Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian.


America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).

Now you've mentioned it.

and the people sleep......

13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler


http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/obama/obama-and-hitler-similarities.htm

You know a thread is going to be retarded when it violates Godwin's Law in the very first post.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).

We shouldn't let Godwin's Law prevent us from making unflattering comparisons.

Godwin's Law said the longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned.

When the theme of the discussion is Hitler or the Nazis, the the law surely doesn't apply. Suggesting it does is a way to avoid discussing the topic.

I'll always remember Saddam Hussein posturing about 'the mother of all wars' that he promised the U.S. his soldiers folded like butter against the well trained and well equipped U.S. military in the shock and awe campaign they waged against Hussein.

The tactics were extremely close to the German blitzkrieg.

Detractors of America forget so quickly that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people and butchered hundreds of thousands of them.

Forgive me saying so but I don't believe that its the status quo these days.

The U.S. has got rid of a couple of notable tyrants and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have a better future than they ever had under their butchers.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).

I've read any number of reports in which US soldiers are cited for disciplinary action due to unethical behaviour whilst part of a combat force in a foreign country.

But curiously, I have yet to read of even a single instance in which an enemy soldier has been under arrest by his own military leadership for transgressions against humanity whilst in a combat zone.

But don't let that faze you, Ringo.

Please continue with your vendetta against all things Western ~ especially the Americans. I know it's all part of your rehabilitation therapy for bad potty training when you were but a wee bairn.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

Godwin's Law said the longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned. When the theme of the discussion is Hitler or the Nazis, the the law surely doesn't apply. Suggesting it does is a way to avoid discussing the topic.

The Godwin is also a benchmard for how absurd a discussion can potentially become, Peter. If we look at the topic of the thread honestly it's plainly evident that any argument pointing out smilarities between Hitler and Obama or the US to Nazi can be applied to just about any nation and its leadership. If Ringer was honest he'd just acknowledge that this thread is not about discussing anything other than how bad his perception of the US is. This thread is every bit as retarded as a Fox News opinion piece comparing Democrat politicians to Nazis.

red baron wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

I'll always remember Saddam Hussein posturing about 'the mother of all wars' that he promised the U.S. his soldiers folded like butter against the well trained and well equipped U.S. military in the shock and awe campaign they waged against Hussein. The tactics were extremely close to the German blitzkrieg. Detractors of America forget so quickly that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people and butchered hundreds of thousands of them. Forgive me saying so but I don't believe that its the status quo these days. The U.S. has got rid of a couple of notable tyrants and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have a better future than they ever had under their butchers.

Red, I hope you are right about Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have my doubts. Getting rid of tyrants is the easy part, building new nations based on freedom and tolerance is the difficult bit, particularly in countries that have known little other than fear, hatred and violence.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Godwin's Law said the longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned. When the theme of the discussion is Hitler or the Nazis, the the law surely doesn't apply. Suggesting it does is a way to avoid discussing the topic. The Godwin is also a benchmard for how absurd a discussion can potentially become, Peter. If we look at the topic of the thread honestly it's plainly evident that any argument pointing out smilarities between Hitler and Obama or the US to Nazi can be applied to just about any nation and its leadership. If Ringer was honest he'd just acknowledge that this thread is not about discussing anything other than how bad his perception of the US is. This thread is every bit as retarded as a Fox News opinion piece comparing Democrat politicians to Nazis.

Fair point, Chard.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Now you've mentioned it. and the people sleep...... 13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/obama/obama-and-hitler-similarities.htm

Stupid link.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

You know a thread is going to be retarded when it violates Godwin's Law in the very first post.

It seems more like confirmation than violation. A discussion that violates Godwin's Law is one where Hitler and Nazis is never mentioned or referenced.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Godwin's Law said the longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned. When the theme of the discussion is Hitler or the Nazis, the the law surely doesn't apply. Suggesting it does is a way to avoid discussing the topic. The Godwin is also a benchmard for how absurd a discussion can potentially become, Peter. If we look at the topic of the thread honestly it's plainly evident that any argument pointing out smilarities between Hitler and Obama or the US to Nazi can be applied to just about any nation and its leadership. If Ringer was honest he'd just acknowledge that this thread is not about discussing anything other than how bad his perception of the US is. This thread is every bit as retarded as a Fox News opinion piece comparing Democrat politicians to Nazis.

