OT - US Soldier kills 16 Civilians in Afghanistan

[Cdnwolf]

(Sticking head up from foxhole)... Is it safe to come out???

[B.T.]

Wow, what a thread!

@ TicToc:
I think, it was a good thing to apologize. Well done!
So, welcome to the board!

@ all Vets:
In a way, I'm a vet myself. I was "only" a conscript and I have no combat experience. But I can understand the bad feelings towards people, who only criticize (and often in an unfair way!) the military, not seeing the good sides. This certainly sucks.
I had a lot of arguments with people, because I defended the military. Especially in the end of the cold war period, a lot of Germans forgot about the necessary of alert forces. The current situation in the U.S. seems to be similar.
But I think, we can assume, that the vast majority of the board-members have a more positive attitude towards the military in general.

@ those, who reacted to my last post:
Thanks, gents, for your encouragement and support. This means a lot to me!

@ CdnWolf:
I'm fine with that.
BTW: Did you ever read Medic's sig?

[pmulcahy11b]

Am I the only one who thinks that the soldier should be turned over to the Afghanis for trial?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Am I the only one who thinks that the soldier should be turned over to the Afghanis for trial?

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

Not totally. There have been a number of cases where US citizen have been tried by a foreign nation. When the possibility of capital punishment is present we tend to get a little more territorial until the State Department weighs in and forces our hand one direction or the other.

[Fusilier]

Over 2,500 Americans end up in foreign prisons every year and very few get an early released (sometimes they split their time between both countries if they are lucky). The rare exception is when capital punishment is involved as Eddie mentioned. I've been to a Thai prison visit and have seen Americans who've been locked up in there for many years (almost ten at the time).

Although these people are subject to the laws and penal system of the host country, and basically forfeit whatever rights they had in the US, it seems to be a rarity for a service member to not be immediately repatriated. It does appear to be a double standard... although I don't know if that is an accurate term for it.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

The U.S. actually asked for the British to hand over the young man, who had kept a link site, from where people could find links to pirated movies. The guy had not provided the movies himself, only the links to those hosted by others and yet he is probably going to be transported to U.S. for trial. If it had been a U.S. citizen and the British had wanted him for the same, it would have become far more complicated as the agreement between the two is unbalanced - for the U.S., only a suspicion is enough while the Brits would need evidence to actually have any chance of getting an U.S. citizen for trial. And no, this is not a rant about U.S. citizens. Just an example of double standards that are going to get more and more common, especially with the SOPA/PIPA.

[simonmark6]

As a Brit, I blame our side for the inequality rather than the Americans. We signed up to it and we knew that once a law was in place to would be used in a way other than in the spirit. UK Councils have used anti-terrorist legislation to put surveillence on people who dump rubbish, we couldn't expect anyone else not to do the same.

[95th Rifleman]

The US has always been very wary of war crimes issues. They are reluctant to allow their servicemen to stand trial in any other forum than an American court.

Part of it is a reputation thing as the US government has always been keen to be seen as the "good guys", having a soldier in the Hague on trial for warcrimes is not a good image. Better to have that same soldier on the lesser charge of murder in an American court.

This is not being anti-American, it's just a fact.