The Iraq thread 4

[billybob2002 0]

I hope those guys will be sentenced to death.

This is what you get if you set up a rules fiasco like Rumsfeld and Bush do/did.

Yes, blame the actions of those soldiers on President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld. I hope, not really, they are found not gulity so you can on a tirade against the United States military justice system.

[Donnervogel 0]

I hope those guys will be sentenced to death.

This is what you get if you set up a rules fiasco like Rumsfeld and Bush do/did.

Yes, blame the actions of those soldiers on President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld. I hope, not really, they are found not gulity so you can on a tirade against the United States military justice system.

Yeah "justice" system...

With stuff like this I can't take the US "justice" system serious:

Quote[/b] ]‘‘§ 950j.

‘‘(b) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER SOLE BASIS FOR REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

[...]

SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN

CLAIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions

or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil

action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current

or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other

agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in

any court of the United States or its States or territories.

Military Comission Act of 2006

If your military justice system already need to take away basic human rights from those alleged "alien unlawful enemy combatants" (there goes "in dubio pro reo" aswell) to try them I don't think I can trust that the rights of Iraqi civilians are adequately protected by your military courts. Those soldiers would have to be tried by an Iraqi court for it to be considered "justice" anyway, as the crimes were comitted in Iraq, not the USA.

[billybob2002 0]

I hope those guys will be sentenced to death.

This is what you get if you set up a rules fiasco like Rumsfeld and Bush do/did.

Yes, blame the actions of those soldiers on President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld. I hope, not really, they are found not gulity so you can on a tirade against the United States military justice system.

Yeah "justice" system...

With stuff like this I can't take the US "justice" system serious:

Quote[/b] ]‘‘§ 950j.

‘‘(b) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER SOLE BASIS FOR REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

[...]

SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN

CLAIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions

or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil

action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current

or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other

agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in

any court of the United States or its States or territories.

Military Comission Act of 2006

If your military justice system already need to take away basic human rights from those alleged "alien unlawful enemy combatants" (there goes "in dubio pro reo" aswell) to try them I don't think I can trust that the rights of Iraqi civilians are adequately protected by your military courts. Those soldiers would have to be tried by an Iraqi court for it to be considered "justice" anyway, as the crimes were comitted in Iraq, not the USA.

The "Military Commission Act of 2006" does not deal with the Al-Mahmudiyah murders. You may disapprove of the act but it does not deal with those murders. Additionally, one of the accused, Steven Green, is being charged in federal court because he was discharged from the military. The reason why they are not facing a Iraqi court, I believe, because the United States and Iraq have a agreement that US military personnel don't face a Iraqi court. The United States had a similiar agreement with the United Kingdom during World War 2.

[Donnervogel 0]

1. I didn't say it had to do with those murders. If you would read what I write you can see that I make a differention between the issues. But I was merley pointing out that when a government is even openly admiting to plan to abolish fundamental rights it makes me doubt their intention to be fair and "just".

2. I know such agreements with the Iraqi government exist but this is not what I consider "justice" because it is simply a cheap way of exploiting one's military power to avoiding what is considered "justice" in Iraq and thus this - for me - sheds strong doubt on the intention to strive for justice.

[billybob2002 0]

1. I didn't say it had to do with those murders. If you would read what I write you can see that I make a differention between the issues. But I was merley pointing out that when a government is even openly admiting to plan to abolish fundamental rights it makes me doubt their intention to be fair and "just".

2. I know such agreements with the Iraqi government exist but this is not what I consider "justice" because it is simply a cheap way of exploiting one's military power to avoiding what is considered "justice" in Iraq and thus this - for me - sheds strong doubt on the intention to strive for justice.

1.) You came to the conclusion that the passage of that act somehow taints the whole military justice system and the decreased victims', and other future victims, "rights" will not be adequately protected. I simply disagree with that assumption because the act does not deal with the murders and, therefore, will not taint the case. Basically, the act dealt with the issue(s) of "unlawful enemy combatants." You should not of tried to extrapolate to other areas that do not deal with that issue.

2.) While, military personnel have been sentenced to death (totally sure) and life (not totally sure) sentences for rape and murder in the military justice system.

[Balschoiw 0]

Looking at the sentences handed out for illegal acts in Iraq, I´d say they get away with housearrest for 2 weeks and a 25 % cut of their wages

Quote[/b] ]Yes, blame the actions of those soldiers on President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld.

Of course I do.

1. They lowerd the standards of recruiting

2. They created a black hole instead of some solid ROE´s

3. By doing illegal stuff on their own (ignoring Geneva, labelling people as illegal combatants, setting up washy torture rules, etc) they were the ones who opened doors for abuse of power among the troops.

4. By labelling Islam=evil they introduced a new enemy and the grunts do fight their enemies, even if it´s just young girls they rape and kill.

So yes, I´d say that Bush is indeed a part of the problerm and the origin of washy wartime rules.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

the middle east is one big mess.  the USA has got it all so wrong.  Ok, lets suppose someone was an alien, whos never been to earth.  

The world has effectily one main power at the present time, country A.  that country is completly dpendant on one resorce for everything.  That resorce is most present in one subcontinent, which has it in abundance to anywear else on this planet.  On that subcontinent there is confrontation between two types of people,one which has control of all the resorce stocks, Country B, one that dosnt have anything, Country C.  Who would country A team up with?  ofcourse anyone with half a brain would say B. But in reality its C, and for no good reason, apart from securing votes in country A.

So, where did it all go wrong for the USA, when did they loose all there Islamic friends?  Well, it could be a number of things, perhaps whn they pulled funding on the Aswam Dam without even consulting the country who knew the most about the conciquences.  Perhaps it was for funding a state which unstabalises the entire region, even supplying it with nucliar weapons. Reasons arnt important, the fact is, they all hate the USA now, or itleast the population do.

ok, so to the point,  america has cocked up with the middle east big time.  They didnt relise they had lost all there friends in the middle east until they had.. well lost them all.  Now they dont have secure acess to that all important resorce, oil.  So is that reason for Iraq?  possibly, infact there is probably a strong argumant there.  But my point is if the USA relised what a cock up it was making when it seperated itself from Islamic countries then none of this would probably have happened.

[Nemesis6 0]

Only problem with the whole "Ze yuu-es-aye vent intu Irak to get ze oil, ja?" argument is that America has a giant field of oil in Colorado I believe. So going into Iraq is not because they're low on oil. And I'd venture a guess that America, for the time being, has enough oil already.

[EiZei 0]

Only problem with the whole "Ze yuu-es-aye vent intu Irak to get ze oil, ja?" argument is that America has a giant field of oil in Colorado I believe. So going into Iraq is not because they're low on oil. And I'd venture a guess that America, for the time being, has enough oil already.

I suppose you left the oil shale part out by accident?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Only problem with the whole "Ze yuu-es-aye vent intu Irak to get ze oil, ja?" argument is that America has a giant field of oil in Colorado I believe. So going into Iraq is not because they're low on oil. And I'd venture a guess that America, for the time being, has enough oil already.

the oil field under colorado and south dakota (i beleive) are about 3 million years too early to extract. so unless your willing to wait around, the middle east will provide most of the worlds oil until we run out completly

[Donnervogel 0]

Basically, the act dealt with the issue(s) of "unlawful enemy combatants." You should not of tried to extrapolate to other areas that do not deal with that issue.

Oh and why not? After all it is the same authority (military justice system) that is responsible for the courts that deals with alleged "unlawful enemy combatants" (one of the most perverted phrases ever invented) and for the trials of those soldiers. Why shoudl I trust them to be suddenly "fair" when it comes to punishing their own soldiers while they simply are violating the UN human rights charter when dealing with "unlawful enemy combatants". I'm not as naive think that a corrupted system can suddenly become fair and balanced when their own interests are attacked.

Quote[/b] ]2.) While, military personnel have been sentenced to death (totally sure) and life (not totally sure) sentences for rape and murder in the military justice system.

Well yes but that's exactly the problem. We've already seen the problem with these procedures with the Abu Graib case where only very low level figures were punished while high level figures didn't even have to appear in court despite a lot of allegations of their involvement.

