View Full Version : Iraq government wishes to put US Troops on trial.
The Iraq government wishes to put on trial US troops after the following incident in March:
..."The troops, perpetually harassed by reckless insurgents, after they were threatened with machetes and mocked by taunts and burning effigies, fired into a rioting crowd and killed five men, three on the spot, two of wounds later. The funeral of the victims was the occasion for a great jingoist march accompanied with a cacophony of light arms being fired into the air."...
So should the government in this situation be allowed to put the troops on trial?
Do you think any government should be allowed to put on trial other nations troops (aside from the stock standard scenario of the winning side of a war putting the losers on trial for war crimes).
CountArach
08/10/07, 00:44
Try them in a military court, absolutely.
woad&fangs
08/10/07, 00:47
Why do the muslims have such an obsession with celebratory gunfire?
to win support, they have to get those troops tried.
either way this make the US look bad.:tnt:
but what I want to know if this will blow over...
PanzerJaeger
08/10/07, 05:26
Unacceptable. Do they not know their place?
Crazed Rabbit
08/10/07, 06:18
Do you have a link, Pape?
CR
Why do the muslims have such an obsession with celebratory gunfire?
Can you name a culture that doesn't fire off a salute when someone important dies?
It's exactly like the military salutes, but for regular people too.
@PJ: I think they know that it's their own country, and as such should have the jurisdiction when some of their inhabitants gets killed. As any country in the world would.
If you make a point about the war being over, be consequent and let them be trialed in iraq because that is where it took place. But on the other hand, the war isn't exactly over, let's define the situation first.
If you make a point about the war being over, be consequent and let them be trialed in iraq because that is where it took place. But on the other hand, the war isn't exactly over, let's define the situation first.
I liked the Onion tagline.
"Iraq - winning the war for the past 4 years"
Depends on the "Status Of Forces Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agreement).
American-led Coalition forces participating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq were initially subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their parent states. Since the handover of soverign power to an Iraqi administration, Coalition forces in Iraq are nominally subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, and operate without any Status of Forces Agreement.[1] In theory, Iraqi Courts have the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right has never been exercised.
until now, apparently.
You guys can't get away with not allowing this then. I am glad the most important decision I have to make today is wether to take the bus home or the train. The Hague sounds like the middle road to take, but I don't think that will happen. Feel sorry for those soldiers.
Incongruous
08/10/07, 21:55
What a load of bollox this has all turned out to be.
I feel really, really sorry for those troops, I would personally just send them home with a discharge. But this Iraqi govt. needs to try and gain some support.
Not even the mighty GAH! can explain the crap those soldiers are in:shame:
Seamus Fermanagh
09/10/07, 03:53
We had friendly occupation troops firing into one of our crowds a number of years back. They were tried by local civilian authority -- and acquitted when the defense proved them to have been faced with a real threat of harm, despite the locals clamoring for thier execution. Their C.O. was punished for failure to exercise the proper degree of control, but the troops were let off. A salutory lesson in the rule of law.
Edit: I was, of course, referring to the "Boston Massacre" that preceded our Revolution. The defense attorney for those British soldiers? John Adams.
CountArach
09/10/07, 12:11
What a load of bollox this has all turned out to be.
I feel really, really sorry for those troops, I would personally just send them home with a discharge. But this Iraqi govt. needs to try and gain some support.
Not even the mighty GAH! can explain the crap those soldiers are in:shame:
Wait... you feel sorry for the soldiers? What about the families of those people they killed?
hard to comment on whether the soldiers were to blame without even a full news report to read...
The Celtic Viking
09/10/07, 17:26
hard to comment on whether the soldiers were to blame without even a full news report to read...
But that's not really what this thread is about. It's about if any government should be allowed to put other nations' troops on trial - it's in the trial that it should decided whether or not they were to blame.
The way I see it, at least in this case it's a no-brainer. Of course they should.
Edit: I was, of course, referring to the "Boston Massacre" that preceded our Revolution. The defense attorney for those British soldiers? John Adams.
Likewise. :laugh4:
I wanted to see how people reacted to the Boston Massacre by changing the national identities.
http://www.americanrevolution.com/BostonMassacre.htm
1770, pre-Revolutionary incident growing out of the resentment against the British troops sent to Boston to maintain order and to enforce the Townshend Acts. The troops, constantly tormented by irresponsible gangs, finally (March 5, 1770) fired into a rioting crowd and killed five menthree on the spot, two of wounds later. The funeral of the victims was the occasion for a great patriot demonstration. The British captain, Thomas Preston, and his men were tried for murder, with Robert Treat Paine as prosecutor, John Adams and Josiah Quincy as lawyers for the defense. Preston and six of his men were acquitted; two others were found guilty of manslaughter, punished, and discharged from the army.
