Afghanistan massacre suspect flown to Kuwait
Source: Independent / AP
The American soldier accused of shooting dead 16 Afghan villagers in a pre-dawn rampage has been flown to Kuwait, it has emerged.
The move came as many Afghans called for the unnamed staff sergeant to face justice in their country.
Afghan government officials did not immediately respond to calls for comment on the late-night announcement.
The US military said the transfer did not preclude the possibility of trying the case in Afghanistan and defence secretary Leon Panetta has said the soldier could receive capital punishment if convicted.
Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistan-massacre-suspect-flown-to-kuwait-7573080.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)tried in Afghanistan. He's part of the US military and that's who should try him and if convicted, punished by the US military.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)He did not do this as part of any US operation. I think there's a good case he should be tried in a civil court in Afghanistan.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)From what I've read about him, I'm not even sure he would be considered competent to stand trial. The guy was put on a grueling deployment schedule after suffering brain damage. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's tragic, but I can't think of any good solution to this.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus he can ONLY be tried in a US Military Court (i.e. Court Martial). Such clauses are standard in any country the US has a base in, when such an agreement would NOT be renewed by the Iraqi government, the US withdrew its forces.
Thus this soldier can NOT be tried by an Afghan court, he can only be tried by Court Martial.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)and while that means the SU can say "he can't be tried by an Afghan criminal court", that doesn't mean they should exercise that right. If an embassy employee carries out serious crimes like murder in a friendly country, most countries will allow a prosecution to go ahead, unless they want diplomatic relations to be broken off. It doesn't say much for the trust in the country if the US military says "you're still incapable of holding a murder trial"; about the only way I can see the US could follow that through with any honour is to say "the mission has failed, and we must withdraw all forces immediately, since they are a danger to Afghanistan".
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Anyone who thinks he can get a fair trial there is dreaming.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Highly public military trials either serve to sweep the offenses under the rug as expeditiously as possible or they serve as show trials whose conclusions are foregone. Personally, I think this guy should simply be handed over to Afghan authorities, preferably in the village where he murdered so many civilians. No, his treatment will not meet our standards of "fairness." On the other hand, HE didn't apply our standards when he chose to murder unarmed civilian noncombatants, either. I'm all out of sympathy for thugs like him.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)he didn't have a psychotic break? He was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and sent back to fight. Don't you think you we should make sure he's competent to stand trial before we just hand him over to people who cut people's heads off as a criminal penalty?
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...than he has in avoiding it. The military apparently thought him competent enough to kill on command, so it's somewhat disingenuous to start worrying about the shooter's mental health now, don't you think? And awfully convenient as a means of shoving all those murders under the rug.
Note too that his rampage apparently went on for hours within walking distance and easy hearing range of U.S. forces, who did nothing to intervene. Presumably, if he was undergoing a "psychotic break" his actions were nonetheless not exceptional to those who sat and listened to him shooting civilians for several hours.
If the comment "He was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and sent back to fight." is meant to elicit sympathy for him, it doesn't. What about the people he harmed? What of their rights to justice? You don't like their customs, but they are the aggrieved party here, not the U.S. military.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)have jeopardized every military person - not just in Afghanistan. I'm just willing to give him the same courtesy I'm willing to give anyone who has committed a crime as I assume any progressive would do - unless they're part of the military, it seems from this thread.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)From reply #1, and the start of this sub-thread:
"I do NOT want this soldier tried in Afghanistan. He's part of the US military and that's who should try him and if convicted, punished by the US military."
If an American civilian killed 16 people, mostly women and children, in a foreign country in the middle of the night, would you be saying that they shouldn't be tried in the country the killing took place in?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That you're comparing the two situations is ridiculous. He's not a tourist.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)"I'm just willing to give him the same courtesy I'm willing to give anyone who has committed a crime"
You seem wildly inconsistent about this.
He was not acting as part of his mission; he went out in the middle of the night, on his own.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)be trying him at all. Only the American military who are still covered by the US constitution. When your're a tourist, you are agreeing to abide by the laws of the country you are visiting. That's hardly the case with the military.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)He was, for all intents and purposes, an armed and dangerous tourist, unless you're arguing that his membership in the U.S. military automatically conveys the right to murder innocents by the score for self amusement. And you've never commented upon the base command that apparently ignored his rampage while it was in progress. Personally, I believe that the entire mission is dysfunctional and broken, that command responsibilities are routinely ignored, and that the troops in Afghanistan serve no coherent purpose other than as thugs for an exploitative U.S. foreign policy. This entire episode ONLY makes sense in that context. Why did no one intervene, or even investigate while he was shooting up villagers within easy walking distance of the U.S. base? Because his actions did not appear exceptional. Why has the Pentagon characterized this, and every other such incident in both Afghanistan and Iraq as "isolated incidents" without any connections to one another? Because that's exactly what they are not, so that's the form the denial takes. They aren't isolated incidents-- they're symptoms of the erosion of command responsibility in garrison forces who lack clear and achievable objectives beyond creating violence-- in short, who are being used as the sharp end of geopolitical extortion.
