Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by rotorgun:
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
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. 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).
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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. 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.
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.
Originally Posted by rotorgun:
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: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.
..."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:
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:
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:
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
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 ?
Originally Posted by :
the British soldiers were in the lawful act of suppressing a riot.
the British soldiers were in the lawful act of suppressing a riot.
Originally Posted by :
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 .the legality of the rioters was highly questionable in the minds of the British authorities.
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 ?
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.
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.
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)
Originally Posted by :
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 .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.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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?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 .
Originally Posted by rotorgun:
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by :
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 . 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?
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 .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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. 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 .
Swordplay as opposed to gunfire 
or 
, and then there is the cavalry 
.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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO