In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Afgnanis demand prosecution of US soldiers.
fishkiller41
Member Posts: 50,608
Thew want US leaders to hand-over soldiers involved in truck crash Monday, in order to prosecute. WTH?
Jeff
Jeff
Comments
They sound like some squirrely allies.
Looks like Afghanistan is on course to become as big of a clusterf*** as Iraq.
Who says Muslims can't practice democracy?[:D][:p]
[:D]that will never happen.
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
Never happen SG?? Hmmm, wanna bet?
It damn well better not.
Never happen SG?? Hmmm, wanna bet?
Are there any liberals over there? If not there will be soon so that the prosecution will go forward.
As soon as Ramsey Clark is done defending Saddam he'll be on the next flight to Kabul to work as a prosecutor against our troops if they let him.
They durn well better be tried..
You were there, were ya? [xx(]
That's what i was wondering. I mean, if ALL the facts are alredy known,(If Buschmaster saw it,Afghani Parlament must have video)Then their is realy no reason for an investigation.Is their?
Jeff
Afghani soldiers travel to Ft. Irwin to train with U.S. soldiers in a combined forces training exercise. While out on the town in Barstow, they're involved in a car accident. Rather than stay to sort things out, they decide to drive off and in the process run over a few of the local Barstow, CA residents.
Should the Afghani soldiers in the above situation get off without any punishment?
For comparison, in other countries where US forces are stationed, there's a "Status of Forces Agreement" between the US and the host country sorting out jurisdiction and procedure. Generally speaking, the laws of the host country apply to the US person when a local person is involved, but there might be certain exceptions in procedure. For example, in Japan (during the late-90's), a few Marines kidnapped and raped a Japanese schoolgirl. As per SOFA, they were held by the US authorities until they were officially charged. Once they were officially charged, they were tried and convicted in a Japanese court under Japanese law.
I don't know all the facts so I'm not going to be foolish enough to make a call on the folks in Afghanistan either way. But I certainly wouldn't think that plowing folks over with impunity is acceptable (if that's what happened).
Hmm...how about this hypothetical:
Afghani soldiers travel to Ft. Irwin to train with U.S. soldiers in a combined forces training exercise. While out on the town in Barstow, they're involved in a car accident. Rather than stay to sort things out, they decide to drive off and in the process run over a few of the local Barstow, CA residents.
Should the Afghani soldiers in the above situation get off without any punishment?
For comparison, in other countries where US forces are stationed, there's a "Status of Forces Agreement" between the US and the host country sorting out jurisdiction and procedure. Generally speaking, the laws of the host country apply to the US person when a local person is involved, but there might be certain exceptions in procedure. For example, in Japan (during the late-90's), a few Marines kidnapped and raped a Japanese schoolgirl. As per SOFA, they were held by the US authorities until they were officially charged. Once they were officially charged, they were tried and convicted in a Japanese court under Japanese law.
I don't know all the facts so I'm not going to be foolish enough to make a call on the folks in Afghanistan either way. But I certainly wouldn't think that plowing folks over with impunity is acceptable (if that's what happened).
Hmm...let's take your hypothetical first. What normally happens when members of foreign armed forces in the United States are accused of a crime, they are returned to their country of origin for trial or whatever disposition their government deems appropriate. If that is getting off without any punishment, then that is what usually happens. There are several serious discrepancies in your comparisons, but I won't pick your scenario apart. For purposes of jurisdiction, I'll say your hypothetical is pretty close to realistic.
In the case of the U. S. troops involved in a traffic accident in Afghanistan, if a crime was committed, they are not likely to escape without punishment. The way that is supposed to work is first the investigation. Then if it is determined that a crime was committed, the accusation. Then the trial. Then the punishment. This is done by the officer with Court-Martial Convening Authority.
You bring up Status of Forces Agreements. Are you familiar with Status of Forces Agreements? What they are, and how they work? To be more accurate with your comparisons, you should use Japan between 15 August 1945 and when a Status of Forces Agreement was signed, not Japan in the late 1990's. Afghanistan is a host country under a Status of Forces Agreement? Not hardly.
quote:Originally posted by Lowrider
... You were there, were ya? [xx(]
no, but I listen to the BBC, who actually has a reporter there (with armed escort). they reported from that town again last night with more detail, but right now I forgot what extra stuff they said.
all you usually get in the US media (unles syou really dig for it) is stuff like, "oh, the brakes failed on a truck, it rolled downhill into a car and now the locals are all upset" it ranges anywhere from no facts to pure BS.
Because the BBC radio broadcast is now gone, the closest I can find to corrobugerate the story is an article from the LA Times, which says mostly the same thing. Here is part of it.
quote:Shopkeeper Ghulam Rauf said he was chatting when he saw the convoy of about half a dozen vehicles speeding toward a taxi that crossed in front of them.
"As the first vehicle crashed into the taxi, two other [American] vehicles started hitting other cars on the sides of the road," he said. "They destroyed all the vehicles that were standing there.
"And the soldier sitting on top was dancing and singing and shouting. Then they drove toward shops and into mobs of people standing there. They drove over them, and I saw people shouting, 'Help!' because their legs were cut open as the vehicles drove onto them."
Several shops were ruined, and as Afghans crowded in and tried to prevent the convoy from leaving, some of the vehicles opened fire with heavy weapons mounted on the roofs, Rauf and other witnesses said.
you can read the whole thing here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanriot30may30,1,7098933.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
now who do you beleive.
buschmaster, my guess is this BBC report is probably close to correct, as far as it goes. The BBC is normally less credible than PBS.