Now in this case the thing is different though. Iraqi civilians (not combatants or anything like that) have been the victims of those soldiers on Iraqi soil under Iraqi souverignty. So it is clearly the right of Iraqis to try those people because they violated Iraqi law and the Iraqi victims and their relatives would have to have the possibility to turn to their *own* justice system to demand reparations/punishment if this was a fair procedure. But since it obviously is not the soldiers get tried by US *military* courts wich takes them out of reach of the Iraqi victims/relatives and also denies an Iraqi investigation into illegal acts commited in their soil. This is clearly not "fair" and "just". Even though it might be legal technically because of bilateral agreements. But legal does not mean "fair" and "just".

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]bilateral agreements

I guess this "agreement" has been signed by Bremer and Bush only

You are absolutely right Donnervogel.

[billybob2002 0]

Oh and why not? After all it is the same authority (military justice system) that is responsible for the courts that deals with alleged "unlawful enemy combatants" (one of the most perverted phrases ever invented) and for the trials of those soldiers. Why shoudl I trust them to be suddenly "fair" when it comes to punishing their own soldiers while they simply are violating the UN human rights charter when dealing with "unlawful enemy combatants". I'm not as naive think that a corrupted system can suddenly become fair and balanced when their own interests are attacked.

Because you simply do not. There is no need for me to draw a picture showing how that act means jackshit with issues not dealing with "unlawful enemy combatants." You are seeing things that are not there.

No justice system is perfect and military justice system isn't exempt. There are times when the military justice system was not "fair" in punishing soldiers gulity of crimes. However, majority of the trials are "fair" and "just."

Of course I do.

1. They lowerd the standards of recruiting

2. They created a black hole instead of some solid ROE´s

3. By doing illegal stuff on their own (ignoring Geneva, labelling people as illegal combatants, setting up washy torture rules, etc) they were the ones who opened doors for abuse of power among the troops.

4. By labelling Islam=evil they introduced a new enemy and the grunts do fight their enemies, even if it´s just young girls they rape and kill.

So yes, I´d say that Bush is indeed a part of the problerm and the origin of washy wartime rules.

1. Prove that the lowered standards caused those murders.

2. How does a ROE fit in this matter? It doesn't.

3. I did not know that murder and rape is okay in the military. I guess the UCMJ is just apart of my imagination.

4. President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld have not labeled Islam as an evil religion. President Bush likes to use the term "religion of peace" in reference to Islam.

You need to stop getting your information from those socialist websites.

[Donnervogel 0]

Because you simply do not. There is no need for me to draw a picture showing how that act means jackshit with issues not dealing with "unlawful enemy combatants." You are seeing things that are not there.

I dunno why I bother discussing with people that simply don't read my arguments properly. For the third time. I know the act has nothing to do with the trial of the soldiers but then again it has to do with the intentions of those responsible in the justice system. And because I can't be arsed to repeat once more what I've stated already twice you are welcome to reread it.

Quote[/b] ]owever, majority of the trials are "fair" and "just."

While I doubt that (having a bit experience with military justice) it's not fair and just per se that iraqis can't investigate crimes comitted on their soil and under their souvereignity and punish the offenders according to their law.

It is also neither fair nor just for the Iraqi victims and their relatives to be robbed of any legal options for reparation and investigation that are granted to them by their laws because of some dubious agreements between the USA and Iraq that probably were forced upon the Iraqi government anyway.

[Journeyman 0]

There’s a lot of heavy typing going on here! I don’t know whether I want to get into the US justice system, but Iraq is a different story!

There isn’t a leader in the world that does not do things in order to protect a ‘way of life’. Whether this is to do with fear of being attacked by an aggressor or fear of having an oil crisis due to another countries policies & instabilities or fear of loosing share prices in a certain commodity. I’m not sure why it was that Bush had to go into Iraq and whether it was really just ‘bad’ information gathering about WMD’s or whether this was just a screen for other things. I guess we shall never know. There was also this ‘shattering of pride’ after 911 and this made Bush very itchy for revenge we all know that (naturally). If someone punches you in a crowd do you just find the first person you don’t like and punch him back? …. Morally no, but then again this may just have been his golden opportunity to sort out his No1 enemy of the time Saddam!

