Right for U.S military to kill ally country's civilian

Having only reviewed these details and not being on the ground to investigate the factors involved, this looks to me like a simple RTA, tragic though the consequences were.

Almost all soldiers serving abroad are protected by a Status of Forces Agreement, which covers how they are treated under law. In the British Army in Germany, you were responsible (broadly speaking) for your own actions whilst not in uniform to the German authorities, although you would be taken into British custody whilst awaiting the judicial process.

SOFA can be hugely contraversial with local populations as they tend to suffer the negative side, but do not think of the benefits of a military base to the local community as well.

So how do we resolve this tension? For me the military needs to do a better job of communicating it's purpose and the benefits that it brings to the community, we have P Info officers twiddling their thumbs - put them to work!! More integration with the local community - not talking big flashy stuff, or inviting the locals on base, which do work, but getting out doing simple stuff that is visible, had my guys clearing a path of debris as part of a PT lesson - they got noticed and a nice letter was sent to the unit. We often forget that it is the simple things that can mean the most.
 
The only reason why I would disagree that this is a routine training accident is because the victims were civilians.
I'm not sure how the laws would call it, but for me, I don't think it should be a routine training accident.
Imagine a live fire exercise went wrong and a rocket flew into a house in Texas, killing half of a family. Actually there was a case like that where a Korean family in the US had an F/A-18 crash into their house.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463725,00.html
No longer a routine training accident.
It is now a major Charlie Foxtrot.
 
Pretty much Hmmm.
You wake up one morning, just like any other day... you do something you've done several times before. And then in a few hours, your life turns upside down. Or ends.
 
Probably because that was the only path leading to where they were going.
According to the report on that site, if the armored vehicle driver hadn't moved his vehicle off somewhat to get a better look at what the obstruction ahead was, the girls probably wouldn't have died.
Dunno about your part of the world, but there are plenty of places where people routinely walk on the shoulder of the road.

This being a total fvck face thing must be the in thing on Milforum now.
 
Jesus Christ on a Jumped up Chariot Driven Crutch!

It was a bad incident, it was a bad scene.

You conduct excercises in civilian areas it can happen.

End

Done.

Mea a CULPA

Mea a Cupla

Everybody happy?
 
Yeah I know.
I see people walk on the shoulder of the road here all the time because on either side it's all nature.
Actually along many roads in the countryside in Korea you'll actually see that roads are cut into hills so you'll have artificial cliffs on either side. And where it isn't cliff, it's forest. So walking on the shoulder of the road to get someplace is rather common practice.
 
Let me chime in on the orgiginal outset of the thread, from my European POV we indeed have the creepy feeling that US soldiers - while theoretically under US mil law - are in fact immune when foreigners of non mil (read: civvies) or non-diplomatical status are involved during a conflict (no matter what the ROE), or outside conflict, read: They can basically get away with anything.

I have no exact statistics, but right off my head (!) I remember a few incidents where - had a German or Spanish (those are the only statutes I can really rate) soldier been involved, yes, he would have gotten punished (this is a mere gut feeling from first apparance, the lawyers might have a nother take on it), here a short list of incidents (not inclucing the Korean one) I remember where either the US armed forces members involved were not even investigated or, if investigated and charged, absolved in a way that does not seem to make sense at first glance:

- 1988, Vincennes incident: The USS Vincennes over the Persian Gulf "accidentally" shot down an Iranian A300 airbus, killing all 290 pax. Nobody tried that I knew of, as: The United States did not admit responsibility, according to the American government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus as an attacking F-14 fighter and hence were within their ROE (the officers in charge even got awarded medals). As late as 1996, Washington finally volunteered compensation of $300,000 for each wage-earning victim, and $150,000 for each non-wage-earners: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8138015.html

- Panama Invasion, Sgt. Roberto E. Bryan, tried for deliberately killing a civilian who had been caught, disarmed and shackled, but aquitted: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1145339.html

- Panama Invasion, Juantxu Rodriguez incident, apparently killed knowingly and intentionally in cold blood by US forces, not even an investigation: http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/pl...xu-rodriguez-in-cold-blood/msg11078/#msg11078

- 1998, Mt. Cermis incident, Italy: A low-flying U.S. Marine jet on training flight accidentally cut a cable-car line, causing death to all 20 people aboard the car. The tapes of the comms of the pilots are out there ("...we won´t see daylight again..."), they knew they had ****ed up royally breaking several rules, apparently deliberately having tried to haul their Prowler through under the cables, but: Investigation and trial aquitted pilots of involuntary manslaughter (sarcasm mode ON: The map plotted cables were obviously in the wrong place at the wrong time and kind of obstructed the US planes´trajectory?): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/290850.stm

