American's are above the Law?

  • News
  • Thread starter Anttech
  • Start date
  • #26
drankin
Great, so the Pentagon has a closed door internal investigation and the families of those how were killed should just accept the outcome of the pentagon?
Yes, any family has to accept that when their loved ones go to war, they could be killed. If one of our soldiers were killed by an emeny soldier, do we take them to court? I get dismayed when people try to take a wartime event or accident and try to apply it to civilian litigation. It's rediculous and compromises any war efforts. I can only imagine the things that happened in WWII for crying out loud.
 
  • #27
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,451
491
"When will the US Government start to understand they live in a world of over 6 Billion and not 300 Million."

What does the population of the world have to do with this? One could as easily (and illogically) say, "When will the UK Legal System start to understand that they live in a world of 6 billion not 60 Million."

You forgot to quote:

"Lawyer Geraldine McCool said the verdict did not suggest there would be a prosecution of the US pilot and the Hull family would not be calling for one."

and

"Constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman, who met with US diplomats in London ahead of the inquest, said she shared the "frustration" at their failure to send witnesses. I explained that this was not a criminal court, nobody could be found guilty and sent to prison, it is simply asking questions and requiring answers," she said."

Then what was the purpose of the inquest? The answer is that it was obviously political and intended to embarass Tony Blair's administration and the US Military. It shouldn't be such as surprise that the US Military could see that one coming. Why would the US Military engage in this no-win nonsense?

And you forgot the most important bit of information:

"Although one of the pilots spotted what he thought were orange panels on the vehicles - signifying they were friendly forces - they were assured by forward air controllers attached to British units that there were "no friendlies" in the area.

The pilots concluded the orange must be rocket launchers, and began manoeuvring to fire on the convoy before they reached the next settlement."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6441955.stm)

Did the Coroner have an opinion regarding the forward air controllers too?
 
  • #28
drankin
"When will the US Government start to understand they live in a world of over 6 Billion and not 300 Million."

What does the population of the world have to do with this? One could as easily (and illogically) say, "When will the UK Legal System start to understand that they live in a world of 6 billion not 60 Million."

You forgot to quote:

"Lawyer Geraldine McCool said the verdict did not suggest there would be a prosecution of the US pilot and the Hull family would not be calling for one."

and

"Constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman, who met with US diplomats in London ahead of the inquest, said she shared the "frustration" at their failure to send witnesses. I explained that this was not a criminal court, nobody could be found guilty and sent to prison, it is simply asking questions and requiring answers," she said."

Then what was the purpose of the inquest? The answer is that it was obviously political and intended to embarass Tony Blair's administration and the US Military. It shouldn't be such as surprise that the US Military could see that one coming. Why would the US Military engage in this no-win nonsense?

And you forgot the most important bit of information:

"Although one of the pilots spotted what he thought were orange panels on the vehicles - signifying they were friendly forces - they were assured by forward air controllers attached to British units that there were "no friendlies" in the area.

The pilots concluded the orange must be rocket launchers, and began manoeuvring to fire on the convoy before they reached the next settlement."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6441955.stm)

Did the Coroner have an opinion regarding the forward air controllers too?
Chemisttree really hits the nail on the head here. One really has to look thru all the political bs that the media tries make issue with.
 
  • #29
221
0
Yes, any family has to accept that when their loved ones go to war, they could be killed. If one of our soldiers were killed by an emeny soldier, do we take them to court?
The UK is now your enemy?

You obviously dont grasp the idea of unlawful killing. The Military is just like any other job, you have some protection against being killed in an unlawful way.

I get dismayed when people try to take a wartime event or accident and try to apply it to civilian litigation. It's rediculous and compromises any war efforts. I can only imagine the things that happened in WWII for crying out loud.
Bit like the holocaust? or perhaps what milosevic was attempting? What is ridiculous is that you seem to believe your war effort is above international law.
 