I disagree, Chard. The point being made is that Obama's  exemption of the US military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians is equivalent to the Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian.

So far raising Godwin's Law has prevented an honest discussion of this claim. Perhaps it is an unfair comparison, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. Perhap's ridicule was the appropriate response, we shall see.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 11:42am: Now you've mentioned it. and the people sleep...... 13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/obama/obama-and-hitler-similarities.htm Stupid link.

Encouraging to find a point of agreement, chicken lips.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

I disagree, Chard. The point being made is that Obama's  exemption of the US military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians is equivalent to the Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. So far raising Godwin's Law has prevented an honest discussion of this claim. Perhaps it is an unfair comparison, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. Perhap's ridicule was the appropriate response, we shall see.

I am sure there are a few here who would not like to see that comparison.  America even extended the exemption to 'civilian contractors', i.e. mercenaries.

Here is the Barbarossa Decree according to Wikipedia.


Quote:

The background behind the Barbarossa Decree was laid out by Hitler during a high level meeting with military officials on March 30, 1941,[38] where he declared that war against Soviet Russia would be a war of extermination, in which both the political and intellectual elites of Russia would be eradicated by German forces, in order to ensure a long-lasting German victory.[38] Hitler underlined that executions would not be a matter for military courts, but for the organised action of the military.[38] The decree, issued by Field Marshal Keitel a few weeks before Operation Barbarossa, exempted punishable offenses committed by enemy civilians (in Russia) from the jurisdiction of military justice. Suspects were to be brought before an officer who would decide if they were to be shot. Prosecution of offenses against civilians by members of the Wehrmacht was decreed to be "not required" unless necessary for the maintenance of discipline. The order specified: "The partisans are to be ruthlessly eliminated in battle or during attempts to escape," and all attacks by the civilian population against Wehrmacht soldiers are to be "suppressed by the army on the spot by using extreme measures, till [the] annihilation of the attackers; Every officer in the German occupation in the East of the future will be entitled to perform execution(s) without trial, without any formalities, on any person suspected of having a hostile attitude towards the Germans", (the same applied to prisoners of war); "If you have not managed to identify and punish the perpetrators of anti-German acts, you are allowed to apply the principle of collective responsibility. 'Collective measures' against residents of the area where the attack occurred can then be applied after approval by the battalion commander or higher level of command"; German soldiers who commit crimes against humanity, the USSR and prisoners of war are to be exempted from criminal responsibility, even if they commit acts punishable according to German law.[38][39]

Although I can see the moral hazard that comes with exempting US military personnel from Afghan Law, it does not embody the absolute immorality of the Barbarossa Decree.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 5:18pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Godwin's Law said the longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned. When the theme of the discussion is Hitler or the Nazis, the the law surely doesn't apply. Suggesting it does is a way to avoid discussing the topic. The Godwin is also a benchmard for how absurd a discussion can potentially become, Peter. If we look at the topic of the thread honestly it's plainly evident that any argument pointing out smilarities between Hitler and Obama or the US to Nazi can be applied to just about any nation and its leadership. If Ringer was honest he'd just acknowledge that this thread is not about discussing anything other than how bad his perception of the US is. This thread is every bit as retarded as a Fox News opinion piece comparing Democrat politicians to Nazis. I disagree, Chard. The point being made is that Obama's  exemption of the US military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians is equivalent to the Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian.

There's a huge difference between trying your soldier under your own military justice code and simply refusing to even recognize their actions as being criminal.


Quote:

So far raising Godwin's Law has prevented an honest discussion of this claim. Perhaps it is an unfair comparison, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. Perhap's ridicule was the appropriate response, we shall see.

That because it's a dishonest claim to begin with.

I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

There's a huge difference between trying your soldier under your own military justice code and simply refusing to even recognize their actions as being criminal..

So there is something to be discussed but you choose instead to dismiss the subject.  You must be afraid of something. ::)

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

Although I can see the moral hazard that comes with exempting US military personnel from Afghan Law, it does not embody the absolute immorality of the Barbarossa Decree.

Google the fate of Taxi driver  Dilawar to see how this pans out in practice.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:28pm: Although I can see the moral hazard that comes with exempting US military personnel from Afghan Law, it does not embody the absolute immorality of the Barbarossa Decree. Google the fate of Taxi driver  Dilawar to see how this pans out in practice.

I've no doubt in practice human rights are violated. I'm still yet to decide if the exemption is something I could justify. However, from the perspective of my limited understanding, it seems far from the barbarity of the Barbarossa Declaration.

Peter, we have consensus on your reply to my post. We should crack a bottle of champers on that one.

Quote:

Dilawar (born c. 1979 – December 10, 2002), also known as Dilawar of Yakubi, was an Afghan taxi driver who was tortured to death by US army soldiers at the Bagram Collection Point, a US military detention center in Afghanistan. He arrived at the prison on December 5, 2002, and was declared dead 5 days later. His death was declared a homicide and investigated and prosecuted in the Bagram torture and prisoner abuse trials. The award winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side focuses on the murder of Dilawar.[1]

Quote:

On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.[2] Death The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct.[4] Leaked internal United States Army documentation, a death certificate dated 12 December 2002, ruled that his death was due to a direct result of assaults and attacks he sustained at the hands of interrogators of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion during his stay at Bagram. The document was signed by Lt. Col. Elizabeth A. Rouse of the U.S. Air Force, a pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC, and listed as its finding that the "mode of death" was "homicide," and not "natural," "accident" and "suicide"[5] and that the cause of death was "blunt-force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease".[6] A subsequent autopsy revealed that his legs had been "pulpified," and that even if Dilawar had survived, it would have been necessary to amputate his legs.[7] According to the death certificate shown in the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, the box marked Homicide had been checked as the ultimate cause of death. however, the military had so far publicly claimed that Dilawar had died from natural causes. It was only by accident that the death certificate was leaked, when New York Times reporter named Carlotta Gall managed to track down Dilawar's family in Yakubi, where Dilawar's brother, Shahpoor, showed her a folded paper, he had received with Dilawar's body. He could not read because it was in English. It was the death certificate.[8]

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed.

A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:43pm: I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed. A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math.

I guess it depends on your definition of a lie. I've no problem with people stating what they believe, particularly if it's a position they hold to be true. It becomes a lie when they wilfully remain ignorant or choose to deny certain facts.

red baron wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Peter, we have consensus on your reply to my post. We should crack a bottle of champers on that one.

Okay, your place or mine?

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:56pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:43pm: I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed. A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math. I guess it depends on your definition of a lie. I've no problem with people stating what they believe, particularly if it's a position they hold to be true. It becomes a lie when they wilfully remain ignorant or choose to deny certain facts.

Please feel free to quote where I said that anyone couldn't give their opinion. While you're doing that I'll continue calling bullshit on opinions that are factually wrong.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:05pm: Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:56pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:43pm: I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed. A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math. I guess it depends on your definition of a lie. I've no problem with people stating what they believe, particularly if it's a position they hold to be true. It becomes a lie when they wilfully remain ignorant or choose to deny certain facts. Please feel free to quote where I said that anyone couldn't give their opinion. While you're doing that I'll continue calling bullshit on opinions that are factually wrong.

I can't see any problem with that. Just keep in mind that sometimes others don't know why it is bullshit.

Now, removing the Nazi analogy, is it justified to exempt military personnel from civilian law?

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).

As if Hitler invented the idea of indemnifying one's own armies' troops. ::)

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:05pm: Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:56pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:43pm: I agree that it is an unfair comparison. However, it's not dishonest if it is genuinely believed. A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math. I guess it depends on your definition of a lie. I've no problem with people stating what they believe, particularly if it's a position they hold to be true. It becomes a lie when they wilfully remain ignorant or choose to deny certain facts. Please feel free to quote where I said that anyone couldn't give their opinion. While you're doing that I'll continue calling bullshit on opinions that are factually wrong. I can't see any problem with that. Just keep in mind that sometimes others don't know why it is bullshit. Now, removing the Nazi analogy, is it justified to exempt military personnel from civilian law?

Yes and no.

No, it's not wrong to investigate, try and convict military personnel for criminal actions.

Yes, it is wrong to use civilian legal standards simply because most civilan law is inadaquate for handling general court marshall proceadings.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

A lie is still a lie no matter how many people choose to believe it. If enough people believe 2+2=3 it doesn't mean math is wrong, it just means they're terrible at math.

I think what matters is who is in power to define truth. Have you seen the film Nineteen Eighty Four? It establishes that whoever is in power defines the truth. Math can be twisted to serve those in power.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 11:21am: Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). As if Hitler invented the idea of indemnifying one's own armies' troops. ::)

As if Hitler invented carrying out pogroms on the Jews. What's your point?

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

Yes, it is wrong to use civilian legal standards simply because most civilan law is inadaquate for handling general court marshall proceadings.

Inadequate? The penalties handed down by the military courts in the case of the murder of Taxi Driver Dilawar were so lenient that the President was moved to complain.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:29pm: Yes, it is wrong to use civilian legal standards simply because most civilan law is inadaquate for handling general court marshall proceadings. Inadequate? The penalties handed down by the military courts in the case of the murder of Taxi Driver Dilawar were so lenient that the President was moved to complain.

People misusing a system doesn't invalidate that system.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:26pm: Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 11:21am: Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). As if Hitler invented the idea of indemnifying one's own armies' troops. ::) As if Hitler invented carrying out pogroms on the Jews. What's your point?

There's hardly a need to refer to Hitler, then is there. What's your real point?

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:29pm: Yes, it is wrong to use civilian legal standards simply because most civilan law is inadaquate for handling general court marshall proceadings. Inadequate? The penalties handed down by the military courts in the case of the murder of Taxi Driver Dilawar were so lenient that the President was moved to complain. People misusing a system doesn't invalidate that system.

You are the one to mention (right and) wrong. ::)

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:42pm: Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:29pm: Yes, it is wrong to use civilian legal standards simply because most civilan law is inadaquate for handling general court marshall proceadings. Inadequate? The penalties handed down by the military courts in the case of the murder of Taxi Driver Dilawar were so lenient that the President was moved to complain. People misusing a system doesn't invalidate that system. You are the one to mention (right and) wrong. ::)

What does that have to do with anything? I know you're keen to pad your post count past 100 so you can spam urls instead of spamming North Korea threads, but do me a favor and least try not to make useless +1 posts.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:33pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:26pm: Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 11:21am: Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). As if Hitler invented the idea of indemnifying one's own armies' troops. ::) As if Hitler invented carrying out pogroms on the Jews. What's your point? There's hardly a need to refer to Hitler, then is there. What's your real point?

I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law?

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law?

I find it difficult to conceive a definition of when, or even if, military personnel should be exempt from civilian law.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:07pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:01pm: I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law? I find it difficult to conceive a definition of when, or even if, military personnel should be exempt from civilian law.

So the point to this thread is?

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:07pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:01pm: I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law? I find it difficult to conceive a definition of when, or even if, military personnel should be exempt from civilian law.

We try US military personnel in civilian courts all the damn time. The key parameters are what crime was committed, where it happened, and whose jurisdiction said personnel were arrested in. The more serious the offense and any involvement of operational or classified information greatly increases the probability that the soldier will be tried under the UCMJ instead of civilian law. Turns out very few civilian courts have the security clearances.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:07pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:01pm: I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law? I find it difficult to conceive a definition of when, or even if, military personnel should be exempt from civilian law. We try US military personnel in civilian courts all the damn time. The key parameters are what crime was committed, where it happened, and whose jurisdiction said personnel were arrested in. The more serious the offense and any involvement of operational or classified information greatly increases the probability that the soldier will be tried under the UCMJ instead of civilian law. Turns out very few civilian courts have the security clearances.

