Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on April 24, 2007, 08:26:23 PM
-
A Canadian captured in Afghanistan has been charged with killing an American special forces soldier and the wounding of another. Wonder if he'll get off as light as Hicks was and will be able to serve his time in a Canadian jail if convicted. I hope not, would like to see this kid sent to a Super Max prison and serve his time with the general population. Wonder how long he'd last.
Canadian charged with the murder of a US soldier and attempted murder of another US soldier. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/04/24/canadian.guantanamo.ap/index.html)
ack-ack
-
Do you really want to charge combatants with a crime for "doing their job"?
If, of course, they were "doing their job" vs. something war crime-ish.
My main concern is "what comes around, goes around." When are other countries going to start charging our soldiers with "crimes"? I just don't like the precedent.
The Japanese charged the captured Doolittle Raiders with homicide for bombing non-military targets. A primary school and a hospital. They wrote a law.
"Any individual who commits any of the following acts shall be subject to military punishment... The bombing, strafing or otherwise attacking of civilians... private properties... [and] objectives other than those of military nature [in] Japan proper, Manchukuo and the Japanese zones of military operation....Military punishment shall be the death penalty, provided, however, should the circumstances warrant, this sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment.... This military law shall be applicable to all acts committed prior to the date of its approval."
Three were executed, Lt. Dean Hallmark, Lt. William Farrow, and Sgt. Harold Spatz. Five others were sentenced to life imprisonment and were not meant to be released... ever.
Right now, a U.S. soldier, Mario Lozano of the 69th Infantry Regiment, is on trial in Italy, in absentia, for the "murder" of an Italian special agent, Nicola Calipari, who was escorting Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers. Their car approached a roadblock at high speed and US soldiers opened fire.
It doesn't make killing morally right, but that's what happens in war. I guess, to the victor goes the spoils and the winning side can do whatever they want.
wrngway
-
I dont beleive he has any special protection under Canadian law for commiting homicide.
He was not serving in uniform for any established military force, and as such, cannot seek protection by claiming he was a soldier acting under wartime regulations.
His case is no different than those standing trial for the Madrid train bombings. They can have a beef with Spain if they want, but they have no special rights to go kill their citizens.
Dont join foreign insurgent or terrorist groups if you are not willing to take the risks involved. That includes being killed or going to prison.
...as for the Italian trial, Italy has no jurisdiction in the case. The US soldier was on duty in uniform at the time, in Iraq, an operational zone. The US Army has jurisdiction on his conduct. If he was an Italian soldier, they would have jurisdiction on his conduct. If a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan f*** up, he answers to the Canadian Army, not to Italys, not the USAs, not to Pakistans.
...as to the Q of wether the A-Q dude will serve his time in a Canadian prison if he's convicted, its possible, in that there is a treaty transfer in place between Canada and the USA in regards to some federal prisoners, but its not blanket, it depends on the circumstances, so its a "maybe".
-
Originally posted by Squire
He was not serving in uniform for any established military force, and as such, cannot seek protection by claiming he was a soldier acting under wartime regulations.
squire beat me to the punch:aok
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Do you really want to charge combatants with a crime for "doing their job"?
If, of course, they were "doing their job" vs. something war crime-ish.
My main concern is "what comes around, goes around." When are other countries going to start charging our soldiers with "crimes"? I just don't like the precedent.
The Japanese charged the captured Doolittle Raiders with homicide for bombing non-military targets. A primary school and a hospital. They wrote a law.
"Any individual who commits any of the following acts shall be subject to military punishment... The bombing, strafing or otherwise attacking of civilians... private properties... [and] objectives other than those of military nature [in] Japan proper, Manchukuo and the Japanese zones of military operation....Military punishment shall be the death penalty, provided, however, should the circumstances warrant, this sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment.... This military law shall be applicable to all acts committed prior to the date of its approval."
Three were executed, Lt. Dean Hallmark, Lt. William Farrow, and Sgt. Harold Spatz. Five others were sentenced to life imprisonment and were not meant to be released... ever.
Right now, a U.S. soldier, Mario Lozano of the 69th Infantry Regiment, is on trial in Italy, in absentia, for the "murder" of an Italian special agent, Nicola Calipari, who was escorting Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers. Their car approached a roadblock at high speed and US soldiers opened fire.
It doesn't make killing morally right, but that's what happens in war. I guess, to the victor goes the spoils and the winning side can do whatever they want.
wrngway
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Squire
I don't believe he has any special protection under Canadian law for committing homicide.
He didn't murder anyone in Canada. If some random person kills a Canadian citizen in France is he liable for murder in Canada? I don't know.
He was not serving in uniform for any established military force, and as such, cannot seek protection by claiming he was a soldier acting under wartime regulations.
What does an AL qaeda uniform look like? What uniforms are the people in Afghanistan we are fighting wearing?
His case is no different than those standing trial for the Madrid train bombings. They can have a beef with Spain if they want, but they have no special rights to go kill their citizens.
I agree totally about Madrid. Spain wasn't invaded though. Citizens of a country invaded have no right to rise up and fight in their defense?
Don't join foreign insurgent or terrorist groups if you are not willing to take the risks involved. That includes being killed or going to prison.
I agree with this as well. But prison? You have to join up to fight?
