Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jinef

War crimes and soldiers.

Recommended Posts

I know in the British military that when you sign up you cannot give the excuse that you were just following orders and that you can be charged for war crimes. So in the British military it is your responsiblity to disobey an order which you think is irresponsible and that could lead you to a military court.

Is this the case in other military establishments? I would think it would probably be standard throughout NATO.

Do you think the Americans have the right to exempt themselves from war crime charges? I personally think that they should follow the same rules as everyone else and accept when certain members of their military get into trouble.

Why did Japan have to ask for the Americans to release a US airman into their custody just for questioning about him raping a Japanese woman off the base (like it should make a difference!wink.gif? Shouldn't this be automatic?

I'm not trying to induce a flame war but just to see if anyone else feels these issues are fundamentally flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 13 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why did Japan have to ask for the Americans to release a US airman into their custody just for questioning about him raping a Japanese woman off the base (like it should make a difference!wink.gif? Shouldn't this be automatic?<span id='postcolor'>

This is quite common for all military abroad. When I was with KFOR we were exempt from local law. Most of the times this wasn't a problem, but on occasion I have seen abuse of it. Not any serious stuff - like KFOR vehicles parking in the middle of the street (violating traffic laws) and creating jams. Counterband trafficing was also rather common.

It was nothing dramatic, but it was arrogant and insulting towards the local government. Some form of balance would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a slight difference between parking a big APC in the road which is annoying for commuters and raping a civilian of the country which is hosting the country's military presence.

Let's say in Britain an American goes out of one of our bases and rapes someone, the British goverment would want to try and amend it in their own courts and America should not be able to delay the process or try and take him back to the US and slap his wrists. The British people might get a but stirred by this if it happened and would want something to happen to the soldier in question or at least have a good gossip about it for a few days until some politician gets his/her leg over and then the nation is in uproar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US soldiers have the ability to disobey orders for certain reasons.

And I think US soldiers are also exempt from local laws and are only under the uniform code of military justice, which are usually the same thing.

Take, for example, the US tank driver who accidentally hit a car and killed some passengers in South Korea. He was prosecuted under the UCMJ in the US, not in South Korea. This was some controversy. Frankly I think it doesn't matter where the person is tried, the rules and punishments are generally the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jinef, I don't really understand you. Are you asking one question or many?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you think the Americans have the right to exempt themselves from war crime charges? I personally think that they should follow the same rules as everyone else and accept when certain members of their military get into trouble.<span id='postcolor'>

During a time of war, if a soldier in the United States Armed Services is given an order. You follow that order. If it's a questionable order, you still follow it. Speaking from the USMC point of view. My father who was in Vietnam has told me before when I asked this kind of question.

"If it's morally questionable, you still follow it. You follow the order and you don't think about the morality. You are there to follow orders."

If you don't, depending on what kind of order it was you can be Courtmartialed, tried for treason, or even shot.

He's also told me of a time he spent four months in a brig for following orders. He was incharge or all mail for a while overseas in a base. He was told by the preceding guy who did that job to throw away all 3rd and 4th class mail (news papers, stuff like that) if it was addressed to someone that was sent back to the US. Everything else you forward back to the states. Well a suprise inspection came and saw a bag with that stuff in there. Turns out its a federal offense to throw any of that mail away. Got charged with an Article 15 and got 4 months in the brig.

So it's sort of a dilema. Sometimes following orders get's you in trouble, sometimes even a questionable order wont if you follow it. It all depends.

As far as being exempt from war crimes. No, the U.S. does not have a special privalege of this. But, in my opinion, all soldiers following an order do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know in the British military that when you sign up you cannot give the excuse that you were just following orders and that you can be charged for war crimes. So in the British military it is your responsiblity to disobey an order which you think is irresponsible and that could lead you to a military court.<span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't happen in the US. You must follow orders.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why did Japan have to ask for the Americans to release a US airman into their custody just for questioning about him raping a Japanese woman off the base (like it should make a difference!? Shouldn't this be automatic?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't really understand. What should the Japanese have done? Stormed a base took him and left? You'd have to ask for the realease of him. Maybe you didn't word that question just right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really doubt it matters, give the tank driver to the south Koreans they would probaly find him guilty and sentance him to jail for how ever long they think reguardless on what his defense is, give him to the US court, they would think its probaly a accident and at most just discharge him. both ways seem biased to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my promotion warrant to Staff Sergeant:

"To all who shall see these presents...And I do strictly charge and require all personnel of lesser grade to render obedience to appropriate orders.  And this appointee is to observe and follow such orders and directions as may be given from time to time by superiors acting according to the rules and articles governing the discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States of America."

From my copy of the Staff Noncommissioned Officer's Creed:

"I am a staff noncommissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps...unflinching in the execution of lawful orders, and unswerving in my dedication to the most complete success of my assigned mission."

Take if for what it's worth.

Why are some people here are under the impression that U.S. servicemen convicted of crimes are given "slaps on the wrist" when convicted?  Do you have specific examples, or are you assuming?  The two Marines and one sailor who raped an Okinawan girl back in '95 will spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth, and if you ask me they got off lightly.  There was an uproar in South Korea when G.I.'s in an APC killed two girls and were recently acquitted by a U.S. military court, but is it conceivable that just maybe, they weren't at fault? 

