|
In view of the Ft. Hood massacre, I think some interesting legal questions have been raised. Let's say that instead of a soldier that an agent from some sort of foreign political organization (eg, Taliban) or nongovernment combat entity (eg, Sadr militia) does a spectacularly good job of successfully breaching various security checks in the US and somehow gains access to the SRP at Ft. Hood. He opens fire on uniformed soldiers who are unarmed and kills a bunch of them. Eventually he is captured alive. In your opinion, what, if anything, is his crime? Did he engage lawful combatants in a legal manner? Are non-deployed, unarmed soldiers the legal equivalent of unarmed civilians, thus making it murder? Were the soldiers considered hors de combat, and thus this be a war crime? I'm not sure there is any precedent for this, and if (in the very, very off chance) this guy turns out to be some sort of sleeper Al Qaeda ninja operative or something I think the legal proceedings would be very interesting, provided they don't just blow them off in the interest of public opinion.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 12:53 |
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 22, 2009 01:56 |
|
|
I don't see any reason why someone working for a nongovernmental organization couldn't simply be charged with murder.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 13:38 |
|
|
Isn't this a rehash of the non-uniformed combatant debate we had in 2001?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 13:40 |
|
|
He would still be guilty of Treason, as well as being a spy found in his enemies uniform. Both of them allow for capital punishment, so he's looking at the death penalty regardless of his motivations.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 13:49 |
|
|
Depends on if the UN(or US laws of war) allows for people to legally kill US soldiers. I suspect it does not. "There is never a good reason to kill a group of soldiers from <insert> nation, because that nation is viewed as a benevolent lawful society that is acting on humanities good graces." If it is legal to kill a soldier then they would be charged like any other enemy combatant would. By the way, we've had many attacks on overseas bases("US soil") where people are captured or killed so this really isn't a hypothetical.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 14:06 |
|
|
jujeo posted:He would still be guilty of Treason, as well as being a spy found in his enemies uniform. Both of them allow for capital punishment, so he's looking at the death penalty regardless of his motivations. I think this seems like the right answer. And, even ignoring these possibilities, we could still detain him for the duration of the conflict.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 15:10 |
|
|
All things being what they are, what's going to happen here? Let's say that he did kill all of these people. What now? Death penalty? Insanity defense?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 15:35 |
|
|
The precedent for dealing with non-uniformed combatants acting outside the combat zone is to shoot them, or have a show trial and then shoot them. Whichever is more convenient. In the non-hypothetical case at hand this will likely go to a military court to be tried under the UCMJ. The UCMJ does allow for an insanity defense if "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a sever mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts." Affirmative defenses work pretty rarely though even in civilian criminal court.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 15:50 |
|
|
If the hypothetical non-governmental combatant was a citizen: indicted for treason like R.E. Lee or the other Confederates Otherwise: AFAIK we've already got laws pretty much covering the crimes someone commits if they're not a US citizen and come to commit acts of war on US soil, even if we are fighting a war against them because of the laws enacted to deal with Indians during the California Gold Rush, etc. (Indians weren't American citizens until 1924 if they hadn't asked & gone through the naturalization process, and the various Indian nations weren't legally fully sovereign nations until 1934)
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 15:56 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The precedent for dealing with non-uniformed combatants acting outside the combat zone is to shoot them, or have a show trial and then shoot them. Whichever is more convenient. Isn't the combat zone everywhere in the global war on terror?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 16:29 |
|
|
Yeah, we've already been hypocrites about how we define these fighters. You know that if he wasn't wearing a Saudi army uniform and left writings calling himself an armed combatant in a military conflict he'd disappear forever in Romania or Cuba or something.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 16:38 |
|
|
Weggie11 posted:Isn't the combat zone everywhere in the global war on terror? Only when convenient.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 20:28 |
|
|
It seems it would be treason, assuming he was a US citizen. It wouldn't be a war crime, as I've never heard of anyone considering killing soldiers on a military base a war crime, even if they were eating or sleeping or whatever at the time. That's not a standard anyone has ever been held to.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 20:42 |
|
|
McCaine posted:It seems it would be treason, assuming he was a US citizen. It wouldn't be a war crime, as I've never heard of anyone considering killing soldiers on a military base a war crime, even if they were eating or sleeping or whatever at the time. That's not a standard anyone has ever been held to. According to the Geneva Convention, it may not be a warcrime per se, however he could still be executed for espionage. "The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began"
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 01:17 |
|
|
