Staff Sgt. Bales

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We can't even get the Jihad Major to trial after three years and the left wants an American Soldier tried by a government that once harbored Bin Ladin. need to get the hell out of Afghanistan before the American left becomes totally unhinged.

I'm not sure anybody from the "left" has commented in this thread, though I can't say for sure how uscitizen would describe his own political beliefs in terms of right and left.

If the boondocker fits.

Fortunately it doesn't, so I suppose you must acquit.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.

The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.

A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.

Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldn’t wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?

Umm we kindof invaded and occupied their country....
Did we have this document first?

Ahh signed in 2003 after we invaded them....

Kind of like Hitlers agreements with the Vishi govt in France?

War is what happens when there is an absence of governing law. Terrorism by definition works outside the laws of its country. In this case, Afghanistan was harboring and funding terrorists which is the equivalent of encouraging and abetting those who operate outside the law both domestically and internationally. To invade a country that harbors those who wish to bring destruction to the US is within both common sense and international law. To ask an invaded country with no government to agree to a SOFA is nonsense. To have a SOFA agreement is not to disrespect the sovereignty of the Afghan people/government but to affirm it, as they will have a say on whether it is renewed when it expires in 2014. To not have a SOFA is to ignore the rights of the Afghan people to govern themselves. Your Hitler comparison is more to draw emotional appeal than legal justification. By your reasoning we are still legally British subjects.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The SOFA agreement with Afghanistan was signed in 2003 when did we invade?

Now it becomes apparent why we needed a puppet govt there.

You just backed up what I said.

It was signed in 2003, this incident happend in 2012. End of discussion as far as the legality is concerned.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.

The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.

A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.

Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldn’t wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?

I believe that the natural law dictates that your trial take place in the location where the alleged crime was committed. That Afghanistan is not based on natural law doesn't trump that principle. We don't send foreigners accused of crimes in the U.S. to their home countries to face a trial simply because our justice system might be foreign to them, so why should we receive special treatment?

In regards to the SOFA, my point is that it's wrong and goes against principles we as Americans supposedly believe in. Namely that you face justice where your crime was committed. As for not wanting us to be in a country without a SOFA, I don't want us to be in any other countries at all. If we can't station our troops in a country without being in fear that they'll break the laws of that country, then perhaps we need to rethink being in that country in the first place.

My point regarding the Boston Massacre is simply that the British government could have easily made the case that it would have been impossible for the soldiers to receive a fair trial in the colonies, and that, since they're under the British common law system regardless, a trial in Great Britain for those soldiers would make more sense. This, however, did not happen, and the soldiers were tried in Mass. as they should have been.

1. Natural law dictates that there is no law but the laws of nature. Any law that operates outside the laws of nature isnt a law at all. You are wrong in your beleif. We receive special treatment because of the SOFA.

2. You want blood not justice. To try him in Afghanistan is not only against the SOFA, but will become nothing more than a show trial, and perhaps, creul and unusual punishment. There is no doubt in my mind that you know this and your want for an Afghan trial is more to appease the emotions of Afghans than to uphold justice. He isnt going to get a fair trial in a country where they massacre people for burning a book. Thats why we have a SOFA. To expel bias and uphold the law. And the UCMJ is an incredebly fair system. More so than civilian trials.

3. Both the colonies and the soverign operated under the same laws with the same government with the same king. The soil of the colonies were no less British than that of Britian. The people shared the same court system, the same values, and the same laws. No SOFA existed because there was no need to have one on your own soil. John Adams begged the colonists to be objective. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely not.

He should be tried by the US military.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.

Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldn’t wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?

I believe that the natural law dictates that your trial take place in the location where the alleged crime was committed. That Afghanistan is not based on natural law doesn't trump that principle. We don't send foreigners accused of crimes in the U.S. to their home countries to face a trial simply because our justice system might be foreign to them, so why should we receive special treatment?