Semper Fi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Jan. 13 2003,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The two Marines and one sailor who raped an Okinawan girl back in '95 will spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth, and if you ask me they got off lightly.  There was an uproar in South Korea when G.I.'s in an APC killed two girls and were recently acquitted by a U.S. military court, but is it conceivable that just maybe, they weren't at fault? 

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

adding to the list is that guy who raped a girl and slit her throat in Balkan region. i think he got life in prison. search CNN under 'Staff Sergeant Frank Ronghi'

on the subject of S Korea, i heard that it was not the first APC of the column but second one that hit the victims. would it mean that there were some faults?(not great when it comes to armored vehicles here). several words i also heard was that they were going faster than normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Jan. 13 2003,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i really doubt it matters, give the tank driver to the south Koreans they would probaly find him guilty and sentance him to jail for how ever long they think reguardless on what his defense is, give him to the US court, they would think its probaly a accident and at most just discharge him. both ways seem biased to me.<span id='postcolor'>

and if they sentence the tank driver to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 13 2003,02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why did Japan have to ask for the Americans to release a US airman into their custody just for questioning about him raping a Japanese woman off the base (like it should make a difference!? Shouldn't this be automatic?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't really understand.  What should the Japanese have done? Stormed a base took him and left?  You'd have to ask for the realease of him.  Maybe you didn't word that question just right?<span id='postcolor'>

Okay it's my language and colloquial differences.

I meant that the Japanese should not have had to keep asking for him while the US waited around and asked for evidence. It should be more like the Japanese police visit the base and ask for him and then he will just get released into their custody without question because they are an ally and should be entitled to jurisdiction over all people who commited crimes on their... concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you think the Americans have the right to exempt themselves from war crime charges? <span id='postcolor'>

Examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Jinefs question is a valid one. Actually I have an example from Macedonia where a norwegian army captain in the KFOR unit was tried in Macedonian court for a car accident involving a macedonian minister. He is currently in jail.

Basically, I think it's logic that you follow a countries laws when there. It is therefore logic that you are tried and punished the same place. However, I do believe that poses a few problems with local custom and our rejection of corporal punishment such as deathsentences and for example the saudi praxis of cutting of hands for stealing etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article on the deadly road accident in South Korea

Next thing you know, there's 100000 of protestors in Seoul crying over the acquittal of the soldiers. The South Koreans need to chill out, it's not like the driver was stalking the girls for weeks, then crushed them while they were walking between Math and science classes.

-=Die Alive=-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 13 2003,03:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as being exempt from war crimes.  No, the U.S. does not have a special privalege of this.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The European Union is among those who pushed hardest for an international court, under the auspices of the United Nations, to deal with cases involving genocide, atrocities, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses. More than 80 countries have ratified the court's founding treaty. Notable exceptions include the United States, Israel and most Arab countries.

-- NY Times, October 1, 2002<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Jan. 13 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Article on the deadly road accident in South Korea

Next thing you know, there's 100000 of protestors in Seoul crying over the acquittal of the soldiers.  The South Koreans need to chill out, it's not like the driver was stalking the girls for weeks, then crushed them while they were walking between Math and science classes.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

well, the link you just provided gave my korean friends a good laughter. the links of korean newspapers in koreawatch.org were deemed as those of korean conservatives closer to Jesse Helems than John McCain.(i guess it means it's less to the center in poilitical compass) confused.gif

a negligent homocide is still a crime. i'm wondering why someone would use only that road.

but think why so many ppl are upset. i doubt if this is just an isolated incident, or cumulation that finally broke a camel's back. my colleagues tell me that US troops who commit crimes(small ones) usually get handed over to US and nothing is done. no fines or community service. so i guess little things do make a big things and suddenly go off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 13 2003,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 13 2003,02wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why did Japan have to ask for the Americans to release a US airman into their custody just for questioning about him raping a Japanese woman off the base (like it should make a difference!? Shouldn't this be automatic?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't really understand. What should the Japanese have done? Stormed a base took him and left? You'd have to ask for the realease of him. Maybe you didn't word that question just right?<span id='postcolor'>

Okay it's my language and colloquial differences.

I meant that the Japanese should not have had to keep asking for him while the US waited around and asked for evidence. It should be more like the Japanese police visit the base and ask for him and then he will just get released into their custody without question because they are an ally and should be entitled to jurisdiction over all people who commited crimes on their... concrete.<span id='postcolor'>

That's ridiculous.

You would want any country to just show up at the gate, accuse a soldier, and have your government hand him over without proof?

Naturally they are going to ask for proof before they just hand him over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notice it's the EUROPEAN union who pushed hardest for this? Europe will do anything that will give them some sort of "control" over the US. too bad we won't let em tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 14 2003,02:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">notice it's the EUROPEAN union who pushed hardest for this?  Europe will do anything that will give them some sort of "control" over the US.  too bad we won't let em   tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you got your one year "get out of jail card". When that is up then US servicemen who commit war crimes will be tried, prosecuted and punished by the ICC. You can kick an scream all you like smile.gif

What you are making a mistake about is that you think that Europe is as homogenous as the US. It is not, all European countries have their own agendas and wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 13 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You would want any country to just show up at the gate, accuse a soldier, and have your government hand him over without proof?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not just any country though, it is an ally and should be trusted not to take him away and feed him to crabs. If America wants bases all over the world and expects sympathy and lot's of hugs when they get a smell of the real world don't you think they should at least give some trust and respect to other countries.

Oh no it's another country's police! They are not worthy of touching American flesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×