We had friendly occupation troops firing into one of our crowds a number of years back. They were tried by local civilian authority -- and acquitted when the defense proved them to have been faced with a real threat of harm, despite the locals clamoring for thier execution. Their C.O. was punished for failure to exercise the proper degree of control, but the troops were let off. A salutory lesson in the rule of law.
Edit: I was, of course, referring to the "Boston Massacre" that preceded our Revolution. The defense attorney for those British soldiers? John Adams.
We did a mock law trial in law class when I was in high school. I was assigned to prosecute the British soldiers who ended up firing into the crowd, even though I believed, looking at the historical evidence, that they were probably innocent.
Louis VI the Fat
10/10/07, 00:26
Boy, am I glad I opened this thread. What a gem! :beam:
Incongruous
10/10/07, 10:43
Wait... you feel sorry for the soldiers? What about the families of those people they killed?
Did I say I did not feel sorry for them, I thought it was a matter of coarse.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10/10/07, 21:30
What a load of bollox this has all turned out to be.
I feel really, really sorry for those troops, I would personally just send them home with a discharge. But this Iraqi govt. needs to try and gain some support.
Not even the mighty GAH! can explain the crap those soldiers are in:shame:
Same. They should be let go. Killing people you don't do for no reason. When you see your friends get blow apart by IED's all the time... Well, what they did is fine with me. I'm sorry, but it is.
I feel sorry for the troops more then I do for the families. Why? Well... If I say why, I will get a warining point:inquisitive:
If there is enough evidence that an alleged crime was commited through a thourough investigation (in which the Iraqis must be included), then I would allow these people to be tried by an Iraqi court. If we fail to respond in this way, then we really are nothing more than an army of occupation, and not liberation. An example must be made if some troops do not follow procedures.
It definately warrants consideration.
Incongruous
10/10/07, 21:59
Same. They should be let go. Killing people you don't do for no reason. When you see your friends get blow apart by IED's all the time... Well, what they did is fine with me. I'm sorry, but it is.
I feel sorry for the troops more then I do for the families. Why? Well... If I say why, I will get a warining point:inquisitive:
The same could be said for Iraqi's, maybe that's why some turn to violence, the constant non-stop crap that they have to deal with.
Well unfortunately, the US need to give this Iraqi govt. something to hold on to. This could be it.
If there is enough evidence that an alleged crime was commited through a thourough investigation (in which the Iraqis must be included), then I would allow these people to be tried by an Iraqi court. If we fail to respond in this way, then we really are nothing more than an army of occupation, and not liberation. An example must be made if some troops do not follow procedures.
It definately warrants consideration.
The soldiers in the incident have already been tried. The officer in charge and six of his men were cleared, but two men were found guilty of manslaughter and discharged.
Marshal Murat
10/10/07, 22:04
perpetually harassed by reckless insurgents...great jingoist march accompanied with a cacophony of light arms being fired into the air
Really? What news group ever used 'perpetually', 'jingoist' or 'cacophony' in a recent news report?
Get some synonyms. You were caught right there, because unless your writing propaganda, no AP reporter is ever going to say 'jingoist' or 'cacophony'.
Otherwise, good job.
True:2thumbsup: ... always have to allow an out and become more preposterous as the piece goes on.
Really? What news group ever used 'perpetually', 'jingoist' or 'cacophony' in a recent news report?
The Guardian , in its coverage of the latest Turkish elections:yes:
Only if they also charge the rioters, the people who incited the riot and the ones who threatened them with machetes.
Only if they also charge the rioters, the people who incited the riot and the ones who threatened them with machetes.
Personally I'd nuke the place. The crowd clearly provoked and threatened the soldiers, who rightfully defended themselves with arms. I just don't understand how anyone can sympathise with the terrorists in such a situation. Nuke the place and be done with it I say. The people are clearly worthless and so is the place, and nothing good will come of that worthless country in the future.
Personally I'd nuke the place. The crowd clearly provoked and threatened the soldiers, who rightfully defended themselves with arms. I just don't understand how anyone can sympathise with the terrorists in such a situation. Nuke the place and be done with it I say. The people are clearly worthless and so is the place, and nothing good will come of that worthless country in the future.