In regards to the SOFA, my point is that it's wrong and goes against principles we as Americans supposedly believe in. Namely that you face justice where your crime was committed. As for not wanting us to be in a country without a SOFA, I don't want us to be in any other countries at all. If we can't station our troops in a country without being in fear that they'll break the laws of that country, then perhaps we need to rethink being in that country in the first place.

My point regarding the Boston Massacre is simply that the British government could have easily made the case that it would have been impossible for the soldiers to receive a fair trial in the colonies, and that, since they're under the British common law system regardless, a trial in Great Britain for those soldiers would make more sense. This, however, did not happen, and the soldiers were tried in Mass. as they should have been.

1. Natural law dictates that there is no law but the laws of nature. Any law that operates outside the laws of nature isnt a law at all. You are wrong in your beleif. We receive special treatment because of the SOFA.

2. You want blood not justice. To try him in Afghanistan is not only against the SOFA, but will become nothing more than a show trial, and perhaps, creul and unusual punishment. There is no doubt in my mind that you know this and your want for an Afghan trial is more to appease the emotions of Afghans than to uphold justice. He isnt going to get a fair trial in a country where they massacre people for burning a book. Thats why we have a SOFA. To expel bias and uphold the law. And the UCMJ is an incredebly fair system. More so than civilian trials.

3. Both the colonies and the soverign operated under the same laws with the same government with the same king. The soil of the colonies were no less British than that of Britian. The people shared the same court system, the same values, and the same laws. No SOFA existed because there was no need to have one on your own soil. John Adams begged the colonists to be objective. I suggest you do the same.

No, I don't want blood. As to your contention that he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Afghanistan, I would say it's unlikely he's going to receive a fair trial here. The U.S. government has been notorious in lying about and not reporting crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As to your third point, Great Britain could have made the same case for the soldiers that you're making for Bales. They could have said they wouldn't receive a fair trial in Boston and that they should therefore be tried in Great Britain.

 

[Publius1787]

I believe that the natural law dictates that your trial take place in the location where the alleged crime was committed. That Afghanistan is not based on natural law doesn't trump that principle. We don't send foreigners accused of crimes in the U.S. to their home countries to face a trial simply because our justice system might be foreign to them, so why should we receive special treatment?

In regards to the SOFA, my point is that it's wrong and goes against principles we as Americans supposedly believe in. Namely that you face justice where your crime was committed. As for not wanting us to be in a country without a SOFA, I don't want us to be in any other countries at all. If we can't station our troops in a country without being in fear that they'll break the laws of that country, then perhaps we need to rethink being in that country in the first place.

My point regarding the Boston Massacre is simply that the British government could have easily made the case that it would have been impossible for the soldiers to receive a fair trial in the colonies, and that, since they're under the British common law system regardless, a trial in Great Britain for those soldiers would make more sense. This, however, did not happen, and the soldiers were tried in Mass. as they should have been.

1. Natural law dictates that there is no law but the laws of nature. Any law that operates outside the laws of nature isnt a law at all. You are wrong in your beleif. We receive special treatment because of the SOFA.

2. You want blood not justice. To try him in Afghanistan is not only against the SOFA, but will become nothing more than a show trial, and perhaps, creul and unusual punishment. There is no doubt in my mind that you know this and your want for an Afghan trial is more to appease the emotions of Afghans than to uphold justice. He isnt going to get a fair trial in a country where they massacre people for burning a book. Thats why we have a SOFA. To expel bias and uphold the law. And the UCMJ is an incredebly fair system. More so than civilian trials.

3. Both the colonies and the soverign operated under the same laws with the same government with the same king. The soil of the colonies were no less British than that of Britian. The people shared the same court system, the same values, and the same laws. No SOFA existed because there was no need to have one on your own soil. John Adams begged the colonists to be objective. I suggest you do the same.

