Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

[daveman]

Yeah, it's called the White House and the Attorney General's office.

At least you admit that Obama and Holder are racist dumbfucks too.

Yeah,. Just wait until the second term. They gonna pitch a bitch at 11:30. Oops I mean, in the second term.

Wake up -- you're dreaming.

 

[JoeB131]

Because we are a country of laws and the law says that he is tried in the jurisdiction that applies to him - that is the UCMJ.

Anything else?

Um, not really.

Service members are tried by host countries all the time...

A-Stan's not a "host" country.

Depends on your definition, doesn't it?

The government in Kabul is technically an allied country. We recognize it as the sovereign, legal government of the place and the legal authority. Like it or not, it has as much right to expect extradition of Bales as Japan did for those three hoodlems who raped the girl on Okinawa in 1995.

If Bales had been acting as part of his duties on a valid combat patrol, you might have a point that this is a case where the UCMJ takes precedence. But clearly, that was not the case. He was not on an operation and he was not under fire and the people he killed were no threat to him or members of his unit.

 

[daveman]

If he's going to be executed anyway, why not turn him over to the Afghans? ?

Simple, dufus: In this country we give people a fair trial.

turning him over to the Afghans would be the equivalent of an execution without a trial. You can't recieve a fair trial from a pack of bloodthirsty savages.

Um, we are talking about a guy who walked out in the middle of the night and killed 17 people in their sleep, right. I think we have a hard time throwing the "Savage" label around. Glass houses and all that, old chap...

The fact is, we are perfectly content to let them judge and convict and punish their own people. We are not letting Americans judge Afghans, we are letting them judge themselves.

This guy committed a crime in their country against their citizens. I'm not seeing a big problem with turning him over to them.

Again -- the Afghans don't want justice. They want revenge. There is no way he'd get a fair trial.

 

[GoneBezerk]

1) Japan is a modern civilized country, Afghanistan never will be despite Obamination's dreams. We have legal agreements with Japan.

2) Those Marines did a crime in normal society, the Army guy did it in a warzone where people are killed left and right.

3) The Army guy also has a medical history of TBI and PTSD, along with 3 previous warzone tours so his case is different.

This is a special case with the Army guy, not with the Marines.

Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

Because he is subject to the USMJ, not your imaginary rules.

The acronym you are looking for is UCMJ (Uniform Code of MIlitary Justice) and that really wasn't the question.

If you commit a crime against a host country's citizens, in MOST cases, the host country has first crack at prosecuting you. If it's minor enough, they'll just ask that you get that fugnut the hell out of our country.

For instance, when three servicemen on Okinawa raped a teenage girl, they were handed over to the Japanese justice system and served about 8 years in a Japanese prison. Then the military got them back and gave them dishonorable discharges. (one of them came back in to the states and raped and killed an American girl, before thankfully killing himself.)

We aren't going to turn this guy over because Afghanistan doesn't have a justice system we trust to do justice. So we will prosecute him ourselves, give him the death penalty, and maybe in five years, commute that to life in prison.

 

[Warrior102]

Um, not really.

Service members are tried by host countries all the time...

A-Stan's not a "host" country.

Depends on your definition, doesn't it?

No - it depends on "is it a host country, or not?"

A host country is someplace like Yokosuka Japan, where servicemember, wife, kiddies - all welcome, under the Status of Forces Agreement, where US service members are more or less in a "diplomat" status while in country.

A-Stan is a war zone/Obama's quagmire, not a host country.

Was Vietnam a "host" country? How about Normandy, France or Iwo Jima? How about Lebanon?

Don't be a dumb fuck.

 

[JoeB131]

Simple, dufus: In this country we give people a fair trial.

turning him over to the Afghans would be the equivalent of an execution without a trial. You can't recieve a fair trial from a pack of bloodthirsty savages.

Um, we are talking about a guy who walked out in the middle of the night and killed 17 people in their sleep, right. I think we have a hard time throwing the "Savage" label around. Glass houses and all that, old chap...

The fact is, we are perfectly content to let them judge and convict and punish their own people. We are not letting Americans judge Afghans, we are letting them judge themselves.

This guy committed a crime in their country against their citizens. I'm not seeing a big problem with turning him over to them.

Again -- the Afghans don't want justice. They want revenge. There is no way he'd get a fair trial.

What would you define as a fair trial?

It seems to me that the Afghans reacted more violently to the Quran burnins than this inicident, but it just might be after 35 years of war, they are just desensitized to it.

I'm having a hard time seeing any court not finding this guy guilty, because he's as guilty as a cat in a canary cage.

 

[Warrior102]

Should we have turned the killer over to the Japanese, as it occurred in Japan?
Me thinks not....

Navy Plans Murder Charge in Death of Gay Sailor - NYTimes.com

 

[JoeB131]

A-Stan's not a "host" country.

Depends on your definition, doesn't it?

No - it depends on "is it a host country, or not?"

A host country is someplace like Yokosuka Japan, where servicemember, wife, kiddies - all welcome, under the Status of Forces Agreement, where US service members are more or less in a "diplomat" status while in country.

A-Stan is a war zone/Obama's quagmire, not a host country.

Was Vietnam a "host" country? How about Normandy, France or Iwo Jima? How about Lebanon?

Don't be a dumb fuck.

Well, forgetting that Normandy or Iwo Jima were in fact hostile enemy territories, not so much.

Lebanon and Vietnam, we did adhere to their laws when we were there.

Again, not sure why you are getting weepy about Bales. He killed 17 PEOPLE. Not Afghans, not Americans, but PEOPLE.

 

[JoeB131]

Should we have turned the killer over to the Japanese, as it occurred in Japan?
Me thinks not....

Navy Plans Murder Charge in Death of Gay Sailor - NYTimes.com

Nope. It was one of our nationals killing another of our nationals on a military base. Not the same as a killing of their nationals in a civilian area.

 

[Warrior102]

Should we have turned the killer over to the Japanese, as it occurred in Japan?
Me thinks not....

Navy Plans Murder Charge in Death of Gay Sailor - NYTimes.com

Nope. It was one of our nationals killing another of our nationals on a military base. Not the same as a killing of their nationals in a civilian area.

Nimitz Park is a civilian area.

 

[Warrior102]

Depends on your definition, doesn't it?

No - it depends on "is it a host country, or not?"

A host country is someplace like Yokosuka Japan, where servicemember, wife, kiddies - all welcome, under the Status of Forces Agreement, where US service members are more or less in a "diplomat" status while in country.

A-Stan is a war zone/Obama's quagmire, not a host country.

Was Vietnam a "host" country? How about Normandy, France or Iwo Jima? How about Lebanon?

Don't be a dumb fuck.

Well, forgetting that Normandy or Iwo Jima were in fact hostile enemy territories, not so much.

Lebanon and Vietnam, we did adhere to their laws when we were there.

Again, not sure why you are getting weepy about Bales. He killed 17 PEOPLE. Not Afghans, not Americans, but PEOPLE.

I'm not "weepy" about Bales -

He will get a fair trial and execution, courtesy the U.S. Army.

Fear not.

 

[daveman]

Um, we are talking about a guy who walked out in the middle of the night and killed 17 people in their sleep, right. I think we have a hard time throwing the "Savage" label around. Glass houses and all that, old chap...

The fact is, we are perfectly content to let them judge and convict and punish their own people. We are not letting Americans judge Afghans, we are letting them judge themselves.

This guy committed a crime in their country against their citizens. I'm not seeing a big problem with turning him over to them.

Again -- the Afghans don't want justice. They want revenge. There is no way he'd get a fair trial.

What would you define as a fair trial?

It seems to me that the Afghans reacted more violently to the Quran burnins than this inicident, but it just might be after 35 years of war, they are just desensitized to it.

I'm having a hard time seeing any court not finding this guy guilty, because he's as guilty as a cat in a canary cage.

A fair trial: A defense attorney genuinely interested in seeing his client found not guilty and able to present evidence in support of that goal, and a jury and judge open and willing to listen to all the evidence before they make up their minds.

You know -- the things he wouldn't get in Afghanistan, where, like you, they've already decided he's guilty.

 

[saveliberty]

A fair trial would have witnesses for the prosecution correct? If I was Afghani, I wouldn't want to go to a US military base in the US to testify.

 

[daveman]

A fair trial would have witnesses for the prosecution correct? If I was Afghani, I wouldn't want to go to a US military base in the US to testify.

Then they're not interested in justice, are they?

But that's already been made quite plain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

Its amazing that no one wants the Afghanis to have jurisdiction over murders committed in their own country.

 

[daveman]

Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

Its amazing that no one wants the Afghanis to have jurisdiction over murders committed in their own country.

You only want him tried there because the outcome is pre-ordained.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

Its amazing that no one wants the Afghanis to have jurisdiction over murders committed in their own country.

You only want him tried there because the outcome is pre-ordained.

What do you mean its pre-ordained? Didn't we bring them democracy? Criminal trials are pre-ordained in democracies? Do we live in a democracy?

I thought surely we had brought the afghanis democracy, am I wrong?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A fair trial would have witnesses for the prosecution correct? If I was Afghani, I wouldn't want to go to a US military base in the US to testify.

Then they're not interested in justice, are they?

But that's already been made quite plain.

I'm perplexed you think justice doesn't exist in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have given their lives, and even more have given parts of their bodies, to bring democracy to the Afghani people - and you're telling us it was all for naught? They have such a shabby system they can't even be trusted to conduct criminal trials of suspects accused of committing crimes on their own soil?

Wow. What a waste, wouldn't you say?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You know its funny-

If I go to Mexico and murder someone, the Mexican courts would try me - and the U.S. State Department would do nothing to stop them except perhaps provide me counsel.

But if I go to Afghanistan and murder almost 20 people - well it would be an atrocity for me to be tried there!

Here's a suggestion I have - if you think a nation's justice system is fucked up, don't commit a crime there!

 

[daveman]

Its amazing that no one wants the Afghanis to have jurisdiction over murders committed in their own country.

You only want him tried there because the outcome is pre-ordained.

What do you mean its pre-ordained? Didn't we bring them democracy? Criminal trials are pre-ordained in democracies? Do we live in a democracy?

I thought surely we had brought the afghanis democracy, am I wrong?

Do you really think there's any chance they'd find him not guilty, or not guilty by way of extenuating circumstances?

No, you just want to see an American Soldier executed.