Just a might strong don't you think Pannonian? I say, if we go around just nuking anyone who offends us, after we invade their sovereign contry for little or no reason, we would look worse than Ghengis Khan. How can we play the part of liberator if we acted in such a fashion?
Just a might strong don't you think Pannonian? I say, if we go around just nuking anyone who offends us, after we invade their sovereign contry for little or no reason, we would look worse than Ghengis Khan. How can we play the part of liberator if we acted in such a fashion?
Not all countries, just this particular one that's upset us. Think about this: if we don't nip these terrorists in the bud now, what would we do if they started getting silly overinflated ideas about themselves in the future? Lord knows, perhaps they might even go so far as to declare independence for themselves, free from our control, and what would we do then? No, the best solution is to nuke them now, and cleanse the earth of these ungrateful sods.
Seamus Fermanagh
11/10/07, 16:29
Oh, Pan's just having a wee bit of fun. Now that he knows the OP was a modern restatement of the facts surrounding the Boston Massacre, he's just blowing us yanks a bit of a raspberry.
Do you think any government should be allowed to put on trial other nations troops (aside from the stock standard scenario of the winning side of a war putting the losers on trial for war crimes).
Well, they'd have to have the means of arresting said troops and the ability to give them a trial. Assuming they can do both, there's nothing to stop them from putting foreign troops on trial. :shrug:
Oh, Pan's just having a wee bit of fun. Now that he knows the OP was a modern restatement of the facts surrounding the Boston Massacre, he's just blowing us yanks a bit of a raspberry.
Some idea of fun. I'm sure the ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree that a suggestion of nuclear attack is just a bit of fun. There is an admitted similarity between this situation and the Boston Massacre. There is one major diffference, however. Iraq is a sovereign country whom we claim we are liberating from oppression. Massachusetts was a colony of Britain at the time,and the British soldiers were in the lawful act of suppressing a riot.
In both cases a riot was involved, but in Iraq, we are not only percieved as an occupying force, we are in fact such, even though or leadership would like us to believe otherwise. The same argument could be claimed for the colonials, in that they viewed the British soldiers as an illegal occupying army, but the legality of the rioters was highly questionable in the minds of the British authorities.
Some idea of fun. I'm sure the ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree that a suggestion of nuclear attack is just a bit of fun. There is an admitted similarity between this situation and the Boston Massacre. There is one major diffference, however. Iraq is a sovereign country whom we claim we are liberating from oppression. Massachusetts was a colony of Britain at the time,and the British soldiers were in the lawful act of suppressing a riot.
In both cases a riot was involved, but in Iraq, we are not only percieved as an occupying force, we are in fact such, even though or leadership would like us to believe otherwise. The same argument could be claimed for the colonials, in that they viewed the British soldiers as an illegal occupying army, but the legality of the rioters was highly questionable in the minds of the British authorities.
Erm, Pape posted the exact details from the Boston Massacre. except with Iraq as the country instead of America. Here's the Papefied version (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1701372&postcount=1):
..."The troops, perpetually harassed by reckless insurgents, after they were threatened with machetes and mocked by taunts and burning effigies, fired into a rioting crowd and killed five men, three on the spot, two of wounds later. The funeral of the victims was the occasion for a great jingoist march accompanied with a cacophony of light arms being fired into the air."...
And here's the original version (http://www.americanrevolution.com/BostonMassacre.htm):
1770, pre-Revolutionary incident growing out of the resentment against the British troops sent to Boston to maintain order and to enforce the Townshend Acts. The troops, constantly tormented by irresponsible gangs, finally (March 5, 1770) fired into a rioting crowd and killed five menthree on the spot, two of wounds later. The funeral of the victims was the occasion for a great patriot demonstration. The British captain, Thomas Preston, and his men were tried for murder, with Robert Treat Paine as prosecutor, John Adams and Josiah Quincy as lawyers for the defense. Preston and six of his men were acquitted; two others were found guilty of manslaughter, punished, and discharged from the army.
Hence, when you said (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1705199&postcount=22):
If there is enough evidence that an alleged crime was commited through a thourough investigation (in which the Iraqis must be included), then I would allow these people to be tried by an Iraqi court.
I replied (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1705216&postcount=24):
The soldiers in the incident have already been tried. The officer in charge and six of his men were cleared, but two men were found guilty of manslaughter and discharged.
But you continued to think this was a genuine incident, so I decided to have some fun.