No, I don't want blood. As to your contention that he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Afghanistan, I would say it's unlikely he's going to receive a fair trial here. The U.S. government has been notorious in lying about and not reporting crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As to your third point, Great Britain could have made the same case for the soldiers that you're making for Bales. They could have said they wouldn't receive a fair trial in Boston and that they should therefore be tried in Great Britain.

Comparing Afghanistan to Boston? Listen, your struggleing here. And he will see a far more fair trial than in a country where his guilt is already determined. I dont beleive Afghan law takes mental illness in to consideration.

 

[High_Gravity]

This sends a powerful message to the Afghans that we do not view them as a sovern nation. But as conquered servants of the USA. Wh do not deserve the same rights as their conquerors get.

Actually no it really doesn't, even if we handed Bales to them on a silver platter they would still hate Americans, this would only satisify their bloodlust for half a second.

 

[Publius1787]

The SOFA agreement with Afghanistan was signed in 2003 when did we invade?

Now it becomes apparent why we needed a puppet govt there.

Ok, youve just invaded a country. Forget the rason why or what country youve invaded. For my point none of that matters as it will just lead the debate in an unrelated direction from your claim of a puppet government. So youve just overturned a regeime. Now what? What would you do different? Upon asking these questions, it becomes clear that you are more vested in helping our enemies for ideological and political advancement than ourselves and the citizens of Afghanistan.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. Natural law dictates that there is no law but the laws of nature. Any law that operates outside the laws of nature isnt a law at all. You are wrong in your beleif. We receive special treatment because of the SOFA.

2. You want blood not justice. To try him in Afghanistan is not only against the SOFA, but will become nothing more than a show trial, and perhaps, creul and unusual punishment. There is no doubt in my mind that you know this and your want for an Afghan trial is more to appease the emotions of Afghans than to uphold justice. He isnt going to get a fair trial in a country where they massacre people for burning a book. Thats why we have a SOFA. To expel bias and uphold the law. And the UCMJ is an incredebly fair system. More so than civilian trials.

3. Both the colonies and the soverign operated under the same laws with the same government with the same king. The soil of the colonies were no less British than that of Britian. The people shared the same court system, the same values, and the same laws. No SOFA existed because there was no need to have one on your own soil. John Adams begged the colonists to be objective. I suggest you do the same.

No, I don't want blood. As to your contention that he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Afghanistan, I would say it's unlikely he's going to receive a fair trial here. The U.S. government has been notorious in lying about and not reporting crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As to your third point, Great Britain could have made the same case for the soldiers that you're making for Bales. They could have said they wouldn't receive a fair trial in Boston and that they should therefore be tried in Great Britain.

Comparing Afghanistan to Boston? Listen, your struggleing here. And he will see a far more fair trial than in a country where his guilt is already determined. I dont beleive Afghan law takes mental illness in to consideration.

I'm not struggling, and now all of a sudden you have an issue with my comparison? The comparison is not Boston to Afghanistan in a general sense, but between two cases and the principles behind them. You say that Bales will receive a fairer trial in the U.S., but you can't know that objectively. You certainly can't deny the fact that the U.S. government has done all it can to cover up crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.

 

[Publius1787]

No, I don't want blood. As to your contention that he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Afghanistan, I would say it's unlikely he's going to receive a fair trial here. The U.S. government has been notorious in lying about and not reporting crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As to your third point, Great Britain could have made the same case for the soldiers that you're making for Bales. They could have said they wouldn't receive a fair trial in Boston and that they should therefore be tried in Great Britain.

Comparing Afghanistan to Boston? Listen, your struggleing here. And he will see a far more fair trial than in a country where his guilt is already determined. I dont beleive Afghan law takes mental illness in to consideration.

I'm not struggling, and now all of a sudden you have an issue with my comparison? The comparison is not Boston to Afghanistan in a general sense, but between two cases and the principles behind them. You say that Bales will receive a fairer trial in the U.S., but you can't know that objectively. You certainly can't deny the fact that the U.S. government has done all it can to cover up crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim. As for cover-ups you should visit Fort Leavenworth.

