My Lai massacre

What point that contradicted me (or anybody else) was made a few posts back?
Also, I have yet to see any actual response to the rubuttles posted to your posts.

Lt. William Calley, the guy who was in charge of the unit that did it.

This goes right to the heart of the debate here. It is intent.

Sums it up nicely. Milosevic deliberately started a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Do you think that this is acceptable?
The atrocities known to be commited by US Forces, on the other hand, have all been without the knowledge of (and certainly without orders from) their High Command.

Nobody thinks that Western governments are perfect, uncorrupt or untarnished. Sure, crud happens, pressure is applied, people get detained for dodgy reasons or by dodgy methods (though much of this is completely unproven). I myself am less than a fan of Guantanamo (I guess that this was your example).
None of this is very good, and can't really be justified. But saying that what happened at Guantanamo is equal to ethnic cleansing is... well, the kindest way I can say it is 'misleading'.

You have my curiosity now! Which country? And when?

 

.

when the U.S. armed forces have a military base oversea , usually , U.S. personnel are subject only to U.S. military law it's a standard extrateritoriality clauses .
the military police is keen to cooperate with the local authorities but have the ultimate juridiction , usuallty it's contraband and trafics , disorders ,etc etc
there have been down the years various cases of some proeminence where the locals got quite irrate
- a jet skylaking in the alps cutting a sky lift and killing a dozen people , the pilot and its superior destroyed evidence and evacuated the guilty party
- rapes in okinawa ,and a girl killed in a car accident
- recently a kyrghiz was shot by a U.S.serviceman ,the locals control the only accessible airport in central asia for the afghanistan operation ,
it got ticklish
member of the kyrghiz parliament wanted the base closed to allied planes

.

 

Does this apply only to the US military, or do other countries follow similar rules?

 

sinissa - I sometimes wonder if we are actually taking opposing sides in seperate arguments.

 

Source? I know that there are often agreements in force such as the Visiting Forces Agreement the US has had with the Phillipine government in the past. Under that agreement the Phillipine government held ultimate jusrisdiction regarding any offenses by US military personnel.

 

Skylarking? According to the US military records of the accident he was flying a training mission.

Guilty party?
He was tried by the military and subjected to a possible 206 year prison sentence if convicted on all counts. He was acquitted by a jury of all charges thus is guilty of nothing except being involved in a tragic accident.

 

As far i know,it apply to all us personal,all over the world,and it is not bound strick to military campains areas,but to all countrys,eaven if US troops only passing trought the foreign land.

U maybe dont know,but US administration pot alot of presure to provide that,and plus to get support from otther countrys that US citisens cannot be charged on international cour of law.

 

Source? I just pointed out a case where that wasn't true( the Visiting Forces agreement with the Phillipines).

 

He is also guilty of being an American, which is all it seems to take for some people. :roll:

 

from grieg

"Skylarking? According to the US military records of the accident he was flying a training mission."

According to the mission he was nowhere buzzing a sky resort at low altitude to impress snow bunnies ,
faking its log and coordinates and being send post haste state side ,
the italian and austrian governments got REALLY angry at the pentagon press release spin and italy implemented a serie of restrictions on aviano air base , it concentrated wonderfully the mind of the air force and things got cracking , the crew and their commander got punished , not for having been d*ck-heads but for having faked U.S. military records ,
those ones saying he was just training as usual !!

as for an example of extraterritoriality , from NATO

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm

Article II

It is the duty of a force and its civilian component and the members thereof as well as their dependents to respect the law of the receiving State,

Article V

1. Members of a force shall normally wear uniform. Subject to any arrangement to the contrary between the authorities of the sending and receiving States.

In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

1. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component

.............................................................................................


There is provisions for U.S. servicemen to be tried in a host country court
, on ocassion it must happen , however once state side the courts become the U.S. courts and the chance of being returned to the host country is ~ zilch :roll:


Exterritoriality was put in place to avoid the U.S. servicemen from being picked on by unfriendly locals
the system works , abuses are rare , though with hundred of thousands of young men involved will statisticaly happen .

A possible case of the breakdown of the system is Bosnia ,the civilian
authorities were a mess , the supreme authority was an U.N. dog breakfast
there was no law worth talking about and plenty of criminal in charge .

the U.S.military justice is no pushover and would usually be a BAD deal for the guilty party ...


.

 

You got a reliable source for those charges?

I'm well aware of exterritoriality. My post wasn't addressed to whether or not it existed but as to whether blanket statements regarding the jurisdiction over US military personnel were accurate. They weren't.



From the same NATO agreement note:

In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

1. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

1. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

2. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

 

.