IMO the best peace for Iraq would be to bring back a fierce dictator! All the current insurgents were piss scarred of Saddam and his evil army, whereas an alien western army has them laughing down their mortar tubes! These people were already deeply divided culturally and religiously and had little respect for each other then as now. All that the US and its allies did by ousting Saddam was open up a hornet’s nest!

What is the answer then since no one can turn back time? Well Bushes army is hardly seen as popular and any other army in Iraq is just seen as Bushes supporters. If we keep the status quo there will be many more killings and bloodshed not just in Iraq but also around the world. Personally I don’t think it is worth it. If the people of Iraq are madder at the foreign army presence than of their own indifferences and general Muslim extremist opinion globally is that of an over aggressive US world wide policy then I say pull everyone out and let them get the fuck on with it! ….  It may be over simplistic, but sometimes life is like that! So long as the violence stays within the boundaries of Iraq then why get involved?  … Or is there some other reason that Bush needs to stay in Iraq??  

[billybob2002 0]

I dunno why I bother discussing with people that simply don't read my arguments properly. For the third time. I know the act has nothing to do with the trial of the soldiers but then again it has to do with the intentions of those responsible in the justice system. And because I can't be arsed to repeat once more what I've stated already twice you are welcome to reread it.

I think I got your point the first time and I still disagree with you. The act was passed by Congress to address the issue of "unlawful enemy combatants." The act creates a bastardized form of the UCJM to try "unlawful enemy combatants." You should of not been able to draw a "intention" between the act and any non-"unlawful enemy combatant" military criminal cases because they have NOTHING linking them to each other. You got to sepearte the two. The act isn't going to affect how soldiers are tried and sentenced for crimes.

Then again, maybe, you are just cynical or pessimistic.

[Donnervogel 0]

I still disagree with you.

Fair enough. Only I don't see why you disagree when you just respond with what I said. You need to elaborate with something that differs from my arguments to show your disagreement.

Quote[/b] ]The act was passed by Congress to address the issue of "unlawful enemy combatants." The act creates a bastardized form of the UCJM to try "unlawful enemy combatants." You should of not been able to draw a "intention" between the act and any non-"unlawful enemy combatant" military criminal cases because they have NOTHING linking them to each other. You got to sepearte the two. The act isn't going to affect how soldiers are tried and sentenced for crimes.

counter quote:

Quote[/b] ]For the third time. I know the act has nothing to do with the trial of the soldiers but then again it has to do with the intentions of those responsible in the justice system.

And I repeat again. Please read my postings. It's simply leading to nowhere when I have to repeat everything 3 times and you still just respond with what I said.

Just for your information. My argument rotates around the fact that the US Soldiers accused of murder and rape get tried by a US military court wich is part of the military justice system and as such is:

1. under the same authority that in another case (military comission act of 2006) openly uses illegal and easily exploitable laws that violate the US constitution.

2. Is subordordinate to the president directly - who singed the laws above - but not subordinate to the congress or supreme court as far as I'm informed.

3. Is known to be protective of high level figures even when there is reasonable evidence about their possible involvement.

4. because of being part of the military hierarchy these courts/comissions can be ordered what to decide or how to proceed by superiors in their CoC. (Which has happened a lot in war time)

5. No foreigner can appeal to those comissions as long as they are not invited to do so by the court itself. As such they cannot bring forward their claims of compensation and they cannot have a private trial for other violations of the law than those that are part of the original trial.

6. is not bound to the laws of the country where the crimes took place (Iraq)

7. denies an Iraqi investigation into the affair because of corrupted agreements.

Quote[/b] ]Then again, maybe, you are just cynical or pessimistic.

Of course I'm pesimistic when a country that writes freedom on it's banner, sits on a huge stockpile of WMDs and has the potentially strongest armed force on the planet passes laws that bypass those freedoms. But this topic (Military comission act of 2006) should be discussed in the USA politics thread.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I have a simple question for everyone.