 

[Too Tall]

Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.

The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.

A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.

Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldn’t wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?

Umm we kindof invaded and occupied their country....
Did we have this document first?

Ahh signed in 2003 after we invaded them....

Kind of like Hitlers agreements with the Vishi govt in France?

SOFA

An agreement that defines the legal position of a visiting military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state.

Read more: Status of forces agreement: Definition from Answers.com

It would have been rather difficult to make any deals with OBL or the Taliban prior to 2003.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Comparing Afghanistan to Boston? Listen, your struggleing here. And he will see a far more fair trial than in a country where his guilt is already determined. I dont beleive Afghan law takes mental illness in to consideration.

I'm not struggling, and now all of a sudden you have an issue with my comparison? The comparison is not Boston to Afghanistan in a general sense, but between two cases and the principles behind them. You say that Bales will receive a fairer trial in the U.S., but you can't know that objectively. You certainly can't deny the fact that the U.S. government has done all it can to cover up crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim.

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm not struggling, and now all of a sudden you have an issue with my comparison? The comparison is not Boston to Afghanistan in a general sense, but between two cases and the principles behind them. You say that Bales will receive a fairer trial in the U.S., but you can't know that objectively. You certainly can't deny the fact that the U.S. government has done all it can to cover up crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim.

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

I never argue with generalizations derived from no specifics. Furthermore, dismissing a fact as an "anecdote" does nothing to support your position. Nor does asserting that cover-ups happen in the past so we are an evil country who should violate the rights of the accused by throwing them to the wolves against an internationally sound and recognized agreement. You cannot justify a wrong with another wrong to achieve a political or ideological goal. And your goal isnt as innocent as seeing that justice is served. YOU KNOW sending him before Afghans will result in a show trial. But justice isn’t your goal. Its international appeasement. Let me guess .. your a libertarian (a guess derived from your avatar)? So am I. However, being a libertarian isnt wholly subscribing to Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Ron Paul’s foreign policy only works if your adversary is rational. Religious extremists aren’t rational.

 

[Too Tall]

I'm not struggling, and now all of a sudden you have an issue with my comparison? The comparison is not Boston to Afghanistan in a general sense, but between two cases and the principles behind them. You say that Bales will receive a fairer trial in the U.S., but you can't know that objectively. You certainly can't deny the fact that the U.S. government has done all it can to cover up crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past.

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim.

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

If a soldiers crime was covered up, how do you know about it? If you are saying that some soldiers are found innocent of a crime when YOU thought they were guilty, you were wrong.

I am an AF vet and I saw fellow airmen imprisoned for crimes that they would not even be charged with in the civilian world.

 

[Publius1787]

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim.

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

If a soldiers crime was covered up, how do you know about it? If you are saying that some soldiers are found innocent of a crime when YOU thought they were guilty, you were wrong.

I am an AF vet and I saw fellow airmen imprisoned for crimes that they would not even be charged with in the civilian world.

You shouldn’t have replied in such a manner. His point has nothing to do with his original claim and was made to skew the argument in a different direction. I almost made the same mistake myself but then I edited my post to bring him back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As one of those troops I can say that we found ourselves under constant investigation. Every time we had collateral damage or were accused of killing innocent civilians our platoon was forbidden from participating in operations until the investigation was over. There is no better way of fighting a war than proving to the populous that you hold true to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. No war, in the history of wars, has been fought with less atrocities than the last two in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a fact that I would love for you to challenge it or find someone who could do it better. As for my comparison it is consistent with my original claim.

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

I never argue with generalizations derived from no specifics. Furthermore, dismissing a fact as an "anecdote" does nothing to support your position. Nor does asserting that cover-ups happen in the past so we are an evil country who should violate the rights of the accused by throwing them to the wolves against an internationaly sound and recognised agreement. You cannot justify a wrong with anohter wrong to acheive a political or idelogical goal. And your goal isnt as innocent as seeing that justice is served. YOU KNOW sending him before Afgans will result in a show trial. But justice isnt yuor goal. Its international appeasement. Let me guess .. your a libertarian? So am I. However, being a libertarian isnt wholly subscribing to Ron Pauls foreign policy.