Totally correct Grieg ,
the NATO agreement is probably close to many others involving U.S. personel oversea in peace time .

the mechanic is as follow . the receiving country request the said personnel to hold himself at the disposal of the local justice , the sending country present him ( her ) with military legal representation in attendance , if the personnel is in the hands of the local police , they must release him to the sending country MP to await further development
as crimes are common to both countries usually , there is the choice of the defendant being processed by either local courts or military , anything short of murder usually get dealt with the military courts , when convicted, he serve his ( her ) time in the state , if he go in front of the local court the term is nominally served in the host country , with possibility of being sent to the States to serve it if there is a prisoner exchange treaty

I'm not implying that U.S. soldiers have a free ticket to misbehave , far from it , but the practical outcome is that they prefer to deal with their own and usually do

as for the cable car cutting fighter bomber and the details of the case , I'll do some digging and see what I can get but I followed the case and am reasonably confident of having given the bones of it

 

Here are the details


1998

19988, February 3 - An EA-6B Prowler, an electronic warfare (anti-radar) aircraft belonging to the U.S. Marines struck a cable supporting a gondola in Cavalese.
The cable was severed and 20 people in the cabin plunged over 80 metres to their deaths.
The plane had wing and tail damage but was able to return to the base.

www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/A ... _disaster/ -

Alps ski-lift air disaster
The Alps Ski-lift air disaster was an airplane and ski-lift accident on February 3, 1998. On that day, a U.S. Marines EA-6B Prowler jet was flying near a ski resort area in Cavalese, Italy.
The airplane struck two ski-lift cables, one of which carried a ski-lift cabin with 19 passengers and one instructor.
The twenty people inside the cabin plunged 260 feet to their deaths.

The airplane was carrying four passengers (Marines) and the pilot Richard Ashby.
The twenty people inside the ski cabin were all of European nationality, including three Italians, five Germans and one Pole.
The cause of the accident caused much debate, because this area had banned airplanes from flying at levels lower than 1,000 feet above ground level but the ski-lift cabin fell 260 feet,
suggesting that the Prowler was under its flying limit. Some media accused Ashby of lowflying.
The incident strained the relationship between Americans and Italians.
There were anti-American protests in Italy, others complained about American use of Italian air bases.
Italian prosecutors wanted the four Marines to stand trial in an Italian court,
but a NATO agreement between the United States and other countries prevented this from happening.

Many in the Calavese area expressed their feeling that this was an accident waiting to happen,
since many military pilots practiced their skills near the resort area.




From...... department of defence ......http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... riptid=624

Q Mr. Secretary, have you made any progress in the question of compensating the German victims of the ski lift accident in Calavese, Italy?

A Well, we are operating under the stationing [Status] of Forces Agreement.
.....................................................

Q Any update on the status of that same subject of going ahead with the court-martial of Capt. Schweitzer?

A No, I have no information about further proceedings.
There are further charges still pending and that will have to be resolved by the military authorities.
And I would expect some time during the course of this week they'll make a decision in terms of how they intend to proceed.



President Bill Clinton apologized for the accident a few days after it ocurred.

The four Marines were court marshalled, accused of various violations.
the pilot Captain Richard J. Ashby and his navigator Captain Joseph Schweitzer faced trial at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
It was determined that the maps on board did not show the cables and that the EA-6B was flying somewhat faster and considerably lower than allowed by military regulations.
The restrictions in effect at the time required a minimum flying height of 600 m (2,000 ft); the pilot said he thought they were 300 m (1,000 ft).
The cable was cut at a height of 110 m (360 ft).
The pilot further claimed that the height-measuring equipment on his plane had been malfunctioning,
In March 1999, the jury acquitted Ashby of all charges , outraging the European public.
The manslaughter charges against Schweitzer were then dropped.
The two men were court-martialed a second time for obstruction of justice,
because they had destroyed a videotape recorded from the plane on the day of the accident.
They were found guilty in May 1999; both were dismissed from the service and the pilot received a six month prison term.
He was released after four and a half months for good behavior.

I hope this is enought
.

 

You summarized what we already knew sufficiently well but where is the "skylarking" charge substantiated? And the "evacuated the guilty party" charge? He wasn't guilty when he was sent home was he? We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. He was detained while the charges were investigated and he faced a very serious felony trial where he was found not guilty by a jury. All proper and satisfied the requirements of due process.

 

.