  • #30
221
0
"When will the US Government start to understand they live in a world of over 6 Billion and not 300 Million."

What does the population of the world have to do with this? One could as easily (and illogically) say, "When will the UK Legal System start to understand that they live in a world of 6 billion not 60 Million."

You forgot to quote:

"Lawyer Geraldine McCool said the verdict did not suggest there would be a prosecution of the US pilot and the Hull family would not be calling for one."

and

"Constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman, who met with US diplomats in London ahead of the inquest, said she shared the "frustration" at their failure to send witnesses. I explained that this was not a criminal court, nobody could be found guilty and sent to prison, it is simply asking questions and requiring answers," she said."

Then what was the purpose of the inquest? The answer is that it was obviously political and intended to embarass Tony Blair's administration and the US Military. It shouldn't be such as surprise that the US Military could see that one coming. Why would the US Military engage in this no-win nonsense?

And you forgot the most important bit of information:

"Although one of the pilots spotted what he thought were orange panels on the vehicles - signifying they were friendly forces - they were assured by forward air controllers attached to British units that there were "no friendlies" in the area.

The pilots concluded the orange must be rocket launchers, and began manoeuvring to fire on the convoy before they reached the next settlement."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6441955.stm)

Did the Coroner have an opinion regarding the forward air controllers too?
Are you implying that the UK legal system is bent on embarrassing the UK government? :rofl:

I didnt forget to quote anything, I was making a very clear point, what exactly was your point? My point was that America is part of an international community, and if you want to be taken seriously you need to start complying to international laws, rather than dodgey hypocritic cover-ups.

As for the orange, you were aware that everyone else was briefed that the Coalition forces would have orange panels fitted on thier equipment to ensure that they wouldnt be attacked, on top of that the ground command did NOT give them permission to fire? It was a gross miss-judgment, by the piots, and they should be tried.....
 
  • #31
960
0
Well certainly Bush et al have seen this coming for some time. They exempted their selves from possible tribunals. And in fairness have fought for the same re Armed services personnel of all stripes. But I would ask for an even higher level of consistency than signing onto the Geneva convention and then looking for loopholes, or refusing to endorce international tribunals with the primary complaint that we have a legal system that is non pareil and any further jeopardy is superfluous. This is the same issue as Gitmo, and the "extraordinary rendition" crap where we whisk in the dark of night "prisoners" to various countries where torture is common, and then deny that as a motive.
 
  • #32
drankin
The UK is now your enemy?

You obviously dont grasp the idea of unlawful killing. The Military is just like any other job, you have some protection against being killed in an unlawful way.

Bit like the holocaust? or perhaps what milosevic was attempting? What is ridiculous is that you seem to believe your war effort is above international law.
Again, we aren't under international law. Period, zippo, zilch. To be above the law, we would first have to be under it. It's not part of our Constitution to be under any international laws. Your OP is flawed.

No, the UK is not our enemy. That wasn't my point. In war, people die, and sometimes because of mistakes from our own fire. The roles could easily have been reversed. We would accept it because it is understood that it happens. It's emotional, politically driven, non-sense. And you are falling for it.
 
  • #33
960
0
But thats the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards. If you agree that we have the right to be outlaws, then say so. Bush etc have made such clear. They believe they are so. Hence this thread! We have a case of some trigger happy young man who missed clear markings and fired. More disturbingly we have had a bunch of blown up journalists in Iraq by "friendly" fire and Israeal recently hit red cross vehicles. In this case it was an honest mistake I believe, but to sequester evidence, really does no one any one good.
 
  • #34
drankin
But thats the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards. If you agree that we have the right to be outlaws, then say so. Bush etc have made such clear. They believe they are so. Hence this thread! We have a case of some trigger happy young man who missed clear markings and fired. More disturbingly we have had a bunch of blown up journalists in Iraq by "friendly" fire and Israeal recently hit red cross vehicles. In this case it was an honest mistake I believe, but to sequester evidence, really does no one any one good.
I pretty much agree with you, doc. My point is that we can't be called outlaws because in order to be an outlaw you have to be subject to the laws in the first place.

