Author Topic: Legal Question (Read 656 times)

MrCoffee · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2004, 07:39:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

Well Im no jag lawyer but I'll chime in. You cannot prove that they would not have because you can not prove what did not take place. What you do have is and proof by confesion that those terrorists beheaded that guy because ... proving their motive. I think it would fall back to the military legal system and the native country does not have any legal jurisdiction because it involves US military personel. Similar to other cases like in Okinawa etc... My 2 cents.

Vulcan · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2004, 07:40:32 PM »

I'm sorry but they're just a bunch of dumb-towelheads being guided by power-hungry towelheads who's power is derived from inciting hatred and violence who put an extremely low value on human life.

The mistreatment is just the excuse of the day... if not it would have been just another message to the evil 'boosh'.

No where in their holy Koran does it say justice is served by killing an innocent person.

ravells · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2004, 07:43:14 PM »

Thank you for another blinding insight into human nature, Vulcan!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2004, 07:44:03 PM »

Reminds me of:

"FIRE FIRE FIRE"

ravells · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2004, 07:47:26 PM »

Heh heh! He said 'towel head'

Heh! Heh!

Dune · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:21:27 PM »

OK, I'll play defense attorney (Yuck) Let's disregard the jurisdictional issues and say this is being held in a US court with general US laws.

First off, I can tell you that there is not a criminal charge here. Self-defense statutes all say that you can only kill if you or another person is being threatened. Killing in response to some provecation, be verbal or seeing photos of a buddy being beaten, doesn't qualify.

So let's look at this in some sort of a civil liability perspective.

You still haven't proven a direct causal connection. You must show that this would not have happened if the guards hadn't tortured the prisoners. And you must prove it by a perponderance of the evidence.

My defense would be simple. Would this have happened without any photos being release? Yes. Why? Because they are already pissed off because we're there in the first place. My proof of that? I would show videos of every sniper attack, every roadside bombing, the other contractors bodies being hung off the overpass, every speech of al Sadr, etc. There is tons of evidence to show that these terrorists were given to violence and murder long before any photos of my client torturing a prisoner came out.

And I would love to cross-examine one of these terrorists.

Q. So you say you cut off this guy's head because of the prison conditions?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're also saying that you wouldn't have done it if those photos hadn't of come out?
Q. Were you involved with al Sadr's Brigade prior to the photos?
Q. Have you ever shot at an American soldier?
Q. Has anyone in your family shot at an American soldier?
Q. What is your opinion of the 9/11 attacks?
Q. What is your opinion of the American presence in Iraq?
Q. etc., etc., etc.

By the time I'm done, I'll have shown that this is just another murdering bastard who is using the prison photos as a way to gain popular support and excuse his actions. There is no direct connection at all.

Sorry, you can do what you want, but this case doesn't fly in an American court. There is no way to prove it to any jury I know of.

ravells · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:23:38 PM »

Dune...it's much easier than that. Those people had no legal right to try the guy at all.

Ravs

Dune · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:37:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
Dune...it's much easier than that. Those people had no legal right to try the guy at all.

Ravs

Oh I agree with you. US personel are subject to the UCMJ. I'm just bypassing that and saying there isn't a case here regardless of jurisdiction.

You said you do aviation law? I'm a county prosecutor in Arizona.

ravells · « **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2004, 05:28:46 AM »

Cool! Good to meet ya, Dune!

When are you going to learn that crime does not pay

Ravs

Naso · « **Reply #24 on:** May 12, 2004, 05:49:54 AM »

While we are in law questions, and we have two expert here, I want to ask something too.

Situation :

Nation A is an ally of the U.S.A., there is a bomber group of this nation A in US territory, doing one of the exchange/common training stuff that many allies do.

One day, one of the few "man, I'm good!" pilots of this unit, during a Lo-Lo training mission, decide to show his crewmembers how's good with the stick, and decide to pass under the cable of, say, a "teleferic" (??) full of people going to skiing.

He screwed up, and hit the cable, cutting it.

40 people in a cabin, die for the impact with the ground.

The pilot, struggling with the damaged plane, manage to safely land.

Later, His crewmember, that was recording the stunt with his videocamera, delete the tape.

Questions:

This pilot will be under jurisdicion of the US law, or of his country A?

In your opinion, can be held responsable of the death of 40 US citizens?

ravells · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2004, 06:02:45 AM »

Hi Naso!

I know the incident you are referring to. (the prowler aircraft).

Unfortunately I cannot comment as I believe our firm is/was peripherally involved.

sorry!

Ravs

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2004, 07:09:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
who's power is derived from inciting hatred and violence who put an extremely low value on human life.

Mr Pot, plse meet Mr Kettle.....

Dune · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2004, 08:28:26 AM »

Naso,

IIRC, you're talking about the incident at Aveeno where the Prowler clipped the tram line. Because the man is a member of the US Armed Forces on active duty, he is subject to the US Code of Military Justice (Military justice is the justice what military music is to music

).

The US has a long history of not allowing its military personel to be subject to the laws of whatever country they are in, but to its military laws. At least that is my understanding of things.

PS Ravells, crime does pay. I call it job security

Naso · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2004, 08:47:21 AM »

Dune, mine was a what if.

with reverted partyies.

Do you thing your nation/justice would have let the perpretator be prosecuted by the nation A tribunals?

As for the specific, real case, the "man" had even a medal.

And nothing was said about the destruction of proves.

Furious · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2004, 11:39:18 AM »

I am sorry the movie/video game analogy bothered you Batz.

My point is that your postulation is ridiculous. It would be tantamount to putting the original Rodney King jurors on trial for the subsequent crimes commited by the rioters.

The "fire" analogy doesn't work either. In that case the "yeller" is direclty responsible for the panic.

What you are saying, if I am correct, is that if someone yelled fire in the woods and this event was reported for a pre-movie newsreal and shown in a theater and the occupants of that theater paniced and crushed a few patrons to death, then the guy who origanlly yelled fire should be held accountable. I just don't see that.