human rights question

Spacedog

Should coelition soldiers convicted of human rights abuses in Iraq be extradited to the Iraqi authorities as Sadam Husien was? for a "fair trial" followed by an execution. and if so, should their commanding officers also be handed over if it is proven thay they knew about and authorised such abuses?

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes but unfortunately that will never happen because

1) Apparantly, the coalition forces only kill, injure and abuse 'terrorists' therefore it is alright

2) The US controlled Iraqi administration will not request their extradition

Nuttzz

You cant be convicted twice of the same crime, if a US court convicts them then that matter is closed.

If the solider is only following orders as they are trained to do from day one then is it fair to execute them? If the orders came from further up the chain of command surely those people should reap what their actions sow.

In any case the US hasnt signed up the international criminal court for this reason.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Nuttzz wrote:

If the solider is only following orders as they are trained to do from day one then is it fair to execute them? If the orders came from further up the chain of command surely those people should reap what their actions sow.

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. It did not work in Nurenburg and should not work in Iraq. Officers of the military are obligated to refuse orders, even if it means a court marshal, if they feel those orders are morally or legally wrong. This follows for the poor grunt in the street also.

The main issue in Iraq, apart from the fact that they should not be there, is that the US forces are not geared up to fight this kind of conflict. They are sh1t at urban, close quarter combat and they are crap at fighting dedicated and somewhat fearless rebels.

MrP

sovtek

MrPudding wrote:

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. It did not work in Nurenburg and should not work in Iraq. Officers of the military are obligated to refuse orders, even if it means a court marshal, if they feel those orders are morally or legally wrong. This follows for the poor grunt in the street also.

The main issue in Iraq, apart from the fact that they should not be there, is that the US forces are not geared up to fight this kind of conflict. They are sh1t at urban, close quarter combat and they are crap at fighting dedicated and somewhat fearless rebels.

MrP

This is all spelled out in the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

And yes the US is a signatory...even thought they arent to the ICC.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

I think any 'coalition' soldier who murders innocents and abuses people since the US 'handed' over power to the Iraqi Interim Government should be tried by the Iraqis and if convicted, they should spend their time in an Iraqi jail.

Nuttzz

MrPudding wrote:

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. It did not work in Nurenburg and should not work in Iraq. Officers of the military are obligated to refuse orders, even if it means a court marshal, if they feel those orders are morally or legally wrong. This follows for the poor grunt in the street also.

MrP

i agree but the original question was

and if so, should their commanding officers also be handed over if it is proven thay they knew about and authorised such abuses?

Phil_321

Spacedog wrote:

Should coelition soldiers convicted of human rights abuses in Iraq be extradited to the Iraqi authorities as Sadam Husien was? for a "fair trial" followed by an execution. and if so, should their commanding officers also be handed over if it is proven thay they knew about and authorised such abuses?

No, they shouldn't. The human rights abuses you speak of are not comparable with the hundreds and thousands of deaths that Saddam was responsible for. And it seems the U.S. are issuing appropriate punishments anyway......Garner getting 10 years.

Oh yeah, why have you put the words, fair trial, in inverted commas.....Do you think that they are trying to stitch Saddam up for crimes he didn't commit?

MrPudding

Phil_321 wrote:

No, they shouldn't. The human rights abuses you speak of are not comparable with the hundreds and thousands of deaths that Saddam was responsible for.

This kinda sounds like you are saying the "liberating" soldiers should not be accountable for the abuses they hand out as they are the lesser of 2 evils.

Nuttzz, sorry about that I will give further details. Any solder or officer that carries out an order which results in the abuse of human rights is guilty of a crime as far as I am concerned. Further, any officer or NCO that knows soldiers under him are carrying out abuses, whether ordered to or not, but does nothing is also guilty. As such they should face the full force of the law.

That is the simple bit. Where it gets difficult is where the justice should be served. I think it would be very hard for any soldier od the occupation force in Iraq to get a fair trial. As it stands the Iraqi government is a US puppet, I would not be sure as fair trial would be possible. On the other hand, were there an elected government in place it may swing the other way.

I am against capital punishment. It would therefore be difficult for me to say they should be tried somewhere where they could be put to death as a punishment. Of course depending where they were tried in the states they could of course be out to death there too.

In short, anyone found quilty of abuses through either action or inaction should be tried in a court of law. I personnally do not fell they should be put to death but should serve an appropriate sentence if found guilty.

MrP

Phil_321

MrPudding wrote:

This kinda sounds like you are saying the "liberating" soldiers should not be accountable for the abuses they hand out as they are the lesser of 2 evils.

No it doesn't. Didn't I also say the U.S. is handing out appropriate punishments - lengthy jail sentences.
I said that U.S. soldiers abusing peoples' civil rights is a relatively minor injustice compared to Saddams crimes.

aidan_walsh

Spacedog wrote:

Should coelition soldiers convicted of human rights abuses in Iraq be extradited to the Iraqi authorities as Sadam Husien was? for a "fair trial" followed by an execution. and if so, should their commanding officers also be handed over if it is proven thay they knew about and authorised such abuses?

Its a moot question. No matter what the moral majority will say, the US wouldn't turn them over for the same reasons they won't have any part of the ICC.

Rezmuter Duane

Just a couple of statements:

Saddam Hussein broke laws.
Soldiers who abused Iraqis broke laws.
Saddam and the soldiers are all humans, and as such should be treated equally.
Saddam Hussein was extradited for breaking laws.

Conclusion: American soldiers should be extradicted for breaking laws.

