Afghanistan Shooting Suspect

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780
Afghanistan Shooting Suspect

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-16/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-shooting-soldier_1_afghan-civilians-soldier-afghanistan?_s=PM:ASIA

The soldier shot innocent civilians- Women, children, and men. The USA quickly flew him back here and he's in prison in Kansas.

Was it right to fly him back here or should he have stayed in Afghanistan and endured his punishment in their prison system? The crime did take place in Afghanistan after all....

Discuss:)

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

The US has agreements in place with governments in the territories it has troops in which gives it the right to do this. Of course, if they set up the government and wrote the consitution and put in the people they liked then it's not like they gained the agreement of locals and this is a little disingenuous.

Personally, I feel that the US and its MPs can have control on their base. But when their soldiers commit mass murder, rape disabled women or children, or let their children put wires across roads that cause accidents for locals, they should be tried by the local authorities.

I understand these agreements were put (forced) in place so that soldiers chewing gum in places where that is illegal don't get unfairly punished. But rape, murder, or anything that is illegal in every country in the world should be punished by the peers of the victim.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"blather" wrote:

The US has agreements in place with governments in the territories it has troops in which gives it the right to do this. Of course, if they set up the government and wrote the consitution and put in the people they liked then it's not like they gained the agreement of locals and this is a little disingenuous.

Personally, I feel that the US and its MPs can have control on their base. But when their soldiers commit mass murder, rape disabled women or children, or let their children put wires across roads that cause accidents for locals, they should be tried by the local authorities.

I understand these agreements were put (forced) in place so that soldiers chewing gum in places where that is illegal don't get unfairly punished. But rape, murder, or anything that is illegal in every country in the world should be punished by the peers of the victim.

Except I can see why they would be put into place during wars regardless of the offense. With everything soldiers face, it would not be surprising if this individuals' mental health deteriorated to the point they just snapped. I don't think it can be compared to those that are committing crimes outside of war. I can't imagine what most soldiers who are stationed in these zones are faced with and what they have to endure.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

There is not a single country in the world who would let us try one of their military in our judicial system. Not one and we have far more of a melting pot than any other country as far as variety goes. Keesler has over 20different nationalities from different militaries being trained alone and that is one air force base out of 5 training afbs: I have no clue how many are at the Navy, Marine, and Army bases. Their military are not subject to our punishments. And some aren't subject to our rules.

Kind of like ambassodors and their families.

Not to mention (don't know why the press never seems to mention it) they are not set up for holding him let alone trying him in a court. They don't have the resources or system to give him a trial. *WE* don't have the resources over there to hold him properly until his trial date comes up.

Eta-rape and other crimes we would prosecute often wouldn't be in some of the countries we deploy to. Ourrules are often far far more strict except when it comes to those that are only religion based.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"wlillie" wrote:

There is not a single country in the world who would let us try one of their military in our judicial system.

How many, let's say, Japanese soldiers or their dependents, have murdered or raped civilians inside the US? When is this an issue? It's an issue every single day in the countries you are currently occupying.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Beertje" wrote:

Except I can see why they would be put into place during wars regardless of the offense. With everything soldiers face, it would not be surprising if this individuals' mental health deteriorated to the point they just snapped. I don't think it can be compared to those that are committing crimes outside of war. I can't imagine what most soldiers who are stationed in these zones are faced with and what they have to endure.

Sure they just snap. They are trained to be killers, that's going to hurt the most normal of people, and when the least normal people get in it's going to have an even more detrimental effect.
That doesn't mean it is in any way acceptable. They need to accept the consequences, and so do the people they have hurt. Why not give the Okinawans or the Afghanis some piece of mind knowing that they were able to get justice for the victim of the horrible acts perpetrated on them by US soldiers?

Also, if locals know that their courts will be able to deal with the perpetrators of these crimes, they won't have to resort to murdering the rapists to get them to stop.

They won't hand over the mass murderer to the Afghanis, but they will start letting countries prosecute US soldiers who go on drunken rampages or worse, just like they did with the hit-and-run perp who killed a man in Okinawa a couple of years ago. Crime by occupying forces in Okinawa has been down by quite a bit since Clyde Gunn was sentenced to years in Japanese jail in 2010.

Soldiers are in no way comparable to diplomats except that they are both expected to show decorum fitting of cultural ambassadors. The diplomatic immunity is mainly in place so that diplomats can do their job without having to fear fake charges. If a diplomat does something worthy of punishment and their home country finds that they did, then I am all in favour of them getting local punishment. Usually, because there are so few diplomats and they go through much more stringent selection and training, there is less chance of an asshole getting into their ranks. That's not the same with the military.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Double post.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"blather" wrote:

Sure they just snap. They are trained to be killers, that's going to hurt the most normal of people, and when the least normal people get in it's going to have an even more detrimental effect.
That doesn't mean it is in any way acceptable. They need to accept the consequences, and so do the people they have hurt. Why not give the Okinawans or the Afghanis some piece of mind knowing that they were able to get justice for the victim of the horrible acts perpetrated on them by US soldiers?

Also, if locals know that their courts will be able to deal with the perpetrators of these crimes, they won't have to resort to murdering the rapists to get them to stop.

They won't hand over the mass murderer to the Afghanis, but they will start letting countries prosecute US soldiers who go on drunken rampages or worse, just like they did with the hit-and-run perp who killed a man in Okinawa a couple of years ago. Crime by occupying forces in Okinawa has been down by quite a bit since Clyde Gunn was sentenced to years in Japanese jail in 2010.

Soldiers are in no way comparable to diplomats except that they are both expected to show decorum fitting of cultural ambassadors. The diplomatic immunity is mainly in place so that diplomats can do their job without having to fear fake charges. If a diplomat does something worthy of punishment and their home country finds that they did, then I am all in favour of them getting local punishment. Usually, because there are so few diplomats and they go through much more stringent selection and training, there is less chance of an asshole getting into their ranks. That's not the same with the military.

I guess I'm more inclined to want a full review of the situation to exclude temporary insanity than to assume they intentionally murdered innocent victims in a war zone. I am more on the thought that a country where the crime is committed that is at war may have a bit of bias towards assuming they intentionally murdered others. I know of a situation where in Afghanistan the soldiers weren't even given all of their basic needs and one soldier ended up killing a couple of soldiers in his own troop. To me, that's insane. The members of his troop who have witnessed everything are currently suffering PTSD. I think that unless we've actually experienced what they have, we have no clue what they've gone through to truly understand why they act the way they have and that they need medical help more than the families of victims need justice. I won't assume I know the full story as I am not there to witness it and I'm sure the full story will not be completely revealed through the media. In what war are all victims given full justice?

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Beertje" wrote:

I am more on the thought that a country where the crime is committed that is at war may have a bit of bias towards assuming they intentionally murdered others.

And the US is not biased towards protecting their own ***?

Probably the best solution would be for the international court to deal with these, but we all know what the US thinks of that.

It's not always war zones where US soldiers commit atrocious acts, sometimes it's friendly nations- not that it is an excuse if they are doing something horrible in a war zone.

Beertje, those are just excuses. Of course it's horrible that soldiers get PTSD, but those that do something illegal because of it should by no means be slapped on the wrist by anyone.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"blather" wrote:

And the US is not biased towards protecting their own ***?

Probably the best solution would be for the international court to deal with these, but we all know what the US thinks of that.

It's not always war zones where US soldiers commit atrocious acts, sometimes it's friendly nations- not that it is an excuse if they are doing something horrible in a war zone.

Beertje, those are just excuses. Of course it's horrible that soldiers get PTSD, but those that do something illegal because of it should by no means be slapped on the wrist by anyone.

