The soldiers still have immunity.Kmarion wrote:
Rules adjusted to conditions on the ground.
That's usually true but Blackwater have been serial offenders in Iraq, their problems seem to be endemic.jord wrote:
I don't either. But tbh even though the majority of them bring down the whole group there's people that won't be shooting civilians. And them 2 could of been them.Braddock wrote:
And the people in the office don't open fire on squares full of innocent civilians.jord wrote:
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
Instead of saying they deserved it I'll say I don't give a fuck what happens to Blackwater contractors given the way they carry on in Iraq.
Are you sure immunity is the word you want to use?TheAussieReaper wrote:
The soldiers still have immunity.Kmarion wrote:
Rules adjusted to conditions on the ground.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes, but they are subject to American laws, unlike the contractors for the most part.TheAussieReaper wrote:
The soldiers still have immunity.Kmarion wrote:
Rules adjusted to conditions on the ground.
There's probably no point arguing with me on this issue as my views on this topic are particularly strong. We had a similar situation here when the British sent over the Black and Tans. My great granny lived through their atrocities and I remember her saying they were thoroughly horrible to the people in our hometown. They were even known to kill people for giving their names in Irish!Kmarion wrote:
Rules adjusted to conditions on the ground.Braddock wrote:
Sweet, it only took 5 years!Kmarion wrote:
No one should be above the law in any situation, it's as simple as that.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-13 15:24:51)
I'm not arguing against any oversight. I'm saying that extreme circumstances are not the same everyday situations that we deal with. You can't apply the same civilian laws to people who are under a constant threat. The stress levels are very different. But again, there of course needs to be some oversight.. Iraqi law isn't it though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's from the same article you posted, actually.Kmarion wrote:
Are you sure immunity is the word you want to use?
This OneSome Iraqi politicians also want to end immunity for American soldiers, a demand the United States military has strongly opposed.
How can they be under US law if they are not in the United States? (serious question, sorry if it seems ignorant but I am unsure)Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but they are subject to American laws, unlike the contractors for the most part.
My point is though, the soldiers are still immune from Iraqi jurisdiction.
They of course could be tried in US military courts, but who knows how balanced those are after the way others have been tried who were held in Gitmo.
It's not exactly a clear system to go by.
These arguments you're putting forward are no doubt the same arguments put forward by the British when the Black and Tans were raping and murdering their way across the 32 counties. I'm afraid I just can't agree with you on this.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not arguing against any oversight. I'm saying that extreme circumstances are not the same everyday situations that we deal with. You can't apply the same civilian laws to people who are under a constant threat. The stress levels are very different. But again, there of course needs to be some oversight.. Iraqi law isn't it though.
By the way didn't Blackwater try and shift the goalposts recently and ask for Shariah law to be the law under which they would be investigated in an incident in Afghanistan?
source: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 … -asks.html
I know, you took it out of context. American soldiers are not immune in the same sense PMC's were. We've actually put our soldiers on trial.TheAussieReaper wrote:
It's from the same article you posted, actually.Kmarion wrote:
Are you sure immunity is the word you want to use?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They did not have the proper oversight that I'm also advocating.Braddock wrote:
These arguments you're putting forward are no doubt the same arguments put forward by the British when the Black and Tans were raping and murdering their way across the 32 counties. I'm afraid I just can't agree with you on this.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not arguing against any oversight. I'm saying that extreme circumstances are not the same everyday situations that we deal with. You can't apply the same civilian laws to people who are under a constant threat. The stress levels are very different. But again, there of course needs to be some oversight.. Iraqi law isn't it though.
By the way didn't Blackwater try and shift the goalposts recently and ask for Shariah law to be the law under which they would be investigated in an incident in Afghanistan?
source: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 … -asks.html
I hope you don't think I'm defending Blackwater. There needs to be one set of rules that takes in account all circumstances (for those engaged in hostilities).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all of our troops wherever they may serve are under our laws first and foremost. For the sake of diplomacy, we usually try to keep them from breaking any local laws, and punishments are usually given out for breaking them or at least transfers or discharges occur.TheAussieReaper wrote:
How can they be under US law if they are not in the United States? (serious question, sorry if it seems ignorant but I am unsure)Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but they are subject to American laws, unlike the contractors for the most part.
My point is though, the soldiers are still immune from Iraqi jurisdiction.
They of course could be tried in US military courts, but who knows how balanced those are after the way others have been tried who were held in Gitmo.
It's not exactly a clear system to go by.
Keep in mind that soldiers are generally held to a higher standard than civilians are. They don't have all the same rights as civilians either. I'd say they have more than enough oversight as it is, so this is why I'm not bothered that they aren't directly subject to Iraqi laws.
And people complain when the US spends a couple of billions helping fight disease in Africa?
Sure they like to waste money on petty stuff.
Sure they like to waste money on petty stuff.
US soldiers are ALWAYS under US law (UCMJ), regardless of where they are deployed/stationed. US soldiers are also immune from the international war crimes tribunal, as the US prosecutes violations under UCMJ and US domestic law.TheAussieReaper wrote:
How can they be under US law if they are not in the United States? (serious question, sorry if it seems ignorant but I am unsure)
My point is though, the soldiers are still immune from Iraqi jurisdiction.
They of course could be tried in US military courts, but who knows how balanced those are after the way others have been tried who were held in Gitmo.
It's not exactly a clear system to go by.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
^thx for above explanations.