That soldier was not acting within the capacity of his mission in Afghanistan. He CHOSE to step outside even that thinly veiled clusterfuck and he deliberately attacked helpless noncombatants, including women and children. After killing them, he attempted to stack and burn the bodies of children, according to witnesses who survived. Why should the military provide him with any cover?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)your first sentence. It's utter nonsense to call him a tourist.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)He was either doing his job or he was stepping out. Which do you think?
webDude
(875 posts)
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The US left Iraq partly because the Iraqis would not relinquish the right to charge American soldiers. Many Democrats pointed out that committing US soldiers without that would be something no American President would agree to. I assume that we have that agreement in Afghanistan.
However, this was a massacre - unrelated to any American mission. In that sense, the soldier's action was worse than Lt Calley's in Vietnam - where his superiors were at least partly to blame for the action.
In addition to Panetta's comments, there were comments by Senators on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. Most stressed that it will be US jurisdiction - some made the point that the process needs to show the Afghanis that it is treated seriously.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201203141309usnewsusnwr201203130313dotmil.trialmar14,0,1297987.story
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)if he had some psychotic break (I know this site has an anti-military bent and don't care but whatever). If he is found fit to stand trial, it will be by his peers who are probably more likely to punish him than many here would think. He's made their jobs that much harder.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)How many mass murders did NOT have some kind of psychotic break? I do realize that he has greatly increased, not just the difficulty, but the danger for them to do the jobs they are doing. I saw no one posting that the US military would not punish him in accordance to his crime, given his mental state.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and anybody who has been on this board as long as I have will be tagged as completely dishonest to say there is a high level of respect for our military here.
This soldier was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury so I want to see what professionals have to say about his state of mind. But regardless of what that shows, whether he's judged competent to stand trial or not, I'm not in favor of letting the thoroughly corrupt Karzai government anywhere near his trial.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I agree with you that there are some here who are anti-military, but I think the percent is far lower than it would have been had the internet and this board existed in the late 1960s! ( disclaimer - I was a college student then) I think a large part of the credit for why many Democrats are less anti military than in the Vietnam era is John Kerry - both from 1971 and from the present.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Afghan government? Who the hell else would be trying him? The military are part of the same corrupt machine there. And look around the thread - there are some who want him turned over to the Afghani's. I'm not dreaming this.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Some here on DU - of course.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that I've heard of. Just some people here.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)According to the "logic" I've been reading here at DU, he's an enemy militant who has not just targeted but killed civilians. He should turn himself in to Afghan authorities, and failing that, Afghanistan would merely be following the United States' example in sending out a hit squad to murder him and anyone around him, and dumping his body at sea, as in the case of Osama bin Laden. Or, once they identified where he was, the Afghans could launch a missile into the area he was staying in, blowing up the accused and anyone around him. These methods would also extend to anyone who lends him aid and comfort, or espouses support for him or his family, as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Everyone comfortable with other countries using our methods? Why or why not?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Or, once they identified where he was (*), the Afghans could launch a missile into the
> area he was staying in, blowing up the accused and anyone around him.
If any bystanders happen to be killed or maimed in the process then it's just their
tough luck for supporting him as there are no innocents in the War on Terra ...
Don't even need to make a "politician's apology" for that sort of thing these days.
(*) On current tactics, the location "Kuwait" would be sufficient to grant carte blanche.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Doesn't really matter as he's already in Kuwait.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But I've seen countless posts explaining how good and righteous our bona fide, certified drone missile attacks, Navy SEAL raids, and all the other summary executions we carry out are. I've felt rather lonely more than once advocating for our government to follow the Constitution. I've been regularly lectured about how necessary and vital it is for our military to blow away anyone, anywhere on little more than the say-so of the person whose finger is hovering over the launch button. I've been repeatedly assured that the people we target are very, very bad, and any bystanders luckless enough to be in the vicinity when the missile strikes or the SEALs bust in should have been more careful about who they associate with.
I'm asking the folks who take that position if they're comfortable with Afghanistan using our tactics and methods against someone accused of the unprovoked, wanton murder of more than a dozen Afghanis. Would Afghanistan - or any other country - be justified in blowing up the site in Kuwait where the nameless, faceless accused murderer is hiding out? If not, why not? What's different, except for the nationality of the persons involved, both victims and victimizers? There are folks at DU who think it's all right for us to dispatch hit squads all over the globe to kill very, very bad persons; do they think it's all right for other countries to use those exact same methods to kill our murderer?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)sympathize to a point and it ties in with why I don't want the Afghani government trying this soldier. The government there is corrupt and I really don't want an American soldier tried by people who think cutting off someone's head is justice (I'm against the death penalty here as well). Unfortunately, there are already people from some of these countries that who kill innocent Americans (Daniel Pearl for one). I know this is an unpopular position here but not all cultures are created equal and deserving of respect.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But there always seems to be a reason why our corruption and lawlessness is superior to other countries' corruption and lawlessness. I don't buy those reasons, and if the United States is to pretend to some kind of cultural primacy, it would really advance the argument if we followed our own laws. Yeah, cutting people's heads off is horrific and barbaric. So is sending out hit squads to gun down sick old men or firing missiles into private homes on the belief that someone very, very bad is living or visiting there. Or imprisoning people indefinitely without charge or trial. Or torturing people to the point of madness. That doesn't deserve respect, either, and we've subjected far more people to those horrors.