What country isn't biased towards their own? Seriously. Yes, maybe international court may be the way to go, but at this moment, that's not happening. We're talking this scenario, not areas that are not war zones. They are not excuses, nor should they get slaps on the wrists, but they should get all of the services they truly need rather than throwing them in a place only for punishment either. I feel that is not the solution in this situation.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

I don't think it matters if it is in a war zone or not. The US must engage the victimized community when one of its military troops commits a crime off-base.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Everything Blather said. Everything. "He just snapped" because he is in a place he should not be, and should be tried by the people he "snapped" on. Of course he won't be, we have made to rules to include "snapping" and rape and other hideous events...........instead we swoop him off and give him a nice bed and a lot of tests.

I can tell you how I would be feeling if a, say French soldier wandered off of his base in Philadelphia and dragged my sleeping son out of bed and shot him in the head, then was given an airplane, safety, three meals a day and "testing". I'd have some very, very specific sorts of "tests" I, as a parent, would like to administer, in such a situation.

I hope this draws more attention to the debacle we are creating for ourselves over there and gets us the he;l! out sooner.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

I'll say first, he deserves the strictest punishment. However, I don't think he would get a "fair" trial (not that he really deserves it after what he did) in a country we're actively fighting against. I've seen a lot of cases were these soldiers are getting off with little reprimand and it's disgusting. I get that they are trained to kill but there is a line that a lot continue to step over.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I'll say first, he deserves the strictest punishment. However, I don't think he would get a "fair" trial (not that he really deserves it after what he did) in a country we're actively fighting against. I've seen a lot of cases were these soldiers are getting off with little reprimand and it's disgusting. I get that they are trained to kill but there is a line that a lot continue to step over.

You say fair trial then you say he doesn't deserve it in the same sentence. It's one or the other, really. I see no problem with him chillaxin in Afghanistan and reaping the consequences they have in place there. If a soldier from Afghanistan shot innocent civilians here, he/she would be on trial here.

What do you mean by a fair trial anyway? The guy did it, what more does the court system need to go on about.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

You say fair trial then you say he doesn't deserve it in the same sentence. It's one or the other, really. I see no problem with him chillaxin in Afghanistan and reaping the consequences they have in place there. If a soldier from Afghanistan shot innocent civilians here, he/she would be on trial here.

What do you mean by a fair trial anyway? The guy did it, what more does the court system need to go on about.

Do we have soldiers form Afghanistan stationed here? As Wlillie said, with ambassadors and their families, they are tried in their home country.

I'm not convinced it will matter where the trial takes place. The military has the death penalty. Perhaps it's just a matter of how quick and painful the death will be?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

We do have soldiers from Afghanistan here. Some of them are here so long their families come too. They would *NOT* go on trial here for shooting civilians even though our justice system is established and theirs is not. I wish the media would post more facts when they write these articles so people wouldn't get so confused.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"blather" wrote:

How many, let's say, Japanese soldiers or their dependents, have murdered or raped civilians inside the US? When is this an issue? It's an issue every single day in the countries you are currently occupying.

I don't get to choose where our military is or how the system works. I don't even agree with most of them and I know I'm not the only military member voting for Ron Paul this next election. I would even more than ecstatically give up the three years in Germany we're expecting as a family if those guys could come home. No clue on how many violent crimes have been performed by other countries militaries: not something that would make the news like this story is it? I can tell you that the stringent testing for diplomats has got to be pretty ****ty since I do know our country hands them and their dependants all the time. The same reasons apply to the military: it's stupid to think a diplomat is any more likely to be accused of a stpid rule than a soldier. We try to respect their rules but there is a huge difference between being tried "fairly" and handed over to a country that has the resources they do.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780

"wlillie" wrote:

We do have soldiers from Afghanistan here. Some of them are here so long their families come too. They would *NOT* go on trial here for shooting civilians even though our justice system is established and theirs is not. I wish the media would post more facts when they write these articles so people wouldn't get so confused.

