5 ms·

I'm of the opinion that this guy needs to be turned over to Afghanistan authorities for punishment. Whatever that may be. If we insist on other countries deport

by geuis 15y ago

I'm of the opinion that this guy needs to be turned over to Afghanistan authorities for punishment. Whatever that may be. If we insist on other countries deporting their citizens to us for copyright infringement, this is clearly a case where mass murder should work in reverse.

philwelch 15y ago
That's probably the "fair" solution, but in the real world, the country with all the aircraft carriers makes the rules.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
mindslight 15y ago
Afghanistan is one of many US colonies. Countries don't generally turn citizens over to colonies. edit: just trying to add a bit of clarity. whenever people use new words to describe well-known phenomena, they're simply deceiving themselves until old lessons are relearned.
- ktizo 15y ago
  'Protectorate', would probably be the preferred historical euphemism.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    'Colony' is more of a known term to me (which may be hypothetically different, but not in current actuality), but okay.. according to la Wik, "Colonial Protectorate". (ps, my whole point is really anti-euphemistic)
    - ktizo 15y ago
      I would say that 'colony' would also be euphemistic in this case, but it is hard to be literally descriptive about a cynical attempt to control territory under the guise of externally instituting a democracy (how do you externally institute a democracy anyway?), without offending someone. 'The Great Game' would probably be the classic euphemism for the ongoing Afghani affair, since that is what it has been called since the days of Rudyard Kipling.
Zhenya 15y ago
He was in uniform and not acting as civilian, even if outside his direct orders. Afghan law has no jurisdiction on a US soldier. There is no legal mechanism to turn him over to the afghanis. (Any legal war specialist, please correct me if I am wrong)
- dfc 15y ago
  The WP is reporting that removing him from the theatre does not preclude him from facing trial in afghanistan. But I also am not an expert the UCMJ. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/american-soldier-accused-in-shooting-spree-flown-out-of-afghanistan/2012/03/14/gIQA6RIrCS_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/american-so...
- ktizo 15y ago
  There is almost definitely a mechanism if he goes via the Hague, however given the American Service Members Protection Act, which allows the US to unilaterally invade Holland (no, really) should any US soldiers end up in court there, there is little chance of that. Although as far as I am aware, the Hague has ultimately very few legal powers anyway unless the US refuses point-blank to investigate or voluntarily hands over the investigation to them.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  If 'laws' prevent the reasonable trial of a mass-murderer, then there is no reason they shouldn't (and can't) be changed in an instant.
celticjames 15y ago
U.S. soldiers have been tried in foreign courts for breaking local laws. From a Stars and Stripes article regarding a soldier tried for rape in Korea: "The U.S.-South Korea status of forces agreement allows servicemembers to be turned over to South Korean custody if servicemembers are suspected of heinous crimes and law enforcement officials request it" (http://1.usa.gov/yrzicW http://1.usa.gov/yrzicW) I don't know what status of forces agreement exists in Afghanistan.

by geuis 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago

That's probably the "fair" solution, but in the real world, the country with all the aircraft carriers makes the rules.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

mindslight 15y ago

Afghanistan is one of many US colonies. Countries don't generally turn citizens over to colonies. edit: just trying to add a bit of clarity. whenever people use new words to describe well-known phenomena, they're simply deceiving themselves until old lessons are relearned.

ktizo 15y ago
'Protectorate', would probably be the preferred historical euphemism.
- mindslight 15y ago
  'Colony' is more of a known term to me (which may be hypothetically different, but not in current actuality), but okay.. according to la Wik, "Colonial Protectorate". (ps, my whole point is really anti-euphemistic)
  - ktizo 15y ago
    I would say that 'colony' would also be euphemistic in this case, but it is hard to be literally descriptive about a cynical attempt to control territory under the guise of externally instituting a democracy (how do you externally institute a democracy anyway?), without offending someone. 'The Great Game' would probably be the classic euphemism for the ongoing Afghani affair, since that is what it has been called since the days of Rudyard Kipling.

Zhenya 15y ago

He was in uniform and not acting as civilian, even if outside his direct orders. Afghan law has no jurisdiction on a US soldier. There is no legal mechanism to turn him over to the afghanis. (Any legal war specialist, please correct me if I am wrong)

dfc 15y ago
The WP is reporting that removing him from the theatre does not preclude him from facing trial in afghanistan. But I also am not an expert the UCMJ. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/american-soldier-accused-in-shooting-spree-flown-out-of-afghanistan/2012/03/14/gIQA6RIrCS_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/american-so...
ktizo 15y ago
There is almost definitely a mechanism if he goes via the Hague, however given the American Service Members Protection Act, which allows the US to unilaterally invade Holland (no, really) should any US soldiers end up in court there, there is little chance of that. Although as far as I am aware, the Hague has ultimately very few legal powers anyway unless the US refuses point-blank to investigate or voluntarily hands over the investigation to them.
twelvechairs 15y ago
If 'laws' prevent the reasonable trial of a mass-murderer, then there is no reason they shouldn't (and can't) be changed in an instant.

celticjames 15y ago

U.S. soldiers have been tried in foreign courts for breaking local laws. From a Stars and Stripes article regarding a soldier tried for rape in Korea: "The U.S.-South Korea status of forces agreement allows servicemembers to be turned over to South Korean custody if servicemembers are suspected of heinous crimes and law enforcement officials request it" (http://1.usa.gov/yrzicW http://1.usa.gov/yrzicW) I don't know what status of forces agreement exists in Afghanistan.