- 1999, "Accidental" bombing of the Chinese embasy in Belgrade, again no public investigation and no trial: http://de-construct.net/?p=5804

- 2003, José Couso incident: In the fourth version of what had hapened the "investigation" aquitted US tank commander despite the fact that the Hotel had deliberately been declared as military target some hours before and that he quite obviously had lied about having been under attack:

Foreign Minister Palacio does get Colin Powell to promise an “investigation,” the results of which are sent in August. The Spanish Foreign Ministry sends the Couso family two typewritten pages with no heading or signature, with no translation into Spanish. Therein, a new explanation arises: a spotter for Iraqi forces appeared to be using the Palestine Hotel. Falsely claiming that US forces were under “heavy attack,” the shot at the hotel therefore constituted “self-defense.”
Click to expand...
http://www.josecouso.info/article.php3?id_article=56

There are more, but those are just the ones where I remember the significant details without doing a lot of research.

Interesting, no?

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Indeed.
I have to admit that I had forgotten about most of those incidents myself.
In short the sort of message it sends is, "To us, you're not even human beings."
 
Accidents happen. Sucks when they do and it's always a little more tragic when it's children. It's normal to feel angry, but witch hunts are rarely righteous themselves.
 
Accidents indeed do happen, but then we have judges sorting the responsibilities out after the fact in normal life, and in normal armed forces.

Just to make it clear, I was not promoting witch hunting here, just wanted to remind that ordinary military or state prosecution as seen as normal by all of us is more than often denied when non-US citizens vs. US troops are involved (the Germans responsible for the fuel truck mishap in Afghanistan go - as every sensible person would expect - to trial, the politically responsible head rolled, the outcome of the trial is up to the judges and I trust their judgement. That *is* the way it should be, IMHO).

A trial, where in the end a defendant comes out free, one has to live with that, even if you dont´t like the outcome (and here a normal state trial is preferred to a judicary process where several parts are under political pressure/orders).

Seriously, I think that every soldier (at least every commander) should be open and even ask to being scrutinized by the appropriate juridical system in case of doubt, if he did nothing wrong there should be no reason to fear it, he will come out with a truly clean slate, better off than when he entered the trial.

Denying a trial whenever US soldiers are involved in situations that to the layman seem fairly obvious and clear (e.g. we all saw the footage of the tank in the Couso case, 5 minutes no sign of attack, then the commander taking his aim with all calm of the world), basing the decision to deny trial on plain and seemingly obvious slandering is what makes people angry (and, my take, does not stand the US in good stead; same goes for the refusal to have their soldiers - as the only in the world - not being held responsible for war crimes to the International Court, what would they have to fear?; explain this to the Hitler guys tried in Nuremberg...!?).

Rattler
 
Last edited:
PJ24 said:
Accidents happen. Sucks when they do and it's always a little more tragic when it's children. It's normal to feel angry, but witch hunts are rarely righteous themselves.
Click to expand...

No need for a witch hunt.
But if I ran over someone who was walking on the shoulder of a road, or if I flew my plane in a manner that cut the cables of a ski or cable car, I find it hard to believe that I would actually walk free.
 
rattler said:
Accidents indeed do happen, but then we have judges sorting the responsibilities out after the fact in normal life, and in normal armed forces.

Just to make it clear, I was not promoting witch hunting here, just wanted to remind that ordinary military or state prosecution as seen as normal by all of us is more than often denied when non-US citizens vs. US troops are involved (the Germans responsible for the fuel truck mishap in Afghanistan go - as every sensible person would expect - to trial, the politically responsible head rolled, the outcome of the trial is up to the judges and I trust their judgement. That *is* the way it should be, IMHO).

A trial, where in the end a defendant comes out free, one has to live with that, even if you dont´t like the outcome (and here a normal state trial is preferred to a judicary process where several parts are under political pressure/orders).

Seriously, I think that every soldier (at least every commander) should be open and even ask to being scrutinized by the appropriate juridical system in case of doubt, if he did nothing wrong there should be no reason to fear it, he will come out with a truly clean slate, better off than when he entered the trial.

Denying a trial whenever US soldiers are involved in situations that to the layman seem fairly obvious and clear (e.g. we all saw the footage of the tank in the Couso case, 5 minutes no sign of attack, then the commander taking his aim with all calm of the world), basing the decision to deny trial on plain and seemingly obvious slandering is what makes people angry (and, my take, does not stand the US in good stead; same goes for the refusal to have their soldiers - as the only in the world - not being held responsible for war crimes to the International Court, what would they have to fear?; explain this to the Hitler guys tried in Nuremberg...!?).

