Why shouldn't Bales be tried in Afghanistan?

[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.

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?

I used to think that we could persuade Afghanistan to come forward to the -- well, the 19th Century would be an improvement.

I was perhaps wrong.

 

[daveman]

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!

Never worn the uniform, have you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

I used to think that we could persuade Afghanistan to come forward to the -- well, the 19th Century would be an improvement.

I was perhaps wrong.

They are barbaric.

We certainly cannot allow them to have sovereign authority over their own lands.

We should probably subject them to genocide for a while.

"As tragic as it is, you're going to have a lot of people living in much nicer homes because of this." - RNC Committee Member Shawn Steel

 

[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!

Never worn the uniform, have you?

If I wear a uniform I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of any nation but my own?

interesting... I didn't know that part of what you got with the uniform was the right to murder people in cold blood in a foreign country and escape the justice of that country.

So if Mohamed Atta had been in uniform, you would say he should have been transported back to his home country to face trial, because we wouldn't have jurisdiction over him, right?

 

[daveman]

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.

You forgot this post -- probably deliberately.

 

[daveman]

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?

I used to think that we could persuade Afghanistan to come forward to the -- well, the 19th Century would be an improvement.

I was perhaps wrong.

They are barbaric.

We certainly cannot allow them to have sovereign authority over their own lands.

We should probably subject them to genocide for a while.

"As tragic as it is, you're going to have a lot of people living in much nicer homes because of this." - RNC Committee Member Shawn Steel

You're not interested in justice, either. You just want to see an American Soldier executed.

 

[daveman]

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!

Never worn the uniform, have you?

If I wear a uniform I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of any nation but my own?

interesting... I didn't know that part of what you got with the uniform was the right to murder people in cold blood in a foreign country and escape the justice of that country.

So if Mohamed Atta had been in uniform, you would say he should have been transported back to his home country to face trial, because we wouldn't have jurisdiction over him, right?

Do you make a special effort to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

So he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because the evidence against him is so overwhelming he stands very little chance of getting off?


Or he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because **** the Afghan people, they are lower human beings than Americans and have no right to judge any of us, even for crimes committed against their own people on their own soil, and we are God's chosen people for the dispensing of justice throughout the world?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Never worn the uniform, have you?

If I wear a uniform I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of any nation but my own?

interesting... I didn't know that part of what you got with the uniform was the right to murder people in cold blood in a foreign country and escape the justice of that country.

So if Mohamed Atta had been in uniform, you would say he should have been transported back to his home country to face trial, because we wouldn't have jurisdiction over him, right?

Do you make a special effort to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

I'm just trying to figure out why the Afghans don't have the same right of self-determination as we do.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden would have stood much of a chance of being found not-guilty in the U.S? Then by your logic he should not have been tried here (if caught alive).

Oh, wait, nevermind, that's not true, you have a double standard.

 

[daveman]

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.

So he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because the evidence against him is so overwhelming he stands very little chance of getting off?


Or he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because **** the Afghan people, they are lower human beings than Americans and have no right to judge any of us, even for crimes committed against their own people on their own soil, and we are God's chosen people for the dispensing of justice throughout the world?

Neither.

As has been explained to you (and you keep deliberately misunderstanding), he should be tried in America where he can get a fair trial.

He can't get one in Afghanistan.

But you should cheer up: Maybe he'll be executed in America. I know it won't happen soon enough to suit you, though. Maybe you can buy a GI Joe doll and have little mock hangings to assuage your leftist butthurt.

 

[daveman]

If I wear a uniform I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of any nation but my own?

interesting... I didn't know that part of what you got with the uniform was the right to murder people in cold blood in a foreign country and escape the justice of that country.

So if Mohamed Atta had been in uniform, you would say he should have been transported back to his home country to face trial, because we wouldn't have jurisdiction over him, right?

Do you make a special effort to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

I'm just trying to figure out why the Afghans don't have the same right of self-determination as we do.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden would have stood much of a chance of being found not-guilty in the U.S? Then by your logic he should not have been tried here (if caught alive).

Oh, wait, nevermind, that's not true, you have a double standard.

Since you're having both sides of this conversation all by yourself, I'll leave you to it. Then you can pretend you won.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

So he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because the evidence against him is so overwhelming he stands very little chance of getting off?


Or he shouldn't be tried in Afghanistan for the crime because **** the Afghan people, they are lower human beings than Americans and have no right to judge any of us, even for crimes committed against their own people on their own soil, and we are God's chosen people for the dispensing of justice throughout the world?

Neither.

As has been explained to you (and you keep deliberately misunderstanding), he should be tried in America where he can get a fair trial.

He can't get one in Afghanistan.

Why not? Don't they have a democracy? Do they not have a system of courts?

But you should cheer up: Maybe he'll be executed in America. I know it won't happen soon enough to suit you, though. Maybe you can buy a GI Joe doll and have little mock hangings to assuage your leftist butthurt.

I'm against the death penalty. But thanks for asking. I always appreciate it when you ask my opinion on something rather than making it up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you make a special effort to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

I'm just trying to figure out why the Afghans don't have the same right of self-determination as we do.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden would have stood much of a chance of being found not-guilty in the U.S? Then by your logic he should not have been tried here (if caught alive).

Oh, wait, nevermind, that's not true, you have a double standard.