I think that this is a very interesting legal question because it is a good example of where the lines are drawn. Here are the following questions that would have to be looked at under the Hague conventions and by extension the other international war conduct treaties: 1) Is the man (hereafter called the Agent) a soldier of an enemy army or militia? Or alternatively, does the Taliban / Al Qaeda / Sadr Militia count as an army or militia, seeing as it is a political organization that doesn't really control a country? On this note, I think the answer is probably yes, but there is some room for debate. 2) Assuming the above is true, do the laws of war apply to the Agent? This seems unlikely due to the actions of the organizations in question. Article 1 of the Hague code would indicate that they have not fulfilled the requisite conditions: quote:The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: 3) Assuming that the laws of war did apply to the Agent, would his actions be a war crime? In this case, I would say yes. He violated two clauses of Article 23 of the Hague convention, killing and wounding treacherously as well as making improper use of an enemy uniform and insignia (meaning wearing it while attacking, as opposed to using it for reconnaissance or a so-called ruse of war). 4) Separately, are the soldiers at Fort Hood legal war targets? All indications point to yes. The base is guarded, and the soldiers are not convalescing or otherwise to be considered noncombatants. The civilians in the area would be considered collateral damage so long as they were not targeted specifically. Of course, for such an attack to be considered legal under international law, it would have to be conducted legally and by a legitimate army. 5) As such, the Agent would not be protected under international wartime law, as he did not abide by that law (indeed he violated it flagrantly). He would then be tried as an unlawful combatant, and thus would be judged under the domestic laws of the United States. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 04:04 |
|
|
the posted:All things being what they are, what's going to happen here? Let's say that he did kill all of these people. What now? Death penalty? Insanity defense? Probably both. His lawyers are going to plead not guilty by reason of incompetence (PTSD most likely), and the government is going to quash that like a ripe fruit. As far as I know the guy hasn't even been overseas. They'll ask for the death penalty and they'll probably get it too (this is Texas after all). Even if they didn't need to send a message to other would-be war objectors that this sort of thing gets put down with prejudice, this many murders would land a man in the hot seat regardless of the circumstance. I once covered a similar case with a former military man who kidnapped and later killed his wife here in Oregon. His lawyers claimed he had PTSD, but the jury sentenced him to death anyways. The defense just isn't that strong, especially because the jury sees only a sane man and not a lunatic. My only real question is whether they are going to try him under the UCMJ in a General Court-Martial with a JAG lawyer, a military judge and a five serviceman panel, or if they are going to turn him over to the civilian authorities to be tried in a Texan district court. Personally I'd prefer the former in this case, but I'm sure the Pentagon will get a lot of pressure to put him into state hands; whomever represents the guy will have a heck of a time deciding which one would be better for his client. Kaal fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 06:02 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 05:44 |
|
|
The guy's ideal court situation would be a poll in LF deciding his fate, any other situation seems pretty equally stacked against him.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 10:09 |
|
|
We could have an open and honest discussion about this but I fear being banned for hurting the feelings of Muslims (please don't ban me). EDIT: Is someone willing to illustrate how explicitly contemptuous of Islam we're allowed to be without being banned? FormerFatty fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 11:58 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 11:55 |
|
|
I really can't see how contemptuous statements about Muslims or Islam would play into a thread about legal issues. If you want to do that I'd suggest finding a religion thread for starters. Secondly, I'd hesitate to chastise all Muslims as being untrustworthy or violent just because of one man who may have said "Allahu Akbar" before attacking. There's being open and honest, and there's being an idiot that is just fuming. If you have something to share, please do so, but at least try and couch what you're saying in civility and there shouldn't be a problem.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 12:26 |
|
|
Kaal posted:I really can't see how contemptuous statements about Muslims or Islam would play into a thread about legal issues. If you want to do that I'd suggest finding a religion thread for starters. Secondly, I'd hesitate to chastise all Muslims as being untrustworthy or violent just because of one man who may have said "Allahu Akbar" before attacking. There's being open and honest, and there's being an idiot that is just fuming. I wish to elaborate and address your question directly, I want to analyse this situation in a legalistic manner just as you do but but I won't do so until someone explains the extent to which cultural criticizm is perceived as "racism" by the administrators of this forum. I don't usually post in D&D so sorry if this sounds weird
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 12:31 |
|
|
jujeo posted:According to the Geneva Convention, it may not be a warcrime per se, however he could still be executed for espionage.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 12:47 |
|
|
Well, the rules on D&D aren't that much different from anywhere else, so I wouldn't worry about it unless your ideas are completely out of left (or should I say right) field. Lurk more if you need to. The golden rule to follow is usually that if you really worry about whether it is okay or not, you probably need to edit it. The caveat there is that how you say something can be just as important as what you say - civility is key. Be sure to read over the rules, particularly these clauses:quote:Racism: Racist or discriminatory posts will get you banned. Do not try to abuse this rule to get people banned; it's blatantly obvious and never, ever works. Arguments like "no, see, wanting the troops to die is racist because troops are disproportionately minorities so you should ban this person" or "no, see, calling kidney failure the result of lifestyle choices is racist because kidney failure disproportionately affects minorities so you should ban this person" may land you on probation yourself. Kaal fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 12:53 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 12:48 |
|
) flaming and the like will land you on probation. Posts that are nothing but gratuitous flaming will land you on probation for a while.