I'm in favor of due process and speedy trials, and I'm not willing to limit that just to the "good" guys. Either everyone gets human rights or nobody does, because they can be taken away at any time. And rights that are granted only at the point of a gun or under the threat of violence aren't really rights at all. I never know from day to day whether I'll be deemed a "good" guy or a "bad" guy.
After 10 years of an often violent occupation, the fact that the United States hasn't done any better at installing a respect for the law is not only a mission failure, but a failure of our society to model the behavior we'd like to see in others.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)in order to criticize a backwards society. I have no problem whatsoever in how we got bin laden-didn't lose a wink of sleep (maybe it's cuz I'm a New Yorker). A failire of mission perhaps as trying to impose modern beliefs (like women aren't slaves) on a society that doesn't value the same things we do was bound to fail - I don't look at it as a failure of our society at all.
Solly Mack
(90,770 posts)"But there always seems to be a reason why our corruption and lawlessness is superior to other countries' corruption and lawlessness."
Our war crimes are somehow kinder and gentler than the other guys. Besides, we had good intentions. (doncha know!)
Igel
(35,317 posts)If you cut off somebody's head in punishment, you make sure that you're punishing that person for what that person did. You may injure or kill people trying to get to that person--but you should minimize the injuries and dead.
That's usually the thinking behind a drone attack. More are cancelled because of bystanders than occur. Most target a person that the targeters believe are guilty of either carrying out or planning something bad.
Beheadings (and a lot of the killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan) targets a group. You aren't punishing somebody for what he did. You behead a Jew not because he did something bad to you or your family or even your natio but because he's a Jew and somewhere, at some time, some Jew did something bad that you want to reach justice over. You capture a US soldier and behead him not because of what he did--his status as a US soldier is enough to make him guilty of complicity in the bombing of somebody 300 miles away the previous year--or his status as a NATO soldier is justification. You blow up a group of Shi'ites in revenge for something a group of Shi'ites did in the 800s, or because they offend you by not being true believers and as righteous as yourself. You kill Ahmedis because, well, they are scum. Or you blow up some tourists because they're "Western" or "Christian" or "crusaders" and since you can't get to those actually guilty--not that this is always a big deal--you kill members of their tribe, even if they're Chinese.
Strictly speaking, if tried in Afghan courts and if the family of those murdered by this US soldier agree, diyya could be paid and the man could walk. Or diyya could be paid and some lesser sentence agreed to. But if he's tried in US court then the diyya cannot be determined by the family and the sentence is not their doing. Not only is it not their doing, it is not done by their clan, tribe, nation state, or ummah. Their honor is not reinstated; and in this, the family has first say over how Pashtun honor is to be restored--they suffered the dishonor, and all Pashtuns suffered vicariously.
Then again, they'd be required, if the miscreant weren't turned over to authorities, to try to attack him. In this collateral damage doesn't much matter. There is guilt by association (something that many Americans deeply believe in, as long as they're imputing the guilt and determining the chain of associations).
The difference is, because what he has done has been recognized as a crime. He's been arrested, jailed and will face charges and punishment if deemed mentally fit. He's not sitting in a safe house or terrorist training camp somewhere, protected from the consequences of his transgressions and not only hailed as a hero, but encouraged and helped to engage in even more barbarous acts.
Besides, if our enemies in Afghanistan possessed drones, I'm almost certain they'd use them whenever and wherever possible without regard to any precedent we may have set. It's not like they were strangers to brutality before they met up with the U.S.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I'd explain the finer points of these "differences" to Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki, except for one minor detail. But since we're the good guys, always and everywhere, the people of Afghanistan should rest comfortably in the knowledge that we'll do something and call it "justice," no matter what it might look like to them.
sylvi
(813 posts)You're comparing apples and oranges. Do you think we would have fired a missile at al-Awlaki if he had been sitting in a Yemen prison awaiting charges and trial? I doubt it. His son's death, tragic as it was is not relevant to the comparison at hand, which is: Is it the same to kill someone awaiting trial for their offenses as it is to kill someone on the run and free to commit more offenses?
No, it's not.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Over the village he killed a 2-yr old toddler in, with nothing but a parachute on.
Let justice be done.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)To determine if he's mentally fit to be held accountable for his actions. If so, then a fair trial.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)is it that would return a brain-damaged soldier to the front lines? How craven is a policy that is so desperate to continue a war that it resorts to returning brain-damaged soldiers to the front lines? How craven is a policy that re-deploys and re-deploys, and re-deploys brain-damaged soldiers to the front lines? CRAVEN, CRAVEN, CRAVEN!!