Rattler
Click to expand...

Shows your complete uninformed bias. Since you would not have posted this crap if you had read the link Can of Spam provided:

http://rokdrop.com/2008/06/13/gi-myths-the-2002-armored-vehicle-accident/

Because:
The article explains in detail that there was a trial:

The Court Martial section of link:
"Probably the most significant and biggest mistake made in the handling of the 2002 armoured vehicle accident was that the USFK commanding General Leon LaPorte decided to court martial both SGT Nino and SGT Walker. Since the accident happened while the two sergeants were on duty they were not subject to Korean law due to the US-ROK Status of Forces Agreement, and thus the investigation of the accident along with any potential charges against them would be handled by the US military. All though the Korean authorities had no jurisdiction over the case, USFK had the Korean police investigate the scene with them and kept the Korean authorities and media fully briefed on what was going on. Five months after the accident the Korean National Police concurred with USFK investigators that the deaths of the two girls was an accident[xviii]."


The article also points out that US Military personnel are often tried in civilian courts of host countries when the commit offenses while not on duty.

It also points out that under South Korean SOFAs no South Korean Military personnel have ever been allowed to be put on trial by a host countries.

Suggest you review the link Can of Spam provided and learn something.
A Can of Man said:
No need for a witch hunt.
But if I ran over someone who was walking on the shoulder of a road, or if I flew my plane in a manner that cut the cables of a ski or cable car, I find it hard to believe that I would actually walk free.
Click to expand...

As you are well aware since you provided the link, you would have nothing to worry about.
As you were ROK military and from the link it explains no ROK personnel have ever been prosecuted by a host country.

This is just your feeble attempt to incite others. Or I guess you will either say, you didn't read your own source, or I took it out of context.:lol:
It is there for all to read and make up their own mind.

See Can of Spam's link: http://rokdrop.com/2008/06/13/gi-myths-the-2002-armored-vehicle-accident/

From Court Martial Section:

"The fact that ROK military personnel never stand trial in Korean courts is an inconvenient fact that many Koreans would rather not acknowledge."

"The Korean military has never allowed one of their soldiers to be tried in a foreign host nation’s civilian courts, which shouldn’t be surprising considering that Korean soldiers do not even stand trial in civilian courts in their own country. Despite all of these inconvenient facts the anti-US groups and their media allies have the nerve to condemn USFK for an unfair status of forces agreement."


Earlier in this thread Can of Spam accused me of wanting the US to leave Korea. It was not true, but now after following the crap in this thread, and it seems the ROK wants us to leave, then we should.

As an American I have seen junk like this since I was a kid. It is kind of the price we pay to live in a Free Society. Here in the States we have Americans on the right not trusting or government "to do right" because it is too big. Then we have the people on the Left not trusting the government "to do right" because it is the government.:-(

From foreign people it has been "Yankee go Home", might be time we did just that.:cheers:Might be able to afford a Health Plan for US citizens.:p

Just to make it clear, I don't think Rattler or Can of Spam were promoting a "Witch Hunt". Just particpating.:lol:

The thread from the start is nothing more than a country bashing topic, but it should remain open to show that free speech is taken seriously on this forum.
 
Rattler said:
Accidents indeed do happen, but then we have judges sorting the responsibilities out after the fact in normal life, and in normal armed forces.
Click to expand...

Where are you from that judges decide what is an isn't an accident? What was and wasn't preventable? Where I am from, investigative services do this, process evidence and submit it to the DA. From there, the investigative service recommends prosecution or not and the DA typically follows that recommendation.

Ie, Mr. Billy Joe is driving down a back country round and young Susie Q is riding the shoulder with her bike. Billy Joe comes around a curve and clips Susie Q. He isn't automatically guilty of any wrong doing. That would depend on many factors like speed, alcohol level, the road. This would be investigated and determined by individuals well trained in accident investigation.

Maybe your country does it differently, but that's how we roll in the US and that's how it's handled in the military as well.

You claim if things happen, they're sent directly to trial. That is a witch hunt. Not every incident needs to go to trial, not every incident deserves to and not ever incident involves guilt of wrong doing. To put it simply, bad **** happens.



A Can of Man said:
No need for a witch hunt.
But if I ran over someone who was walking on the shoulder of a road, or if I flew my plane in a manner that cut the cables of a ski or cable car, I find it hard to believe that I would actually walk free.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have been killed walking on the shoulder of the road, accidents happen. We don't just prosecute people to prosecute them, at least not for the most part. You advocate we should. Well, you can do that in your country all you want, I want mine to stay less fascist, no offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top