|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: Try Marines in Iraqi court!! |
 |
|
Obviously this doesn't have a hope in hell of happening. But it raises interesting questions about just how much the Americans really believe in the democratic institutions they claim to be fostering in Iraq.
| Quote: |
American Marines have been accused of massacring 24 civilians in the Euphrates River farming town of Haditha last fall to avenge the deaths of some of their own. As the story spreads, outrage at American double standards is once again building around the world and in Iraq. So, here's an idea: Let's let the Iraqis put the Americans alleged to have committed these crimes on trial. The United States wants to encourage the fledgling Iraqi institution of democracy, right? That's why we wanted Saddam tried in Iraq, and through the Iraqi judicial system�both to build up its legitimacy and to give Iraqis the sense of ownership that comes with having control over the legal process. Why, then, shouldn't we also turn over our own soldiers who were involved in either the Haditha massacre or any of the other possible massacres, for trial under the Iraqi justice system?
Doing this would probably be politically idiotic, and maybe even legally impossible. But it isn't without legal precedent. And given the fragility of the new Iraqi government, and the American government's claims about its legitimacy, this vote of confidence would make a powerful political and diplomatic statement. President Bush claimed a week ago that, despite Abu Ghraib, the United States and Iraq "have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." Wouldn't permitting Iraqis to try the offenders in their own courts this time go a long way to backing up that claim?
|
Of course, as the writer states, such a proposal would be political suicide for any politician who proposed it. But opponents of the idea would be forced to ask some hard questions: if an Iraqi trial of the American soldiers would be a kangaroo court, what does that say about the trial of Saddam? Or for that matter, the Iraqi court system in general?
http://www.slate.com/id/2142896/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One things for sure...
A trial of US Marines in an Iraqi court would be some pretty high-quality legal theatre. And, if the soldiers are convicted, I would pay money to see the look on their faces as they're led into an Iraqi jail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating the deaths of more than two dozen Iraqi civilians, including women and children, by U.S. troops.
Under investigation is the alleged massacre by Marines of 24 civilians in Haditha last November; the death of an Iraqi civilian near Hamandiya, west of Baghdad, on April 26; and reports that soldiers killed two women at a checkpoint in Samarra on Tuesday. On Friday, Pentagon investigators cleared U.S. troops of wrongdoing in the deaths of 11 people killed during a U.S.-led raid against a suspected militant site near Balad on March 15. CNN's Carol Lin discussed the process of military investigations with attorney Hardy Vieux, a former defense counsel in the Navy's JAG Corps.
LIN: So let's begin with the broader picture. Why do you think so many incidents ... have suddenly cropped up?
VIEUX: Well, it seems to me like the combat stress is something that needs to be factored into -- in this situation. These men and women are under a lot of pressure, under a lot of stress. They're continually attacked by insurgents. And they just don't know who is friend or foe. So that really puts them on edge, and it really colors their perception of things.
LIN: So how does the military go in and investigate? Crime scene investigators in the United States ... they go out, they gather physical evidence, they talk to witnesses. Can that sort of thing be done in a place like Iraq?
VIEUX: Yes, it can be done, and it is being done. In fact, the Navy has what's called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and they also -- these are professional investigators that investigate alleged crimes in the Marine Corps and in the Navy. ... These investigative professionals are stationed on bases throughout the world. So they're ... there already, investigating the situations. And they would do it just like they would do any other law enforcement investigation here stateside.
LIN: But they're members of the military, right?
VIEUX: Most of these are -- no, they're civilians.
LIN: They are civilians. So when they go into, say, a place like Haditha and they're interviewing witnesses, doesn't the mere fact that they in some form represent the U.S. government, doesn't that hamper their investigation?
VIEUX: Well, it certainly does. I imagine that there are a lot of witnesses who would not at all feel free to speak to the NCIS. But nevertheless, that's a problem that they face all of the time and they know how to address. They're going to have language issues to deal with. Certainly, in terms of the time that has passed, they have to contend with that as well. But they're professionals. They know how to do this. And the defense attorneys are going to get their opportunity as well to do a thorough investigation to ascertain what exactly occurred.
LIN: How do you thoroughly investigate something that happened back in November or even March?
VIEUX: Well, that's certainly going to be an issue here. I mean, I'd rather be on the defense side of this one. Because the passage of time is going to really hamper the investigative process from the prosecution's point of view. Witnesses may have forgotten things, people are reluctant to speak. Just the facts are not easily ascertainable when so many months have passed and possibly a cover-up has taken place, as well.
LIN: And you have the Iraqi prime minister speaking out, saying that he -- the government wants military files in Haditha. They want to conduct their own investigation. So how is that going to be reconciled?
VIEUX: Well, that's going to be handled at a higher-up political level. There are a lot of people who are speaking on this matter: members of Congress, the president, what have you. So you have this issue of unlawful command influence. That is, are the statements made by these high-ranking superiors going to possibly influence the way a jury decides this issue?
LIN: But which jury? I mean, a military jury or an Iraqi jury? Is it conceivable that a U.S. Marine could be jailed right next to Saddam Hussein?