|
Well there have been examples of US soldiers being killed outside of combat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847 is the first one that comes to mind. It wasn't prosecuted as a war crime, but an act of terrorism. He was never captured though, so it didn't go to trial.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 14:34 |
|
|
FormerFatty posted:We could have an open and honest discussion about this but I fear being banned for hurting the feelings of Muslims (please don't ban me). Is it only Muslims that have turned their guns on fellow troops? Of course not. Don't be silly, and if you do single out Muslims, you might get into trouble for being blindingly stupid, not for being offensive. Maybe for starters you should look at other instances of this happening then get all perplexed as you try to figure out whether their religion or ethnicity may have had to do with the crime. If anything at all. e: whether not what hadji murad fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 16:10 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 14:44 |
|
|
FormerFatty posted:We could have an open and honest discussion about this but I fear being banned for hurting the feelings of Muslims (please don't ban me). How about not being a coward about your feelings and just state what they are; we can discuss the merits of your legal opinion outside of that.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 15:25 |
|
|
McCaine posted:It seems it would be treason, assuming he was a US citizen. It wouldn't be a war crime, as I've never heard of anyone considering killing soldiers on a military base a war crime, even if they were eating or sleeping or whatever at the time. That's not a standard anyone has ever been held to.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 16:16 |
|
|
If we're talking about some hypothetical dream world wherein non-Americans are held to the same legal and ethical standards as Americans, then it'd pretty much be okay for any brown person to kill any American for any reason. Since that's not how things work, there's no way in hell that anybody--sleeper agent, ptsd, cop on the edge, whatever--would ever be able to escape prosecution for killing American soldiers.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 17:33 |
|
|
jujeo posted:He would still be guilty of Treason, as well as being a spy found in his enemies uniform. Both of them allow for capital punishment, so he's looking at the death penalty regardless of his motivations.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 17:46 |
|
|
The attack itself is not criminal and the targets are legitimate but if he's an US citizen / a member of the US military like in the current case he's commiting treason. If he managed to get inside a base without claiming to be part of the military then good on him although he'd probably still be put on some kind of mock trial seeing as the US only aknowladges international laws when it suits them. quote:According to the Geneva Convention, it may not be a warcrime per se, however he could still be executed for espionage. As far as i know this applies to civilians in occupied territory ? Otherwise you could pretty much hand out the death penalty to any captured enemy soldier who has been at all effective at his job. Dauq fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 18:06 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 18:03 |
|
|
hadji murad posted:Don't be silly, and if you do single out Muslims, you might get into trouble for being blindingly stupid, not for being offensive. Maybe for starters you should look at other instances of this happening then get all perplexed as you try to figure out whether their religion or ethnicity may have had to do with the crime. If anything at all. After a brief survey of the literature, I have concluded that having one's gender as male is a red flag indicating a propensity to go on a shooting rampage.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 18:06 |
|
|
Dauq posted:As far as i know this applies to civilians in occupied territory ? Otherwise you could pretty much hand out the death penalty to any captured enemy soldier who has been at all effective at his job. Either way the hypothetical individual is up poo poo creek. He's either a murderer or a saboteur.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 19:20 |
|
|
The amount of total ignorance backed up with wishful thinking is pretty ridiculous in this thread. If you can't be bothered to look up basic things like what the international laws actually are, why are you posting in D&D? How does that further discussion at all? It's one thing to have a strong opinion, it's another to make a blatant lie like "all brown people can kill US soldiers no matter what, hurr hurr not like the US follows any law anyways". Why don't you go back to LF with that crap, or better yet just find another circle-jerking forum altogether? Xandu posted:Well there have been examples of US soldiers being killed outside of combat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847 is the first one that comes to mind. It wasn't prosecuted as a war crime, but an act of terrorism. He was never captured though, so it didn't go to trial. The issue there is that the Flight 847 hijackers weren't really targeting military personnel. They found a military man and executed him, but that was rather incidental. They weren't members of a legitimate army anyways, so they didn't have the protected status. Kaal fucked around with this message at Nov 07, 2009 around 20:43 |
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 20:28 |
|
|
If they hold citizenship in the country, they committed treason which is punishable by death. If they are a uniformed member of another country, it could be viewed as an act of war. However depending on the involved countries, he'd likely be cut loose and left to the hands of those he attacked, who would likely execute him. If they're just a member of whatever random organization then it'd be a toss up between multiple first degree murder (and other felony) charges, which after a certain point should just be an express pass to execution, or they'd be charged in a military court. Regardless of the circumstances, it'd be very hard to not find a justification to execute someone that goes into a military base and starts killing people. It's not all that difficult to gain entry to a military base though. Some of these places are basically small cities with lots of friends/family on them, either living/serving there, graduating (Hood is the main Army boot camp is it not?)...etc. The entry itself may not be a crime, but even if it is, they aren't going to waste time on it when they have the person caught red-handed after they just went on a killing spree.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 21:17 |
|
|
If this goes to court martial how does this guy end up with a jury that doesn't already want him before a firing squad? Guess he'd probably be better off with a bench trial, not that it will really matter. If they don't go for insanity then there's no way to mount a factual defense.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 10:20 |
|
|
The idea that it would be treated as combat rather than a crime even if it were somehow domestic combat is ridiculous, especially since the U.S. has already established its willingness to try people for murder for killing American troops in actual combat in Afghanistan.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 20:56 |
|
|
Angry Midwesterner posted:If this goes to court martial how does this guy end up with a jury that doesn't already want him before a firing squad? It's more likely than him going before a court thinking he will get a 'fair' trial. There are cases, like this, where there's simply no way to get away with it. Unless some idiotic procedural loop hole could be used, he's a dead man walking. As he should be for the severity of what he did.
|
| # ? Nov 12, 2009 03:54 |
|
|
FormerFatty posted:I wish to elaborate and address your question directly, I want to analyse this situation in a legalistic manner just as you do but but I won't do so until someone explains the extent to which cultural criticizm is perceived as "racism" by the administrators of this forum. Nobody's going to hold your hand, post what you think and if it is actually racism (without scare quotes) you'll hopefully get banned for being a shithead
|
| # ? Nov 12, 2009 04:07 |
|
|
kylejack posted:Geneva protects medical personnel as well as wounded fighters.
|
| # ? Nov 12, 2009 09:30 |
|
|
I think pretty much the only way he'd be able to meaningfully argue that he should be treated as a prisoner of war is if he were a non-American, and he took care to don a uniform of sorts before starting the killing spree*. America refuses to treat people that they pick up in Afghanistan or Iraq as prisoners of war**, so he'd probably still get stiffed, but I think he'd be within the Geneva convention if he behaved as I've outlined. If he's an American, it's treason. If he's a member of a militia or army at war with the US, he's got some legal cover there, but he would still need the uniform. As I understand you can use ruses (fake uniform etc) to infiltrate, but you can't engage under a false flag. By the bye, how does the US treat Taliban members? Are they also 'illegal' combatants? *Not utterly unthinkable. He nips into the bathroom, changes in a stall, and walks out shooting from the hip. **I think they treated regular Iraqi army people as prisoners of war, but members of the Badr Brigade or whatever got chucked into Abu Ghraib and tortured. Let me know if I'm wrong.
|
| # ? Nov 12, 2009 10:36 |
|
Rate Thread:
