Afghanistan Shooting Suspect
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Afghanistan Shooting Suspect

  1. #1
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    "Little America"
    Posts
    5,568

    Default Afghanistan Shooting Suspect

    http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-16/a...tan?_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

  2. #2
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blather View Post
    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.
    Tracey

    DD: 7/27/08
    DD Twins: 8/4/09 @ 35 Wks - No NICU, woot!
    7/9/07

  4. #4
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by wlillie; 03-17-2012 at 10:36 PM.

  5. #5
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beertje View Post
    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.
    Last edited by blather; 03-18-2012 at 12:13 AM.

  7. #7
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Double post.

  8. #8
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blather View Post
    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?
    Tracey

    DD: 7/27/08
    DD Twins: 8/4/09 @ 35 Wks - No NICU, woot!
    7/9/07

  9. #9
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beertje View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blather View Post
    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.
    Tracey

    DD: 7/27/08
    DD Twins: 8/4/09 @ 35 Wks - No NICU, woot!
    7/9/07

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions