Iraq government wishes to put US Troops on trial.

[Papewaio]

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]

Try them in a military court, absolutely.

[woad&fangs]

Why do the muslims have such an obsession with celebratory gunfire?

[Boyar Son]

to win support, they have to get those troops tried.

either way this make the US look bad.

but what I want to know if this will blow over...

[PanzerJaeger]

Unacceptable. Do they not know their place?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do you have a link, Pape?

CR

[HoreTore]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Pannonian]

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"

[KukriKhan]

Depends on the "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.

[Fragony]

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]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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

Wait... you feel sorry for the soldiers? What about the families of those people they killed?

[atheotes]

hard to comment on whether the soldiers were to blame without even a full news report to read...

[The Celtic Viking]

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.

[Papewaio]

Edit: I was, of course, referring to the "Boston Massacre" that preceded our Revolution. The defense attorney for those British soldiers? John Adams.

Likewise.

I wanted to see how people reacted to the Boston Massacre by changing the national identities.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[Ice]

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]

Boy, am I glad I opened this thread. What a gem!

[Incongruous]

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]

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

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

[rotorgun]

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]

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

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.

[Pannonian]

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]

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.

[Papewaio]

True ... always have to allow an out and become more preposterous as the piece goes on.

[Tribesman]

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

[Ja'chyra]

Only if they also charge the rioters, the people who incited the riot and the ones who threatened them with machetes.

[Pannonian]

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.

[rotorgun]

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?