I am a libertarian, and I don't know that my position on this situation has anything to do with Ron Paul's foreign policy. I've not heard Ron Paul talk about this incident at all. My position flows from the principle that you are tried where you committed the crime. This soldier committed the crime in Afghanistan against Afghanis, therefore he should be tried by an Afghan court. We're the ones who setup the new Afghan government in the first place, so why can't we trust their courts? If their courts really aren't to be trusted then why do we allow anybody to be tried by them? Surely we should be trying all alleged criminals in Afghanistan in the U.S. or in international courts if their own judicial system is no good. And if their government is incapable of handing out justice as you seem to be implying, what in the world were we doing there for the past decade?

Here's a specific example of a cover-up.

U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

If a soldiers crime was covered up, how do you know about it? If you are saying that some soldiers are found innocent of a crime when YOU thought they were guilty, you were wrong.

I am an AF vet and I saw fellow airmen imprisoned for crimes that they would not even be charged with in the civilian world.

You shouldn’t have replied in such a manner. His point has nothing to do with his original claim and was made to skew the argument in a different direction. I almost made the same mistake myself but then I edited my post to bring him back.

Actually it's simply a natural evolution of the discussion, but nice attempt to dismiss the point.

 

[Publius1787]

That's all well and good, and a nice anecdote. But again, you can't deny that the government has covered up the crimes of its soldiers in the past.

I never argue with generalizations derived from no specifics. Furthermore, dismissing a fact as an "anecdote" does nothing to support your position. Nor does asserting that cover-ups happen in the past so we are an evil country who should violate the rights of the accused by throwing them to the wolves against an internationaly sound and recognised agreement. You cannot justify a wrong with anohter wrong to acheive a political or idelogical goal. And your goal isnt as innocent as seeing that justice is served. YOU KNOW sending him before Afgans will result in a show trial. But justice isnt yuor goal. Its international appeasement. Let me guess .. your a libertarian? So am I. However, being a libertarian isnt wholly subscribing to Ron Pauls foreign policy.

I am a libertarian, and I don't know that my position on this situation has anything to do with Ron Paul's foreign policy. I've not heard Ron Paul talk about this incident at all. My position flows from the principle that you are tried where you committed the crime. This soldier committed the crime in Afghanistan against Afghanis, therefore he should be tried by an Afghan court. We're the ones who setup the new Afghan government in the first place, so why can't we trust their courts? If their courts really aren't to be trusted then why do we allow anybody to be tried by them? Surely we should be trying all alleged criminals in Afghanistan in the U.S. or in international courts if their own judicial system is no good. And if their government is incapable of handing out justice as you seem to be implying, what in the world were we doing there for the past decade?

Here's a specific example of a cover-up.

U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it

So why do we allow anyone to be tried by them? I was unaware that they needed our permission to try anyone within their jurisdiction. And yet, you’ve failed to name a single reason why he should be tried in Afghanistan other than that’s the way you want it done. And now you’re all over the place attempting to drag me in to non-related arguments. I won’t bite. The questions are

1) Will justice be properly and objectively served by trying him in Afghanistan? ----------Absolutely not!
2) Does the US have the legal right to try him in the US? --------- Absolutely.

End of story. There is no legal recourse. Why debate it? Dont like it? Start an Afghan revolution for all I care.

 

[Katzndogz]

Despite the obvious tragedy of the Afghans beheading an American military member on You Tube, it would be magnificent publicity to be reminded, every day, long as it takes, that this president handed over one of our own for a particularly gruesome death. Especially with muslim terrorists and killers still alive and kicking here. Fantastic! It would be priceless.