Topic: US soldiers immunity.

Dean · July 12th, 2005

Oh, man, I have trouble with this one. Let's imagine another scenario. A battalion of I don't know, let's say German troops come to train at a US base. during their stay, one soldier is accused of the rape of an American woman while on the base. A tit for tat exchange follows, and the soldier in question is sent home and then released due to lack of evidence. Is this acceptable? No it is not, but according to US policy, this can happen again and again, and the host country is obliged to rely on US cooperation in order to assure that some sort of justice is meted out the guilty party. What happens if for some reason that cooperation is no longer forthcoming? You will have a group of US soldiers to whom the rule of law no longer applies. As a former Canadian soldier, I was ALWAYS told that I was subject to the laws of the country in which I was operating, and that the military could not defend me in certain situations. Let me tell you, it made the lot of us far more careful when we were out and abroad. I do not believe for one second that US soldiers should not be subject to the laws of the country in which they are operating. Someone earlier on in the thread said that it is because these countries have "given up their sovereignty" and therefore their laws no longer apply. Sorry, but that's codswallop, horsehockey and a very large load of foul smelling bovine fecal matter. In Bosnia, we were told to enforce the law as well as we could, and we were informed of some of the subtleties of Bosnian law. Was it ideal? No, but it was all we could do. We had to follow those laws ourselves. So I see no reason that US soldiers should not be obliged to do the same thing.
Another example: a true one at that. Two US pilots are patrolling in F-16s over Kandahar, Afghanistan. Below them, they see the muzzle flashes of a Canadian PPCLI platoon that was conducting a night exercise. The US pilots descend to see what's up, then decide that it is hostile fire, that they are under attack, and decide to roll in with their GP bombs. They so inform their controller, who tells them to wait. They repeat their request to drop their bombs, and they are again told to hold off. In violation of that order, they roll in, drop their bombs and kill four Canadians. The penalties they received were... wait for it... administrative! If a Canadian pilot had done that, I know for certain that he would be in jail for violation of a direct order and manslaughter.
If the US had a policy of really punishing guilty parties, I would not care that they handled their dirty laundry themselves. However, we have seen that this is not the case. And for those who may not believe me,
the dead soldiers are:

* Sgt. Marc Leger, 29, Lancaster, Ontario
* Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24, Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, Ontario
* Pte. Richard Green, 21, Mill Cove, Nova Scotia
* Pte. Nathan Smith, 27, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia

... just had to get that one off my chest...

Dean.

July 12th, 2005
Dean Centurion Gear	Oh, man, I have trouble with this one. Let's imagine another scenario. A battalion of I don't know, let's say German troops come to train at a US base. during their stay, one soldier is accused of the rape of an American woman while on the base. A tit for tat exchange follows, and the soldier in question is sent home and then released due to lack of evidence. Is this acceptable? No it is not, but according to US policy, this can happen again and again, and the host country is obliged to rely on US cooperation in order to assure that some sort of justice is meted out the guilty party. What happens if for some reason that cooperation is no longer forthcoming? You will have a group of US soldiers to whom the rule of law no longer applies. As a former Canadian soldier, I was ALWAYS told that I was subject to the laws of the country in which I was operating, and that the military could not defend me in certain situations. Let me tell you, it made the lot of us far more careful when we were out and abroad. I do not believe for one second that US soldiers should not be subject to the laws of the country in which they are operating. Someone earlier on in the thread said that it is because these countries have "given up their sovereignty" and therefore their laws no longer apply. Sorry, but that's codswallop, horsehockey and a very large load of foul smelling bovine fecal matter. In Bosnia, we were told to enforce the law as well as we could, and we were informed of some of the subtleties of Bosnian law. Was it ideal? No, but it was all we could do. We had to follow those laws ourselves. So I see no reason that US soldiers should not be obliged to do the same thing. Another example: a true one at that. Two US pilots are patrolling in F-16s over Kandahar, Afghanistan. Below them, they see the muzzle flashes of a Canadian PPCLI platoon that was conducting a night exercise. The US pilots descend to see what's up, then decide that it is hostile fire, that they are under attack, and decide to roll in with their GP bombs. They so inform their controller, who tells them to wait. They repeat their request to drop their bombs, and they are again told to hold off. In violation of that order, they roll in, drop their bombs and kill four Canadians. The penalties they received were... wait for it... administrative! If a Canadian pilot had done that, I know for certain that he would be in jail for violation of a direct order and manslaughter. If the US had a policy of really punishing guilty parties, I would not care that they handled their dirty laundry themselves. However, we have seen that this is not the case. And for those who may not believe me, the dead soldiers are: * Sgt. Marc Leger, 29, Lancaster, Ontario * Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24, Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, Ontario * Pte. Richard Green, 21, Mill Cove, Nova Scotia * Pte. Nathan Smith, 27, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia ... just had to get that one off my chest... Dean.