Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

American's are above the Law?

  1. Mar 16, 2007 #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6459895.stm

    When will the US Government start to understand they live in a world of over 6 Billion and not 300 Million. The UK is from a governmental perspective the USA Admin's most loyal, and powerful Friend. BUT they feel they have to more or less rubbish the UK Law and justice system with nonsense like this. This puts the UK Government which of course has to be behind its judicial system in a precarious situation. We have all seen the video's and yes I would conclude the lack of malaise, BUT the law is the law. This man was killed in a unlawful way, judged by one of the most mature legal systems in the world, yet to protect the Military (once again) the US Government passes the buck.

    The question now should be, why would any intelligent person in this world put their trust into the *only* super power in the world when they ignore and bypass all other recognised legal systems in the world?

    The example isnt the only one, there are other. The *get out clause* for the international court in Den Haag is another. We try to indidet milosevic for example in these courts, BUT no american solider can ever be tried here.

    Sorry, I am not one to bash America, but I find the latest political position of the US Admin rather in fact incredibly irritating

    The Military are not above the law, and a bit of humility could and would go a long way!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 16, 2007 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't understand what you are saying here - a British coronor expressed his opinion and a US state dept official disagrees with it. What does that have to do with Americans being above the law?
     
  4. Mar 16, 2007 #3
    That incident was an unfortunate, accidental mistake. It happened during battle. It shouldn't happen but has probably happened in every war mankind has ever participated. I, as an American, feel horrible about it as do millions of others.

    Should the UK be able to prosecute US military personel for actions on foriegn soil? I don't believe it works like that. Was their a crime? Manslaughter is the best I can fathom.
     
  5. Mar 16, 2007 #4
    Well it does work like that for everyone else, thats sort of my point. I dont disagree, it was an accident, but it was a unlawful accident. The fact that it was an accident does not wash away the law. So why is the US dept Position that it isnt unlawful? A bit of common sense would be nice, rather than political positioning.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2007
  6. Mar 16, 2007 #5
    Can a coroner actually pronounce on whether the death was unlawful or criminal?
     
  7. Mar 16, 2007 #6

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes they can.
     
  8. Mar 16, 2007 #7
    well the larger point is that all along the US has been above the law, whether its thumbing its nose at the Geneva convention protocols, insisting on US immunity from war crimes, not signing on to the international court, or its byzantine routing of suspected terrorists thru extraordinary rendition to countries where we know exactly what will happen.
     
  9. Mar 18, 2007 #8
    While these statements are mostly true, I do not understand the general outrage being expressed.

    I'd like to try to understand other people's point of view here. Why do people on this forum post to bash the united states over its wrong doings (admittedly numerous), but there is nothing on the actions of the muslim extremists we're fighting?

    Is it because you feel your government should be good enough to not engage in such practices, yet they are appropriate for our enemies?

    Case in point: the actions of our soldiers at Haditha or abu graib. Certainly they were attrocious and I firmly believe those responsible should be held accountable - but the slaughter of innocent civilians and the humiliation of prisoners is par for the course for our enemies - why no outrage over that?

    Not trying to be combative, but I am genuinely curious.
     
  10. Mar 18, 2007 #9

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The outrage comes from the hypocrisy involved in many instances. While claiming to be the upholders of truth and justice the American government brushes aside rulings such as those in the OP without any due consideration, just because it would be inconvenient.

    To address your case in point briefly. There is outrage at that for similar reasons as above. The blatant hypocrisy involved. America claims to be outraged by the ethical and moral virtues of those enemies yet seem to employ them when it suits American purposes, in the cases you illustrated and in particular the disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay.

    People are outraged by terrorists but even more so by a country that claims to uphold a particular set of values yet conveniently drops them when things get tough. This is infinitely worse than a terrorist who doesn't pretend to have any other agenda.
     
  11. Mar 18, 2007 #10
    Fratricide as this is usually referred to is to be considered as a most unlucky accident and of course it's understandable that the next of kin of the victim are hareassed and seek revenge.