Grieg
" ..... where is the "skylarking" charge substantiated?
......And the "evacuated the guilty party" charge?
......He wasn't guilty when he was sent home was he?
......We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.
..... he was found not guilty by a jury.
..... All proper and satisfied the requirements of due process. "


buzzing a resort at 300 ft
He wasn't attending an italian court , neither was the case dealt at the
base
there was a prima facie case of guilt , enought to get him charged , he got charged after he arrived on U.S. soil . that's legal trickery
that wasn't a jury it was a court martial !!
a trained pilot claim he couldn't make the diference between 600ft and 300 ??!!!
malfuctionning altimeter ??!!!, destruction of evidence !!!???
20 deads acquitted then six months , four and a half served


" All proper and satisfied the requirement of due process "

Grieg , for shame


.

 

Buzzing? What evidence do you have for that? It was not disputed by the prosecution that he was on a training mission.

What are you getting at? Did you not read the NATO agreement you posted portions of? Especially the portion I placed in bold..

2. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

This accident occurred as he was performing his official duties. The sending state (the US) clearly has jurisdiction so where is this "trickery" you carelessly go on about?

It was a jury. It was a court martial. There is no fundamental difference.
Or is there? Why not enlighten us?

You ever fly a jet at 600 mph at low level? In a canyon?
Didn't think so. Neither have I but there is a good chance that the men on that jury have had similar experiences.

Altimeters don't malfunction? The so called evidence was a private hand held video shot by a crewmember, not official video from the planes system. Don't know what happened to it but I don't consider that to be terribly significant. Someone probably overreacted out of fear. Do you know of any other cases where following an aviation accident the pilot was charged with a crime that could result in a 200 year sentence?
The fact that he was charged at all was probably political and came from the top. Clinton. No friend to the US military.

If there is a point there I don't know what it is. In aviation accidents many people are often killed. The number killed is irrelevant to the question of culpability.

Indeed? A lynching by the Italian courts might seem preferable to you, but as for me, I'm satisfied with the result.

 

Grieg i dont need to write here at all,u write for me,representing ur nation here.

 

.

Grieg , your well meaning patriotism is commendable , but I think in this instance misguided

as for the difference between a jury trial and a court martial ,
a jury in the states work on the adversarial system while a court-martial work on an inquisitorial one ,
the difference extend to the way decisions are arrived at , in the adversarial , it is beyond reasonable doubt , for the inquisitorial it is the educated inmost belief
for both an any other court ,there is no such a thing as" inocent until proven guilty " the person answering to a court IS presumed guilty , that's why the defendant is forced to attend , even up to being detainned in jail
however no conviction and no penalties can take effect until a properly constitued court find him guilty and record it , that is whayt it mean to be innocent until proven guilty

sorry for the lenght but I had some practical experiences of the working of courts

 

Patriotism has nothing to do with it. There are no appeals to patriotic fervor in my posts, just facts as can be best determined.

Your ignorance of the US legal system is truly stunning and apparently undiminished by any reluctance to expose that lack of knowledge.

The presumption of innocence is a foundation block of the theory of jurisprudence in the US, indeed in the West.
The fact that a person suspected of a crime can be detained while the charge is investigated, subject to the right to post bail, does not negate that presumption. There is ample case law on the subject if you desire to study it in more depth. Even where it is determined that bail should be denied due to an unreasonable danger to the public the presumption plays a significant role, both in the burden of proof being placed upon the state and in the standard being applied; beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry but you are also misinformed about General Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. UCMJ article 51 states the accused is presumed innocent until guilt is established by legal and competent evidence and establishes the standard of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt.


If you are still confused as to the premption of innocence see Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394 ...also the US Constitution, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments primarily and also the 7th, 8th and 14th.

 

.

" The presumption of innocence is a foundation block of the theory of jurisprudence in the US, indeed in the West.
The fact that a person suspected of a crime can be detained while the charge is investigated, subject to the right to post bail, does not negate that presumption."
The western legal system has several roots , the british common law is one , the napoleon criminal code is an other , while the germans have influenced russians ( ex. they have three judges )
what you call the presumption of innocence is the principle that the guilt has to be established , the defendant do not have to prove he is not guilty , in scottish law , this is the not proven verdict ( you're guilty as hell but we can't make it stick )

cout martial have no jury of peers , they do not stand as impartial umpire of a cases but have to establish the truth as an active participant , the appeal process is close to non-existant , the procedures and penalties imposed fall outside international scrutiny

in the case of the calavese accident a pilot take four mates and a video camera , fying low and fast to raise hell and scare the tourist , as has been done before , he kill twenty people by his reckless stupidity and cook a cock and bull story which the U.S. military swallow whole with a smile

yeeeh tell me about justice :angry:


.