Troop Immunity in Iraq

[free]

Recently, the conduct of a few unscrupulous soldiers has brought to light a very important issue, IMO.

Personally, I think that they should allow the people to be tried in Iraq, simply because they committed the crime in Iraq. I understand that some of their methods of punishment are very extreme (public execution, et al), but allowing them to be prosecuted in Iraq would more thank likely cut down on the amount of crime that troops commit. I mean, if the punishment for graffiti is, for example, caneing in Iraq, or a reprimand being place on a soldier's record in the army, which punishment would a soldier be more motivated to avoid?

I'll end with two cliches:

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." ;)

edit: I should clarify that the second choice would exclude civillian deaths due to combat, property damage due to combat, ect.

[Criminal Rock]

Its just not how things are done in the military. If a soldier commits a crime while on the job, especially during war, they're punished within the military court system. And that’s probably the way it should be.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Its just not how things are done in the military. If a soldier commits a crime while on the job, especially during war, they're punished within the military court system. And that’s probably the way it should be.



No probably about it, that's how it should be.

[EVILxxx]

As far as I can tell there is no precendant for trying a soldier in the courts of the country he has commited a crime in [during war]. It has always been done through court-martial.
Remember though, court-martials aren't exactly walks in the park either. They are much harsher than American civilian courts, and many crimes are punishable by death.

[Vong]

I think soldiers should be tried for what they do in another country. If it's like international law, which permit people who commit crimes in foreign countries to be tried under their court's, the soldiers crime shouldn't be a special case. As long as the death penalty has no chance of being the sentence to the crime, there should be no problem. But seeing that the U.S. still condones the death penalty, it really doesn't matter in this scenario anyway.

On the other hand, U.S. soldiers are merely "dogs on leashes" in that they are the responsibility of the military. So anything that the soldier does should be the military's fault and thus be disciplined by them.

Jurisdiction over punishing soldiers is a tough call. But then again it can be answered simply that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

[EVILxxx]

How would a trial be conducted for the war crimes commited by a soldier play out though? Most countries do not have the "fair trial" montra that the west shares.
Also many human mistakes are made in combat. For example: You approach a man who matches a description, motion him to come over; instead he quickly reaches inside his jacket. All military commanders in any country would tell you to fire on that man. What if it wasn't a weapon he was reaching for?
So to add a cliche of my own:

War is Hell

[bigred760]

I voted no - the soldiers are not on vacation over there and they are not there willingly. He's there on the U.S.'s terms and if he commits a crime, he should be subject to the U.S. policies.

[free]

Also many human mistakes are made in combat. For example: You approach a man who matches a description, motion him to come over; instead he quickly reaches inside his jacket. All military commanders in any country would tell you to fire on that man. What if it wasn't a weapon he was reaching for?


I would consider that a (for lack of a better word) "crime" committed while on a legitimate mission. A terrible mistake, which should be investigated, but by the military court process, however, in the case of the rape, murder trial currently going on, I think that the Iraqi government should have the chance to extradite him, since he obviously wasn't conducting official US army operations.

[Criminal Rock]

US operation or not, the soldier is property of the US government. They have the right to do anything they want with him within the boundaries of US and international law. I suppose if the Government lets the Iraqi’s try him/them in their court system, they have every right to do that, no beef there with me... but there’s raelly no reason to let them. It doesn’t make us look better or anything, and it wouldn’t prove anything to the world if we let them put the soldier to death.

I say keep it the way it is.