VIEUX: No. It's probably going to be a military jury. This is going to take place within the court-martial setting.
LIN: But does Iraq have the legal authority to question a U.S. Marine and conduct its own criminal investigation and file charges?
VIEUX: Not that I'm aware of, not with respect to the filing charges. Oftentimes, there's a standards of forces agreement in place that allows a service member, American service member, to be not turned over to a foreign host government. But I'm not sure that there is such a SOFA, as we call it, in place here. So it would be a court-martial investigation run and managed by the United States forces. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/02/cnna.vieux/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would forget about "justice".
They've already bought and paid for "justice". 24 Iraqi dead = 1/2 a Lexus or $38,000 dollars .
The military will look after its own, always has and always will.......... that's why it has no integrity, it is judge, jury and executioner......
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Try Marines in Iraqi court!! |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Obviously this doesn't have a hope in hell of happening. But it raises interesting questions about just how much the Americans really believe in the democratic institutions they claim to be fostering in Iraq.
| Quote: |
American Marines have been accused of massacring 24 civilians in the Euphrates River farming town of Haditha last fall to avenge the deaths of some of their own. As the story spreads, outrage at American double standards is once again building around the world and in Iraq. So, here's an idea: Let's let the Iraqis put the Americans alleged to have committed these crimes on trial. The United States wants to encourage the fledgling Iraqi institution of democracy, right? That's why we wanted Saddam tried in Iraq, and through the Iraqi judicial system�both to build up its legitimacy and to give Iraqis the sense of ownership that comes with having control over the legal process. Why, then, shouldn't we also turn over our own soldiers who were involved in either the Haditha massacre or any of the other possible massacres, for trial under the Iraqi justice system?
Doing this would probably be politically idiotic, and maybe even legally impossible. But it isn't without legal precedent. And given the fragility of the new Iraqi government, and the American government's claims about its legitimacy, this vote of confidence would make a powerful political and diplomatic statement. President Bush claimed a week ago that, despite Abu Ghraib, the United States and Iraq "have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." Wouldn't permitting Iraqis to try the offenders in their own courts this time go a long way to backing up that claim?
|
Of course, as the writer states, such a proposal would be political suicide for any politician who proposed it. But opponents of the idea would be forced to ask some hard questions: if an Iraqi trial of the American soldiers would be a kangaroo court, what does that say about the trial of Saddam? Or for that matter, the Iraqi court system in general?
http://www.slate.com/id/2142896/ |
Iraq's new institions might be highly flawed and still nevertheless be a huge huge improvement over the old regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But does Iraq have the legal authority to question a U.S. Marine and conduct its own criminal investigation and file charges?
VIEUX: Not that I'm aware of, not with respect to the filing charges |
Joo, this is what I mean by "puppet government". Need I explain it any further...?????
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are very good reasons why SOFAs prevent military personel from being tried by civil courts in the countries where they are stationed. With the high feelings often surrounding an occupying force, a fair trial would be next to impossible. Same goes for Korea. You can just imagine what would have happned to the guys who drove the tank in the school girls incident if they were tried in a Korean court.
I hope the guys involved in the massacre get very strictly dealt with though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You can just imagine what would have happned to the guys who drove the tank in the school girls incident if they were tried in a Korean court.
|
The thing is, though, if they had driven a recreational vehicle over the girls while off duty, they would have been tried in a Korean court, despite whatever "high feelings" may have existed in Korea at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Many of us commenting on this issue are educated, not of the nationality of the accused or the deceased. Or if we are of the nationality have not been in a situation that would may allow an action such as the one stated to occur.
Though we all have feelings about it. These feelings may prevent us from being fully just in our decesions or our beliefs about it.
Could we expect the same of others. Especially when it will be a court of law.
Just ask yourselves this one question, would I want to be one of those marines today or on the day in question and would I want me to be in the jury? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
But does Iraq have the legal authority to question a U.S. Marine and conduct its own criminal investigation and file charges?
VIEUX: Not that I'm aware of, not with respect to the filing charges |
Joo, this is what I mean by "puppet government". Need I explain it any further...?????
DD |
Yes explain further. If it truely was a puppet government the US would want its soldiers tried by a court they control.
By the way the Iraqi government flawed as it is is
1) One of the more tolorant governments in the mideast- Yes or No?
2) One of the most democratic governments in the mideast - Yes or No?
3) Far more tolerant , democratic and representative than the government it replaced - Yes or No?
By the way if you are so concerned about democracy and representative goverments then why not a word from you DD on other mideast regimes (most or all are worse ) What is up with the selective criticism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes explain further. If it truely was a puppet government the US would want its soldiers tried by a court they control.
|
I take your point to be that the anti-US hostility of Iraqi institutions proves that Iraqis are achieving independence.