If the Americans felt that the Iraqis could justly try Saddam, then they should also be able to try the soldiers fairly. Also, if you claim that the difference is the gravity of the offences, then you are acknowledging that the extradition is a way of punishing Saddam. Then it is not due process or a fair legal system. What rights one person has, another person also has. I am against the death penalty, but in this case it is immaterial as I feel that both Saddam Hussein and the soldiers should be tried where they committed their crimes, Iraq.

Nuttzz

Saddam Hussein was extradited for breaking laws.

Really? where?

mycroft

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Just a couple of statements:

Saddam Hussein broke laws.
Soldiers who abused Iraqis broke laws.
Saddam and the soldiers are all humans, and as such should be treated equally.
Saddam Hussein was extradited for breaking laws.

Conclusion: American soldiers should be extradicted for breaking laws.

Interjection. The US appointed provisional authority past legislation that US soldiers and foreign companys and it's employees are exempt from being prosceution by Iraqi courts. This legislation cannot be revoked by the about to be elected authority.

So er your point is pointless. The US ensured that this wouldn't be an issue.

So yes they should, and they ensured they shouldn't have to.

Outraged?

Yes?

Join the line.

Phil321 wrote:

No it doesn't. Didn't I also say the U.S. is handing out appropriate punishments - lengthy jail sentences.

And the carving up of Iraq by US companies is what?

And the countless deaths due to US carpet bombing is what?

And the lying about the reasons for going to war are what?

And the fact that the Iraq death toil isn't worth counting is what?

Handing out a lengthy (and I assure you that will be appealed and quietly reduced) sentence to one or two soldiers is pathetic. Theres no attempt to follow the chain of command on this, certain enlisted soldiers will face the chop. From a financial point of view it's cheaper to put them in prison for ten years than to employee them for ten years.

Rezmuter Duane

Really? where?

I meant to say, "will be". There is no way the Americans will hand him over to an international court, and there is no way they will try him in the US. He'll be sent to Iraq, and condemned to death.

As to breaking laws, he ordered people killed, maimed and tortured to just list a few laws he transgressed.

Rezmuter Duane

Interjection. The US appointed provisional authority past legislation that US soldiers and foreign companys and it's employees are exempt from being prosceution by Iraqi courts. This legislation cannot be revoked by the about to be elected authority.

I know that they wouldn't, that is why I said should. It's simply a hypothetical human rights question, but Bush knows nothing about human rights, except how to break them, maybe.........

mycroft

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

I know that they wouldn't, that is why I said should. It's simply a hypothetical human rights question, but Bush knows nothing about human rights, except how to break them, maybe.........

Thank you, you appear to be about three years behind the rest of us, kind of try to keep up. Most of us got this level disillusioned with the current US administration in and around sept 11th. Getting morally outraged with the US troops behaviour in iraqi prisons is so passé it's last year.

I'm trying to figure out when I became so jaded

Sparks

No, they shouldn't. The appropriate authority would be the ICC, not the Iraqi civilian courts. It'll never happen, mind.

Phil_321

mycroft wrote:

Phil321 wrote:

No it doesn't. Didn't I also say the U.S. is handing out appropriate punishments - lengthy jail sentences

And the carving up of Iraq by US companies is what?

And the countless deaths due to US carpet bombing is what?

And the lying about the reasons for going to war are what?

And the fact that the Iraq death toil isn't worth counting is what?

Where did all that come out of? That had nothing whatsoever to do with my post. And there's no point in dragging all these other issues into a thread that poses a specific question.

Hobbes

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Conclusion: American soldiers should be extradicted for breaking laws.

Well that was the point of the ICC, but the US said no and even bribed other countries not to sign up so as to protect its troops.

I meant to say, "will be". There is no way the Americans will hand him over to an international court, and there is no way they will try him in the US. He'll be sent to Iraq, and condemned to death.

They don't have to. They have a puppet government installed in Iraq. He will be "tried by iraq" as it were. Btw, he isn't in the US.

bonkey

Nuttzz wrote:

You cant be convicted twice of the same crime,

Yes, you can.

You cannot be tried for the same offence, by the same courts in most western nations, but its not quite the same thing.

Consider that OJ was tried twice within the US, and the second trial was not dependant on the outcome of the first.

It is unlikely that an emergent Iraqi nation (because thats what we'll have, no matter how this ends up - a new nation) would retrospectively expect its new laws to apply to offences which occurred prior to the existence of said nation. However, were they to do so, they would have every right to seek the extradition of the men involved. In such a situation, though, we can be pretty certain the US would refuse.

In any case the US hasnt signed up the international criminal court for this reason.

The ICC wouldn't play any role in this affair, as its remit is specifically only to deal with cases where the crime has not been tried by an appropriate "lower" court - which has happened.

As for whether or not the soldier(s) should be / should have been transferred to Iraq - the US handed Hussein over as a courtesy to Iraq. There are a variety of reasons - mostly political - but at the end of the day there was no onus on them to do so, and they could legitimately held, tried and sentenced him themselves.

It is simply not correct to suggest that because they waived that right (for whatever reasons) there is (or should be) some obligation on them to treat all other war-crimes in the same manner.


jc

Nuttzz

its totally off topic but Oj was only tried once by the criminal system the second "trial" was a civil action, there is obviously a big difference between them

this is what I am talking about http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

simpsons case http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/simpsoncase.shtml

"The burden of proof (balance of probabilities) in a civil trial that the pursuing lawyers must prove is less than in a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt)"


The US hasnt signed up to the ICC for fear that politically motivated cases would be taken aginst US citizens even though its has safe guards against it
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/15-434709.html
"Rostow also said that the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, provides insufficient opportunity for Security Council oversight"oh the irony