I would have thought the more serious the offence the more likely they should be handed over to civilian authorities, especially cases of rape or murder.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:33pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 7:26pm: Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 11:21am: Looking through notes regarding Hitlers plan to invade Russia I was reminded of the 'Barbarossa jurisdiction Decree', which exempted German soldiers from prosecution if they committed a crime against any Soviet civilian. America has exempted itself and her military from prosecution should they commit crimes against civilians in countries such as Iraq (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). As if Hitler invented the idea of indemnifying one's own armies' troops. ::) As if Hitler invented carrying out pogroms on the Jews. What's your point? There's hardly a need to refer to Hitler, then is there. What's your real point? I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law?

I believe Imperial (or imperialistic) powers will always protect their combatants from foreign law wherever and whenever they can. Their vassals (such as, say, Australia to its US overlord), will follow suit where they can. A good case in point is the fact that neither George W Bush nor John Howard has faced an inquiry into the prosecution of the Iraq war and neither, for that matter, are the people calling for an inquiry. A US President is immune from prosecution anyway and Australia's Parliament has chosen not to call Howard to account.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:17pm: Ringer wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:07pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:01pm: I'm far from a clear cut position on this one. What about you? Under what circumstances do you believe military personnel should be exempt from civilian law? I find it difficult to conceive a definition of when, or even if, military personnel should be exempt from civilian law. We try US military personnel in civilian courts all the damn time. The key parameters are what crime was committed, where it happened, and whose jurisdiction said personnel were arrested in. The more serious the offense and any involvement of operational or classified information greatly increases the probability that the soldier will be tried under the UCMJ instead of civilian law. Turns out very few civilian courts have the security clearances. I would have thought the more serious the offence the more likely they should be handed over to civilian authorities, especially cases of rape or murder.

Sometimes we do. Very recently we let th e Japanese try, convict, and imprision a couple of servicemen fot rape. Not even remotely the first time we've done that either. The key thing though is that none of those happen in active warzones and involve evidence requiring a TS or better clearance to view.

I can understand the difficulties, but also the concerns about cover ups and miscarriages of justice. Are there any provisions for cases to be reviewed?

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:

I can understand the difficulties, but also the concerns about cover ups and miscarriages of justice. Are there any provisions for cases to be reviewed?

Mostly such reviews come from either the prosecution or defendant filing for an appeal. For it to happen outside of apeals processes it would require some fairly high rank to order it, as in JCS or higher.

As far as miscarriages are concerned, that's almost always an issue of perception on the part of people simply not understanding how criminal trials are handled under most western legal standards. What you see as someone getting off light could be the result of a plea bargin or the prosecution's case wash't suffifient to get a conviction on charges with heavier penalties. Just like civilian courts, a court marshall can only pass sentence on charges that result in a conviction.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

You know a thread is going to be retarded when it violates Godwin's Law in the very first post.

Nope. Godwins law doesnt apply to a discussion that is actually about hitler.

SOB

YES IT DID.

Notice that anything military that 'failed' in Europe,
is a success in USA.
At first it was the NAZI style helmets that the Americans now adopt.
Now its everything else about NAZISM that the USA is taking on ...like heaps of racists with Guns,
who want a blond-blue-eyed Angel-Aryan male WHITE President from Team A,
...not a Black or a Yellow or a Raven haired Grey or a Brunette haired Blue - male from Team 1 (again).

Team A represents the 'future' of Politics, that has been ruled by Team 1 (the past) of who F***ed up by thinking the entire Northern Hemispher should be 'all white' like Yin/Yang.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 5:17am:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:38pm: You know a thread is going to be retarded when it violates Godwin's Law in the very first post. Nope. Godwins law doesnt apply to a discussion that is actually about hitler. SOB

Godwin's 'Law' is an artificial construct that doesn't apply MOST of the time.

Seems to be mostly invoked by those who are already losing the argument in most instances.

My bet is the guy who came up with it had just had his ass handed to him in an online argument.