Andrew Sullivan has been on a similar riff the last day or so...
| Quote: |
The vehemence of the denunciation of the conduct of American troops in Iraq by the new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a big deal, is it not? There are several ways to look at it. One is how the NYT spun it, which is that it is one more rivet in the coffin of the Iraq venture, another sign of the centrifugal chaos and loss of morale that has now become routine in this war. It seems to me more interesting than that. Maliki just went to Basra to brow-beat local tribes and militias into holding fire and giving the new government a chance. The next day, he harnesses pent-up Iraqi anger and distress at the way in which understandably jumpy coalition soldiers sometimes interact with an Iraqi public among whom murderers and terrorists hide. It seems to me that Maliki believes he has more to gain by attacking the Americans than by defending or ignoring them. Why? Maybe because if a national Iraqi leader emerges who can express frustration at American soldiers, he can leverage that and build the popular support to face down local militias or even recalcitrant factions in the new parliament. It's just a theory. But for the first time, I've read a story in which an Iraqi politician seems to be expressing national Iraqi sentiment, and distancing himself from the occupation. In some ways, isn't that what we want?
The patient has been on life support for three years. Removing the dictatorship and allowing anarchy to spread essentially killed off the Iraqi nation for a while. Did we just see the first spasm of an entity coming back to life? And could Maliki be its spokesman? I can hope, can't I? It seems to me we should not forget the vast scale of the challenge in Iraq. We have made it worse than it might have been, but it would never have been easy. And the simple achievement of an actual political process, however painfully slow, and now the emergence of a leader who seems capable of articulating a nation's own feelings are good things. Omar reminds us of this today as well:
The important point here which should be taken into consideration is that we are not forming a government but we are forming a state and a system from scratch so naturally the difficulties we'll face during each stage will be much bigger than the difficulties that would face other states that are already democratic during similar stages, say after elections.
Patience and hard work are the key to victory and in the same time obstacles, violence and disputes are no excuse for quitting; just like al-Qaeda and its allies concentrate on Iraq and consider it the nucleus for their Islamic state, we and the whole world must unite to rescue Iraq and present our model of freedom and justice.
Iraq is the key to the change and the terrorists realize this so we must show how determined we are if we want to defeat them.
I couldn't agree more. Iraq is still everything. And we still have everything to win or to lose. Patience. Courage. Criticism. They're a useful triad.
|
| Quote: |
02 Jun 2006 05:02 pm
A reader recalls a two-year-old column by David Brooks which seemed to presage the kind of move Maliki may now be making. Money quote:
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us. If the future textbooks of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to succeed in Iraq, we have to lose.
That means the good Iraqis, the ones who support democracy, have to have a forum in which they can defy us. If the insurgents are the only anti-Americans, then there will always be a soft spot for them in the hearts of Iraqi patriots.
Prescient and smart, as David often is. My hope is that this is beginning to happen.
|
So, in other words, anti-Americanism in Iraq is proof that American foreign policy has been a success there. I admit this line of argument might have a certain seductive quality to it, especially for those like Sullivan who are looking for any silver lining they can find. However, I'm also pretty sure that the war architects never imagined three years ago that the day would ever come when "See? Look how much the Iraqi people hate us!!" would be considered a defense of the invasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
There are very good reasons why SOFAs prevent military personel from being tried by civil courts in the countries where they are stationed. With the high feelings often surrounding an occupying force, a fair trial would be next to impossible. Same goes for Korea. You can just imagine what would have happned to the guys who drove the tank in the school girls incident if they were tried in a Korean court.
I hope the guys involved in the massacre get very strictly dealt with though. |
They are being accused of a war crime. War criminals should be tried by the International Criminal Court in The Hagues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3035296.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
You can just imagine what would have happned to the guys who drove the tank in the school girls incident if they were tried in a Korean court.
|
The thing is, though, if they had driven a recreational vehicle over the girls while off duty, they would have been tried in a Korean court, despite whatever "high feelings" may have existed in Korea at the time. |
Correct, but the soldiers involved in this shooting were not off duty, were they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
By the way the Iraqi government flawed as it is is
1) One of the more tolorant governments in the mideast- Yes or No?
2) One of the most democratic governments in the mideast - Yes or No?
3) Far more tolerant , democratic and representative than the government it replaced - Yes or No?
By the way if you are so concerned about democracy and representative goverments then why not a word from you DD on other mideast regimes (most or all are worse ) What is up with the selective criticism? |
Selective criticism??? We weren't talking about the state of governments in the middle east. Again, you just are "fantastic" with how you read and argue...
That said, I do agree with the take on SOFA's . Yes, they do ensure that those involved get a fair shake. But many SOFA's provide many clauses which protect the nationals involved and give them some semblance of power over the events. In the case of Iraq, nil. Further, SOFAs do not to my knowledge allow the military to have the American tried in an American civil court. Why not???? It is all about control, level of control. The Iraqi's have none.
About ME governments. Many are horrible. I agree. Egypt would be my biggest culprit (if that qualifies as middle east ) and is a powder keg just waiting to blow, you wait). Syria is a gulag and Jordan also. Saudia Arabia would get the least of my condemnation, simply because they have atleast tried to have some form of "benevolence" whereby the general population can have their concerns addressed. But you are right, horrible situation. But Iraq I'm sorry to say, does NOT rank anywhere near the heights of democratic brillance that you say .
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