Since you're having both sides of this conversation all by yourself, I'll leave you to it. Then you can pretend you won.

My bad. I didn't mean to assume you wanted a particular sentencing for this guy and argue based on that - oh wait, that's you doing that, ******* hypocrite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You really are a know nothing, aren't you? Afghanistan is not Japan, it is a war zone. Even if it this had happened in Japan, once Bales got back to the base he would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and the only way Japan would have gotten him is if they had extradited him. Host countries are granted concurrent, not primary, jurisdiction.

I suggest you do a little research before you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.

[rl]

Uh, Guy. Japan is a sovereign country. Afghanistan is a soveriegn country. Your argument doesn't fly. They had elections, they put a government into place. We are perfectly willing to let them prosecute their own people. We just don't want to let them prosecute one of ours.

Which is fine. But admit it what it is. Karzai is a puppet, and has no real authority.

This is the trap we are kind of falling into. If we don't let the Afghans prosecute Bales, we are admitting they are our puppets, which halfway makes the Taliban's case for it.

Me, personally, I'm for pulling out. Tomorrow. This thing stopped having a point years ago.

Where did I say they are not sovereign countries? SSgt Bales is not in Afghanistan so I think your argument is the one that falls flat, don't you?

Historically, military forces abroad enjoyed complete sovereign immunity and were subject to local criminal or civil liability only with the consent of their government. In essence, the “law of the flag” they served under followed these forces at all times. When, however, long-term peacetime presence of armed forces in foreign territory became the norm following World War II, this traditional exclusive jurisdiction model evolved to accommodate the legitimate interests of both the “sending” and “receiving” states to respond to criminal misconduct based on both nationality and territorial principles. Status of Force Agreements (SOFAs) emerged as the framework to balance these competing assertions of criminal jurisdiction (and many other issues related to the long-term presence of foreign armed forces within the territory of another state).
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) SOFA, negotiated between the alliance states in 1951, is representative of typical jurisdictional arrangements. It recognizes exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the parent nation (sending state) for service-unique offenses such as desertion or disobedience of orders, as well as for conduct which is only a crime under the law of the sending state. Conversely, it recognizes exclusive jurisdiction of the host nation (receiving state) over offenses which violate its laws, but not the law of the sending state. Most offenses committed by service-members, however, fall into a category of concurrent jurisdiction: they violate both U.S. military law (and sometimes federal civilian law), and host nation law. Criminal homicide by a U.S. service-member is such an offense. In these cases, SOFAs establish a framework for allocating primary jurisdiction over the offender. The NATO SOFA addresses this overlapping authority by assigning primary jurisdiction to the sending state in cases involving offences against its security, property, or its own nationals; as well as offences arising out of acts “done in the performance of official duty.” The receiving state is given the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in all other cases.
However, even when the receiving state is granted primary concurrent jurisdiction, U.S. policy is to maximize the exercise of jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Accordingly, the U.S. routinely requests waiver of receiving state primary concurrent jurisdiction. These requests are routinely granted in locations where the U.S. military maintains a long-term presence (such as Germany, South Korea, and Japan). These waiver requests and jurisdiction negotiations are normally conducted between JAG officers supporting the U.S. command and host-nation prosecutorial authorities. In many cases, the host-nation initiates the waiver process, considering the exercise of U.S. jurisdiction preferable to prosecuting U.S. personnel in its own courts.

Lawfare › Corn and Glazier on the US-Afghanistan SOFA and Jurisdiction to Prosecute SSG Bales

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He should receive a fair trial in the U.S., as he's a U.S. Soldier.
Following the fair trial, he should then be executed by a USA firing squad.

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

Seems to me we are in a trick bag here. Insisting that we try him for a crime against their citizens is pretty much underscoring their second class status.

If an Afghan diplomat or soldier here for training flipped out and killed 17 Americans, do you really think we'd respect their request to try him there?

Because he is under the UCMJ, not Afghanistan law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because OCCUPIED NATIONS don't get to judge the crimes of their occuperiers.

The rightness or wrongness of that is debatable, but that is the way it is.

Not quite the way I would phrase it, but it does make the point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Simple facts escape the notice of people like JoeB all the time.

 

[daveman]

Why not? Don't they have a democracy? Do they not have a system of courts?

Do you think the Afghans will settle for anything less than a guilty verdict?

I'm against the death penalty. But thanks for asking. I always appreciate it when you ask my opinion on something rather than making it up.

Obviously, you're not against the death penalty in this case. You can't wait for the guy to be executed.

 

[daveman]

I'm just trying to figure out why the Afghans don't have the same right of self-determination as we do.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden would have stood much of a chance of being found not-guilty in the U.S? Then by your logic he should not have been tried here (if caught alive).

Oh, wait, nevermind, that's not true, you have a double standard.

Since you're having both sides of this conversation all by yourself, I'll leave you to it. Then you can pretend you won.

My bad. I didn't mean to assume you wanted a particular sentencing for this guy and argue based on that - oh wait, that's you doing that, ******* hypocrite.

I don't want a particular sentence. I want a fair trial.

You don't. Obviously. Moron.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The current agreement we have with Afghanistan is that we will withdraw and hand security over to their forces when we withdraw, until that time they are not a host government, they exist only because we let them. You might not like it, Karzai certainly doesn't, but that is the reality.