Ok, I did not know that but thank you for unconfusing me.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

You say fair trial then you say he doesn't deserve it in the same sentence. It's one or the other, really. I see no problem with him chillaxin in Afghanistan and reaping the consequences they have in place there. If a soldier from Afghanistan shot innocent civilians here, he/she would be on trial here.

What do you mean by a fair trial anyway? The guy did it, what more does the court system need to go on about.

Well because I see it both ways. It's totally OK to have two opinions. On one hand, perhaps if they start trying them over there less "snaps" will happen. But at the same time, there will be absolutely no fairness in anything that they say/do in Afghanistan bc of the war and most of them hating Americans in general. So yes, I see it from both sides - I personally just can't decide which would be the best action to take.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6545

What if it was less clear cut if he actually did it? Would you want to be tried in a country that hated American's if you were innocent? It sets a precedent for all trials to happen there regardless of the circumstances.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"wlillie" wrote:

No clue on how many violent crimes have been performed by other countries militaries: not something that would make the news like this story is it?

Are you on crack? Of course it would make the news if it happened, but it doesn't. Of course the sheer numbers of your troops occupying other countries is so vast it dwarfs the couple hundred troops from other nations over at the US for training, so it is more likely that US troops will have something go wrong. But that doesn't mean it is in any way shape or form acceptable.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

No, I'm pregnant. You don't know that at all and I said like this story, not that it wouldn't make the news. You are just speculating just as much as I am. I never said or implied it isacceptable nor has anyone else.

Deniz, you aren't the only one confused. Your welcome.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

When a Japanese soldier was caught chewing gum in Afghanistan it was all over the Japanese media for months. If one of their soldiers did anything in the US like the rapes US soldiers have done in Japan it would be huge everywhere. How could you deny that?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4107

If they had kept that soldier in Afghanistan it would have put many many innocent soldiers in danger because they would have been required to protect him, and he would have been a big target. No matter where in Afghanistan he was held it would have been a target for suicide bombers and attacks because it would be very hard to keep it a secret where he was being held, and even if they did keep it secret there would probably have been attacks based on rumours of where he was. I think they did absolutely the right thing in getting him out of the country.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"blather" wrote:

When a Japanese soldier was caught chewing gum in Afghanistan it was all over the Japanese media for months. If one of their soldiers did anything in the US like the rapes US soldiers have done in Japan it would be huge everywhere. How could you deny that?

The example that I gave earlier where soldiers shot members in their own troop barely even made the news. It didn't make the evening news. Instead, it was a very small blurp in the back of the paper of the state they all originated from. The story was not considered sensational enough to make nationwide top news.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Beertje" wrote:

The example that I gave earlier where soldiers shot members in their own troop barely even made the news. It didn't make the evening news. Instead, it was a very small blurp in the back of the paper of the state they all originated from. The story was not considered sensational enough to make nationwide top news.

I didn't see any example you gave earlier.

What international incident was there where soldiers shot members of their own troop? Or if they were members of their own troop wouldn't it be a not international event? I'm confused.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"blather" wrote:

I didn't see any example you gave earlier.

What international incident was there where soldiers shot members of their own troop? Or if they were members of their own troop wouldn't it be a not international event? I'm confused.

I know of a situation where in Afghanistan the soldiers weren't even given all of their basic needs and one soldier ended up killing a couple of soldiers in his own troop.

So since it happened on international soil, some people's argument is that they should be tried in the country the crime was committed. But I was more getting at that if it's not even very newsworthy of soldiers killing their own friends and members of their own troops, it would also not be very newsworthy if it were the same scenario only killing a couple civilians rather than troop members. Granted the OP is much more than a couple of civilians including women and children, making it much more sensational and newsworthy for our nation. I hope that makes more sense for you.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree with you.

I thought that you were giving an example of something I could verify, not a personal anecdote.

I think that it is sad that friendly fire incidents are so common that they are not newsworthy in the US.

Log in or register to post comments