31 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks, N1M. Interesting. Perhaps this current government hasn't been in power nearly long enough to try to make any changes, assuming they wanted to.
So far, the last info I have dates from 2004 when no "status of force" agreement had been reached with the Iraqi "government". Most SOFs exclude from the local court's jurisdiction any acts committed during "official duties" by US military and other personnel. Order 17 from the Coalition Provisional Authority unilaterally denied jurisdiction to Iraqi cou ...[text shortened]... looking to see if it's still in force or if a SOF agreement with Iraq has been reached.
31 May 06
Originally posted by Derfel Cadarnstrange that you should ask that please, but isnt saddam on trial for his life for what some of his own "knucklehead" have done?
I know it's hard not to, but please don't judge our entire military as the same as these knuckleheads who think that having a gun and training gives them power. It does, but not to be misused.
That said, I think life in the brigg is more likely, and probably worse than death.
yes apply the same criteria on the american side. bush is to blame so put him on trial. this whole episode to me just a scape goat throw away for the media to blame someone else other that the main/prime perpetrator. ie. bush
31 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DelmerSo you support the infliction of the death penalty for premeditated killing in any case?
If found guilty of premeditated murder I think they should get the death penalty. I have no opinion about the trial but I think it's possible that they could legally be tried by both the Marine Corps in a courts martial and by the Iraqi government in a civilian court.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by tojoThe legal wrong of holding people at Gitmo without charging them or giving them the legal status of prisoners of war shouldn't be considered a justification for creating further legal wrongs like disregarding the presumption of innocence. Though "innocent until proven guilty" is rather a simplification of the principle involved (we don't treat accused criminals as "innocent" otherwise they couldn't be held before trial or forced to make bail), it is still true that the Marines involved have not been found guilty of anything at this time.
So, explain Gitmo then...
31 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaEach case would have to be handled individually, Nargaguna. For example: a wife finally kills her wife beating husband, she certainly should not get the death penalty even if she admits to planning and executing the murder. My views on the death penalty are contradictory. I am not in favor of giving the state the right to legally execute its citizens. The state is a political entity and it is too easy for it to engage in political executions. I am in favor of allowing those most aggrieved to decide and execute the fate of those found guilty by the state of premeditated murder, And to that I would add murders committed during a felony and perhaps some other special cases. No, I have no way of making such a system work but I've always thought it odd that the state steps in and takes precedence over those most aggrieved even after a guilty verdict is reached.
So you support the infliction of the death penalty for premeditated killing in any case?
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by millermanNo.
Care to expand a little on that point?
BTW- I'm English and know our past well, but this war was all about "Hearts and Minds"
Objective achieved?
Oh, o.k.
Got tired of hearing the same old whiny pile of crap and thought I'd stir the pot a bit.
Seen or heard the last interview with the surviving girl and boy?
How did she know there was a bomb and it was going to go off that day? Did Daddy, Uncle, and Grampa plant that bomb?
Guess we probably won't find out because the interviewer failed to question her further on that particular matter.
Does that give the U.S. Marines the right to go in and wax them all?
Probably not.
Can or will the get a fair trail anywhere?
Probably not.
Objective achieved?
I don't know. Have you actually talked to any Iraqi citizens recently?
Probably not. I have. He says many people are frustrated and want the U.S. out A.S.A.P. but are also thankful that Saddam is no longer in power.
Have you actually talked to any military personnel returning from the war? My guess is probably not. I have. It's a mixed bag. Some are pretty screwed up, while others are happy to be helping the Iraqi people. One guy and one girl I know are returning for their fourth tour of duty for specifically that reason. To help. I am in awe of them.
Just a little cheese to go with your whine.😲
01 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by monster trucksame old story I get tired of hearing:
No.
Oh, o.k.
Got tired of hearing the same old whiny pile of crap and thought I'd stir the pot a bit.
Seen or heard the last interview with the surviving girl and boy?
How did she know there was a bomb and it was going to go off that day? Did Daddy, Uncle, and Grampa plant that bomb?
Guess we probably won't find out because the interviewer fa t reason. To help. I am in awe of them.
Just a little cheese to go with your whine.😲
We are here to help you and if you don't want or need our help we will bomb and mass slaughter you. This slaughter will continue until those unfortunates who remain alive are in such desperate need that they greatful that we are here helping.
yeah, real heros.
03 Jun 06
Originally posted by slimjimIf by that he means he supports the cold blooded murder of 24 or more people as revenge for the combat death of his son, then his priorities are screwed up.
The Father of the Marine who died in the IED explosion has stated he fully supports the Marines in question. I reckon he had a lot more to lose than any of us other posters on site.
03 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHey, N1M, do me a favor and sift my answer in the "Soldiers/Civilians" thread through your legal mind. I'd be interested in your opinion on what seems like an interesting subject to me.
If by that he means he supports the cold blooded murder of 24 or more people as revenge for the combat death of his son, then his priorities are screwed up.