Two things Rotor
the British soldiers were in the lawful act of suppressing a riot.
the legality of the rioters was highly questionable in the minds of the British authorities.
Whether the authorities considered the riot illegal is irrelevant ,the whole case hinged on breach of the rules for dealing with disturbances .
Since the soldiers were not allowed to shoot into the crowd the shooting is not a lawful act of suppressing a riot .
So to bring it back to the modern setting of Iraq , if coilition soldiers commit a crime by acting outside of their legal rules of engagement can there be any reason for them not to be tried under the local laws that they broke ?
Seamus Fermanagh
12/10/07, 02:44
Rotor':
I do not believe it was Pan's intent to belittle the dead of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or anywhere else for that matter.
On civilian authority:
The UCMJ does not obviate military personnel from culpability before a civilian court, though it is often the case that a civilian court in the USA will defer to the military even for matters which do NOT occur "on post."
On the Boston Massacre:
The Justice of the Peace charged with reading the Riot Act was prevented from doing so by the mob itself (not sure if that obviated the strictures imposed by the Riot Act as the intent to read it was obvious). Subsequently, one of the soldiers was struck by a flung club and then fired back into the crowd. Seven Bostonians were killed over the next few minutes of confused action. An unknown number were bruised, somewhat battered, or simply left the scene.
:surrender: Ok guys, I surrender!
Your right Pan. I should have paid a bit closer attention to the byplay. I still do think it's a bit over the top to want to nuke the Iraqis. Trust me when I say, I have no conceivable interest in wasting another precious moment of my time in trying to democratize Iraq. I really could care less about the sodomizing, women bashing, Christian hating, practitioners of strange sexual acts with farm animals, that pass themselves off as men there. It will be my sad duty to probably do a rotation there in this bellum perpetuatum, and I don't remember losing anything there. I just pray that I may behave with some sort of honor when I do go there, and try to remember that God loves even them.
Tribe, you make a good point. Although I do think that getting hit in the head by a rock just might be capable of provoking a scared young man, far from home, who is surrounded by a crowd who so obviously hates them. The same could be said for soldiers put in the same situation in Iraq.
Seamus, always the gentleman, and as wise as King Solomon. Good riposte with the bit from the UCMJ. All the more reason to argue for the right of Iraqi courts to try criminally negligent soldiers who have broken their laws. (No double jeapordy though)
Although I do think that getting hit in the head by a rock just might be capable of provoking a scared young man, far from home, who is surrounded by a crowd who so obviously hates them. The same could be said for soldiers put in the same situation in Iraq.
Thats why they had bayonets , if they had killed or wounded members of the crowd with bayonets it wouldn't have been issue , the trial was not because they had killed people it was because they had killed people by shooting .
Thats why they had bayonets , if they had killed or wounded members of the crowd with bayonets it wouldn't have been issue , the trial was not because they had killed people it was because they had killed people by shooting .
So killing with a bayonet is somehow less of a crime than killing with a musket? In either case death is the result. Am I missing something here?
So killing with a bayonet is somehow less of a crime than killing with a musket? In either case death is the result. Am I missing something here?
I think the difference is the distance, if the crowd comes close enough to get hit by bajonets, it's more evident that they wanted to hurt the soldiers.
Now that would be quite a risk for the soldiers to take of course so I'm not sure whether that makes a lot of sense, but it's the best explanation I can come up with. :sweatdrop:
So killing with a bayonet is somehow less of a crime than killing with a musket? In either case death is the result. Am I missing something here?
Yep , because it would have been within the legal rules of engagement , the rules were drawn up because shooting a large calibre smoothbore musket at close range into a crowd can have a very different and unpredictable outcome than sticking a blade into an individual would have .
Though of course the prefered method at the time would be cavalry with swords into the crowd supposedly only using the flat of the blade to strike rather than the edge .
See you were definately missing something .
Yep , because it would have been within the legal rules of engagement , the rules were drawn up because shooting a large calibre smoothbore musket at close range into a crowd can have a very different and unpredictable outcome than sticking a blade into an individual would have .
Though of course the prefered method at the time would be cavalry with swords into the crowd supposedly only using the flat of the blade to strike rather than the edge .
See you were definately missing something .
Well I have to admit I never quite thought of it in that way. :duel: Swordplay as opposed to gunfire :smg: or :hmg:, and then there is the cavalry :charge:.
Was there actually such a thing as rules of engagement for dealing with the rebellious, tax-dodging, colonists?
PS: I know! I should know this, but.......shameful.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.