Why are we, the coalition in Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

[Journeyman 0]

Hi all

I have a simple question for everyone.

Why are we, the coalition in Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

What do you mean by 'we'? 'We' as in the US or 'we' as in the US and it's allies?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why are we, the coalition in Iraq?

In short:

Geopolitical reasons and ambitions.

[Journeyman 0]

Yea! Oil!  

[SPQR 0]

Yea! Oil!  

No, boot-licking for dollars

[billybob2002 0]

And I repeat again. Please read my postings. It's simply leading to nowhere when I have to repeat everything 3 times and you still just respond with what I said.

Just for your information. My argument rotates around the fact that the US Soldiers accused of murder and rape get tried by a US military court wich is part of the military justice system and as such is:

1. under the same authority that in another case (military comission act of 2006) openly uses illegal and easily exploitable laws that violate the US constitution.

And? Does jury nullification make all jury trials corrupt? No. Why (IMO)? Each jury is different and are suppose to be not bias.

Take the "why" and apply it to the military justice system.

Quote[/b] ]

2. Is subordordinate to the president directly - who singed the laws above - but not subordinate to the congress or supreme court as far as I'm informed.

Congress enacted the UCMJ and MCA of 2006. The Supreme Court has limited jurisidiction in the military justice system due to the Constitution. The President does not have a role in the military justice system. The roles are the commander, the staff judge advocate, military judges, and court members.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar....Ch3.htm

Quote[/b] ]

3. Is known to be protective of high level figures even when there is reasonable evidence about their possible involvement.

A known flaw that needs to be fix.

Quote[/b] ]

4. because of being part of the military hierarchy these courts/comissions can be ordered what to decide or how to proceed by superiors in their CoC. (Which has happened a lot in war time)

The system was developed for wartime and, therefore, the commanding officer of the court has powers that can be deemed unfair to the prosecution and the defense. However, the commanding officer is checked through the law to hopely prevent misconduct by him/her.

Quote[/b] ]6. is not bound to the laws of the country where the crimes took place (Iraq)

7. denies an Iraqi investigation into the affair because of corrupted agreements.

Blame the Bush Adminstration and not the military justice system for the agreement.

Does the military justice system have flaws? Yes. Is the military justice system corrupt? No.

You are simply selecting flaws and not proving how the system is corrupt.

[klavan 0]

Hi all

I have a simple question for everyone.

Why are we, the coalition in Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

For my country (Italy): protagonism (by our ex-prime minister Berluskaiser) and economical reason. Nothing more.

Luckly our soldiers are on the way back to home, before the situation collapse further which would lead to additional deaths for sure.

Aeons ago I believed uncle George was a right and honest man. The USA are on the road to gain a heavy military and political defeat. I'm sorry for all the brave american guys who loose their lives in that hell.

Klavan

[quicksand 0]

It`s Octomber 2006.Topping a deathtoll of close to 90 and fastly growing,this is one of the deadliest months for US forces period,4 years after the start of the war.

Maliki,the Iraqi PM is a puppet with no control over Iraq and even his collegues admit that fact.

The rebels are on the offensive in the capital,US diplomats are finally admiting arrogance and  sectarian death squads are ravaging the country with the support of the "Iraqi army"

Here is how the Iraqi city with the second largest concentration of US troops looks like today:

So here is the truth wether you like it or not.4 years have done nothing to slow the Iraqi rebel movement.Zarqawi`s death has done shit.US deathtoll is very close to 3,000 and there is no indictation that this is the last grim milestone for americans.

Americans are getting sick of war.They are voting now in mid term ellections with that in their mind and they will vote in 2008 when 5,000 US forces at least will be killed if the situation doesn`t escalate.No doubt they will vote on a political platform that favours retreat.

US forces are already responsable for 600,000 deaths topping Saddam easily according to the latest study.100-150 Iraqi civillians are dieing every day.Isn`t it about fucking time plan Z goes into effect?Negotiate with the enemy a withdrawl based on the closest common ground that exists?Like pledging retreat from the country if sectarian death squads are terminated