Now, we do have a moral obligation to our comrades in war but there is a point to where that obligation ends. Otherwise, the next time we need to fight side by side we will be signing release waivers. Please, do the lawyers have to get their hands on everything?
 
  • #35
468
4
But thats the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards.
When the Constitution was written, falling under the jurisdiction of international law meant falling under the jurisdiction of the European monarchs. There was a good reason for the authors to ensure that the US wouldn't succumb to their influence. Furthermore, as I'm sure you know, the Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend. This is also for a good reason: it allows the government to withstand the willy-nilly opinions of the public. (For example, without inertia, the neocons would've turned this country into a police state after 9/11). Given that no one has yet to provide a compelling political reason for amending the Constitution to allow the government to abide by international law, it hasn't been done.

In fact, I don't think it will ever be done. Our laws are too similar: whenever a conflict between international law and American law arises, it will never be a clear-cut difference, and will always be in a moral gray area (e.g., a friendly fire shooting). Therefore, there will never be a public outcry, and nothing can ever be done to change that.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,282
I don't see any examples of what I asked for there. :confused: Did you read my request correctly?
Great, so the Pentagon has a closed door internal investigation and the families of those how were killed should just accept the outcome of the pentagon?
The families can accept or reject anyone's opinion or form their own if they want. They are humans, afterall, and that is always the choice... :uhh:
Anyway, what isnt clear cut about it? To me it is clear cut, it was an accident, but a crinmal one.
What about an accident makes an accident criminal? Gross neglegence, right? That's the part that isn't clear-cut here. The pilots were told several times that there were no friendlies in the area. You can, of course, say that they should have known better, but that's an opinion with no factual or logical basis different from the opposite opinion. That's pretty much the definition of a toss-up.
I didnt answer it because you didnt ask it, plus I already answered it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I'm going to frame that! That's priceless!
However I will answer it *again*, NO.
When you are being critizied do you feel that the person critizing you is bashing you?
*I* didn't pilot the plane or carry out the investigation, yet you use the word "you"..... That's a pretty good indication that your purpose here is to extend this issue to a general USA-bashing. That, and the general rediculousness of this whole line of discussion.
Did a non-impartial judge look at this case inside the USA?
No - why would an American judge look at this?
Why did the USA not send witnesses? Why were they not wanting to help?
They did send investigatory materials (evidence), but on what basis would the US compell witnesses to go to the UK to participate?
The reason why there wont be a trail is because the USA wont allow it to happen.
And you base that on what...? The family saying they don't want one...? :uhh:

C'mon - you're just making stuff up here. This is a nothing issue.
The UK is now your enemy?
No - you misread the passage.


[these weren't to me, but they are easy to answer, so I'll take them...]
You obviously dont grasp the idea of unlawful killing. The Military is just like any other job, you have some protection against being killed in an unlawful way.
You obviously aren't applying any criteria to accidental killing. Is every car accident a crime?
 
Last edited:
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,282
haven't all those crimes been brought to light by news media before the government has even admitted there to be something worth investigating?
Some yes, some no.
i don't think there would be any trials if the government was able to keep a lid on things like they have been trying to.
Some yes, some no.
 
  • #38
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,796
From the evidence provided, this thread has become pointless, if you read the transcript, which has been previously cited, it was an accident. There was no malice. There was no proof of reckless endangerment cited in the article. This discussion has become circular and non-productive.

As has been pointed out by another mentor, there is an additional reason why this thread should have been closed.

1) the thread violates the rule not to cast entire populations under the same prejudicial light when discussing the actions of specific politicians or persons

Pointless threads will from now on be locked or deleted immediately.

Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on American's are above the Law?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
83
Views
10K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
80
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
97
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
Top