...as for the Italian trial, Italy has no jurisdiction in the case. The US soldier was on duty in uniform at the time, in Iraq, an operational zone. The US Army has jurisdiction on his conduct. If he was an Italian soldier, they would have jurisdiction on his conduct. If a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan f*** up, he answers to the Canadian Army, not to Italy's, not the Usa's, not to Pakistan's.
This was my point about the Italian trial and the Japanese Trials. The U.S. soldier was doing his job manning a checkpoint and didn't know who was in the car approaching in a possibly hostile manner and erred on the side of his safety. In my opinion, he acted correctly. Sometimes the wrong people get shot in a war.
The Doolittle Raiders did not bomb civilians or children intentionally but collateral damage, (I hate that term), happens.
...as to the Q of whether the A-Q dude will serve his time in a Canadian prison if he's convicted, its possible, in that there is a treaty transfer in place between Canada and the USA in regards to some federal prisoners, but its not blanket, it depends on the circumstances, so its a "maybe".
I'm sure I'm just generalizing too much. I just don't see fighting a war as murder. Sure, there are atrocities that should be prosecuted, but not "this 'allied' squad attacked this position, one solder was killed. One enemy combatant was captured and is on trial for murder."
Like I said, I don't like the precedent it sets. Uniform or no. I see things like this coming back to haunt U.S. soldiers. If captured, will they be put on trial by the enemy and imprisoned? They should not.
I just see it as smoke and mirrors and politics and politics and prosecuting a war shouldn't mix. The civilians should tell the military what it wants done, not how to do it.
wrngway
-
Right now, a U.S. soldier, Mario Lozano of the 69th Infantry Regiment, is on trial in Italy, in absentia, for the "murder" of an Italian special agent, Nicola Calipari, who was escorting Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers. Their car approached a roadblock at high speed and US soldiers opened fire.
This could be the subject for another thread. But, One of the things that we've done right is to try and convict any "combatants" as criminals, rather than give them the standing of a Martyr. This might show the arab population that instead of supporting "freedom fighters", they are supporting criminal activities instead. Well, at least in theory.
I doubt by now, that anything we do will sway them from their percieved cause. Plus, with things going on like the gradual desertion of our allies, policy mistakes like lying about the WMD's (Although at one time Iraq DEFINETELY posessed them, in fact being the first nation to ever employ Nerve gas.Only all of their programs were shut down by Desert Storm)and things which hit on the home front, such as Dick Cheney and Halliburton's scandalous behaviour) and also the weakening of our stance in the rest of the world (Do any of you think that the N.Korean situation was handled well? kinda curious there.)
Now, since President Bush is what is refered to as a 'lame duck', meaning that he can't run for another term of office, and that his last two years won't be cluttered up by campaigning, I'd like to see how he ends his term.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
This could be the subject for another thread. But, One of the things that we've done right is to try and convict any "combatants" as criminals, rather than give them the standing of a Martyr. This might show the arab population that instead of supporting "freedom fighters", they are supporting criminal activities instead. Well, at least in theory.
Now this is a reasonable explanation. I just don't want to see "trials" somehow twisted back upon American soldiers at some later date with a "well, you did it" explanation.
wrngway
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Do you really want to charge combatants with a crime for "doing their job"?
Being a dirt worshipping savage is a job?
Citizens of a country invaded have no right to rise up and fight in their defense?
Where is "Al-Qaedia"?
-
Another reason not to take prisoners... just kill em
-
Was simply pointing out what can happy to you if you decide to go to a foreign land and do this sort of stuff...
Prison? you said. Well, ya, there are plenty of terrorists in prison.
What do you call Gitmo? Club Carribean? Isnt that where he went 1st?
The rest of your quotes from me your just agreeing with me, so im not sure why you quote them like your arguing? So I wont bother with replying.
...as for "just shooting" them, well, ya, but our societies wont agree with that now, and you would end up in big trouble for that. Maybe in times past.
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Now this is a reasonable explanation. I just don't want to see "trials" somehow twisted back upon American soldiers at some later date with a "well, you did it" explanation.
wrngway
Your premise is without merit.
An actual civilized sovereign nation is going to treat soldiers as soldiers. Terrorist groups, such as the Taliban, Al Queada, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, along with scum like Saddam and Adolf, are always going to treat captured soldiers in the most barbaric way possible, as they always have. Whether civilized modern nations try captured terrorists as criminals will have no bearing at all on how their terrorist pals treat their prisoners.
-
(http://www.foundus.com/jani/gnomes/images/Troll.jpg)
Please Don't Feed the Troll!!!
Mac
-
If the guys not in a regular army in uniform, gut the sob.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
If the guys not in a regular army in uniform, gut the sob.
What is considered a regular army?
French resistance in the WWII considered themselves to be soldiers and wore a uniform.
-
According to the Geneva Conventions a uniform can be as little as wearing the same colored armband or other piece of clothing.
-
As long as he never gets back to Canada I am happy.
-
Speaking of Astan and Canada, a big stink has been raised in Parliment about the treatment of prisoners turned over to Astans. Because the Astans are mistreating the prisoners, there is talk that Canadian soldiers can be charged with war crimes. :rolleyes:
-
The thing is, soldiers of an army in a combat area stay in uniform. They dont pull out armbands when they decide to fight, and put them away when they want to hide among the civilians. Freedom fighters, terrorists,partisans,geurillas, they are all the same thing, it just depends if friend or foe.