
Originally posted by xsYes it would make their account more reliable as they would have little reason to fabricate and an incentive to have the actual killers of their family member punished.
It might, if they are Awad's family members...
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14728788.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Originally posted by PocketKingsIn ref to:
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
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/hamdaniya.ap/index.html
The charges, Jacobson (political science professor) said, are a black eye for the Marine Corps...
I guess even professors need to be reminded that charges and specifications are accusations against the individuals and the accused are presumed innocent until found otherwise.