Legal Question

[Batz]

If the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners incites, inspires or causes the deaths of other US citizens should those that took part in the maltreatment of those Iraqis be held responsible for those deaths?

A US contractor was executed today. The perpetrators that executed him claimed it was in retaliation for the treatment of Iraqis prisoners.

Its my opinion that those soldiers and US contractors that participated in the maltreatment of prisoners should be turned over the Coalition Provisional Authority to await trial. If the accused are found guilty and the facts show that their actions incited, inspired or caused in the deaths of others then they should be sentenced to life in prison and forced to serve out their sentence in the very prison where they committed their crimes.

I am against the death penalty but I would not blink if the Coalition Provisional Authority sentenced them to death should the facts support the sentence.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Batz
If the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners incites, inspires or causes the deaths of other US citizens should those that took part in the maltreatment of those Iraqis be held responsible for those deaths?

A US contractor was executed today. The perpetrators that executed him claimed it was in retaliation for the treatment of Iraqis prisoners.

Its my opinion that those soldiers and US contractors that participated in the maltreatment of prisoners should be turned over the Coalition Provisional Authority to await trial. If the accused are found guilty and the facts show that their actions incited, inspired or caused in the deaths of others then they should be sentenced to life in prison and forced to serve out their sentence in the very prison where they committed their crimes.

I am against the death penalty but I would not blink if the Coalition Provisional Authority sentenced them to death should the facts support the sentence.

One of the problems that you would have in getting a conviction is that the prosecution would have to show a very strong link between the actions of the soldiers/contractors in question (the abuse at the prison) and the murder of the US contractor.  It is highly unlikely that a court who applies traditional Western legal principles would be able to conclude that at the time that the abuses in the prison were being carried out, the perpetrators knew or ought to have know that their actions would directly contribute to the murder of a then unidentified third party.

So it is highly unlikely that any of the soldiers/contractors could be held legally responsible for the US contractor's death.

[Furious]

If a movie incited violence, should the producers of that movie be held accountable for the crimes commited?

[Dune]

You would have to prove that those terrorists would not have cut the American's throat, except they for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

This means proving that there was no other reason they killed him and wouldn't have done it otherwise.  Not bloody likely I'd say.

I think, as Americans we should treat the whole world with love.  And love means never having to say you're sorry.

[VOR]

So I suppose the jury in the Rodney King trial should be held liable for the LA riots, etc.

No, Batz, those young men cut another young man's head off with a knife. There is no justification for this, period.

[Batz]

If a movie incited violence, should the producers of that movie be held accountable for the crimes commited?

Movies arent real....

[Furious]

Originally posted by Batz
Movies arent real....

Neither are video games, but still some think that their producers should be held responsible for the actions of the criminals that played them.

[Batz]

What are talking about video games and movies for?

How is that in anyway related to my original post?

What I asked is if one crime causes a more serious crime should the original criminal be held accountable for those crimes that follow his.

I posted nothing about video games or violence in the media or any such nonsense.

Nor is holding those involved in the maltreatment of prisoners a "justification" for the execution of that contractor.

Those are arguments that have nothing to do with my question.

What level of responsibility / liability do those accused of maltreatment of Iraqis have in relation to what follows?

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know that there are real consequences as a result of what has happened in those prisons. If it can be proven that the actions of those soldiers accused caused others to be killed I think they ought to be held accountable for that.

[capt. apathy]

no,  those who abused or ordered abuse can take responsibility for their actions, and those who are using this to justify their actions should take responsibility for their own.

you could take that kind of logic all the way back to charging Bush for setting up the situation (Hmmm?).   j/k

people need to take responsibility for their own actions.  nobody makes anybody react a certain way.  you choose how you react and you should be responsible.  sounds like kindergarten logic "he made me hit him"

[Vulcan]

Contractors/Civilians were dying before this mistreatment scandal broke.

[ravells]

Originally posted by Batz
If the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners incites, inspires or causes the deaths of other US citizens should those that took part in the maltreatment of those Iraqis be held responsible for those deaths?

A US contractor was executed today. The perpetrators that executed him claimed it was in retaliation for the treatment of Iraqis prisoners.

Its my opinion that those soldiers and US contractors that participated in the maltreatment of prisoners should be turned over the Coalition Provisional Authority to await trial. If the accused are found guilty and the facts show that their actions incited, inspired or caused in the deaths of others then they should be sentenced to life in prison and forced to serve out their sentence in the very prison where they committed their crimes.

I am against the death penalty but I would not blink if the Coalition Provisional Authority sentenced them to death should the facts support the sentence.

The first question is one of jurisdiction. Which law applies? Iraqi? US? or some other country?

The next question (if US or another common law jurisdiction applies) is, is there actus reas (the act) and mens rea (the intention) which are fundamental to proving murder.

If Shariah law applies (as it does in Iraq, I believe) I don't know how proof is obtained, but I believe it is a very long drawn out process. I'm sure someone can google it.

Ravs

[Batz]

Take the old "fire in a crowded theater" saying...

If  I yelled "fire" and 300 folks rush the door crushing and killing several others I would be held accountable even though I didn’t "make" any of those people panic.

What do you think the effects of this scandal have already in an area like Iraq?

I can be charged with inciting a riot etc....

Holding those soldiers accountable doesn’t absolve those who actually cut off the contractor’s head. It does hold those who mistreated prisoners responsible for what their crimes caused.

Vulcan,

That’s an "evidence" argument...  The murderers themselves said they killed that guy because of prisoner maltreatment. My question was if this is proven to be the case what should happen to those who set the whole thing in motion. No responsibility?

[ravells]

There is no 'evidence' argument in the sense you say. If the guy had been accused of maltreating prisoners then he ought to have been tried in accordance with the law of his country and not by a few individuals who were out for revenge. They should have turned him over to the authorities.

If it was proven, in *that* jurisdiction by a fair trial as *that jurisdiction* terms its procedures, then the chap has to suffer whatever fate befalls him.

The 'fire' in a theatre argument does not hold with pictures which are in the 'public interest' to see. Although I find it weird that our press keep insisting on vicariously sentencing our people to death in this way.

Ravs

[Batz]

You aren't following along

Contractors/Civilians were dying before this mistreatment scandal broke.

My reply to that is

Vulcan,

That’s an "evidence" argument... The murderers themselves said they killed that guy because of prisoner maltreatment. My question was if this is proven to be the case what should happen to those who set the whole thing in motion. No responsibility?

Vulcan is suggesting that since contractors have been killed that proving that the latest one beheaded was murdered because of the prison scandal would be difficult.

I replied to him on that point.

The Coalition Provisional Authority is setting up the courts etc.. They are establishing a police force etc... There's no question of jurisdiction other then if the military would voluntarily give up its jurisdiction. Who do you think will try Saddam?

[ravells]

I'm following you fine

Jurisdiction is still a very big point in this - and there are lots of questions.  There always are  when you have nationals of one country dying in another country where the accused is from a third country and the country it's happened in has no fixed legal standpoint.

I do aviation law, when we regularly have to deal with these questions. A Guatamalan dies on a French Plane leased from the US in English Airspace...where is the case to be tried?

The answer is...if you are the Claimant, it's always the US and Texas if you can get there (biggest damages). If you are the defendant, anywhere else apart from the US.

But that is private international law.

Public international law is another matter. Saddam is a real pickle. Choices are to try him in Iraq under Iraqi law or by an International court.

btw...interesting point, Tony Blair may well get hauled up before the International Criminal Court for the Iraq abuses, but Bush wont (because the US havn't signed that treaty).

Ravs