    Picture this, there is one soldier aiming at the wrong target and pulling the trigger. Is he guilty of any form of crime/fallony whatever? Things like this are usually the result of a chain of events which must all be going wrong. There is a very strict protocol, procedures etc for A-10 operations. You would normally expect some guidance of a controller for instance, who directed and assisted the pilot. Itr's almost certain that the cause it not solely the pilot, but he is the one whodunnit, so that is getting all the attention.

    If you'd start criminal prosecuting of this kind of accidents, you'll soon find yourself out of military operators. Considering Americans to be above the law, is grossly overstated.
     
  12. Mar 18, 2007 #11
    Then what are waiting for?
     
  13. Mar 18, 2007 #12
    Are you suggesting that we abolish our military?? If so, this seriously compromises the credibility of any of your arguments.
     
  14. Mar 18, 2007 #13

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the point is that they were found to be grossly negligent in the execution of their procedures. There have been many friendly fire cases and this is the rare exception where it was deemed unlawful. I guess its like medical negligence, there has to be deemed serious error of judgement. The Uk believes there was and the US believes there wasn't.
     
  15. Mar 18, 2007 #14
    That's a fairly ignorant thing to say. If you have a different opinion than someone then they are no longer credible? :bugeye:

    At any rate, no - not abolish, just shrink it significantly. There is no need for such a massive military when we have no enemies that pose a significant military threat to us. But this is getting off-topic.
     
  16. Mar 18, 2007 #15
    Nobody deserves to be above the law... except for me:rofl:

    I think the reason that the US denied the jurisdiction is because we think its an accident and nothing more. he shouldnt be punished for a mistake.

    on the other hand, there should really be some type of international law standard to cover this type of thing.
     
  17. Mar 18, 2007 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The bolded qualification you've included is indefensible. The USAF did conduct its own investigation into the incident and recommended punitive measures (over a couple years ago, I think) - these were later overridden by higher ups in the DoD.

    So clearly, there has been a lot of consideration by the US. And the powers that were overruled the recommendations of their own investigatory commission, so why is surprising that they'd disagree with an outside investigation that opposed their chosen position?
     
  18. Mar 18, 2007 #17
    That's just it, the US will never submit to an international law. Noone has jurisdiction over the US. Laws of a country only apply to those in the jurisdiction of that country. Many want the US to follow an interational law but the US is never going to fall under that. It's not in our Constitution to ever fall under an international law. Our country wasn't designed that way. And I don't believe we are going to change the original design for the sake of other countries systems. Whether I agree or not it's the way it is. I do realize our political leaders try to use international law as a reason to use military force (we all know it's bs) elsewhere but the truth is we don't require it. Makes a lot of Euro folks upset because they do fall under such laws (I believe).
     
  19. Mar 18, 2007 #18
    Somebody screwed up and somebody should be held accountable.
     
  20. Mar 18, 2007 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Does it? I don't think that's necessarily true. Can you point to any case where a country voluntarily turned over a suspected war criminal to another for prosecution? In any case, that is not at issue here, so that's kinda irrelevant anyway.
    The US state dept official thinks it is non-criminal neglegent accident, and the coroner in the UK thinks it is a criminal neglegent one. It is a simple difference of opinion on an issue that is anything but clear-cut.

    I don't see an issue here and you didn't answer my query: Is this simply an excuse to bash the US?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2007
  21. Mar 18, 2007 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What would be convenient or inconvenient about agreeing or disagreeing? There won't be a trial, so there isn't any issue here.

    The US is pretty much the same as any other western country when it comes to such things. We do make our soldiers take responsibility for their actions, as the trials we've had indicate.
    Except for a few extremely rare instances - which people get prosecuted for - the actions American soldiers take com nowhere close to the criminal actions of our enemies. Terrorism is SOP for our enemies here.

    Huh? Could you explain that? To me, that is hypocirsy.

    The dualitiy should be striking: while we argue over whether or not a pilor was criminally neglegent in a friendly-fire incident, our enemy drives vans full of explosives into lines of civilians standing in line for jobs. And yet we're worse?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: American's are above the Law?
  1. American Propaganda (Replies: 1)

  2. American Exceptionalism (Replies: 57)

Loading...