Quote:
Originally Posted by lam@ratf
I said if they're soldiers give them to the military, not civil, system for prosecution. They would only go to the Hague for war crimes. Every crime committed by a soldier isn't a war crime.
|
Covered that, you can't charge enemy combatants in your military courts, that would be a system open to complete abuse during actual war with real soldiers, would you want US marines to have been tried in an Iraqi (or worse) military court? Right now soldiers are obviously the same as civilians for most actions so I assumed you were talking about in the process of a war, which is what all these people would claim if it got them a lighter (international) punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lam@ratf
Yeah, the supremacists (racial, religious, whatever) aren't part of a military but they call themselves soldiers and say they're fighting a war as justification for what they do. Fine, let the military prosecute them under the UMJ Code.
If you're gonna say you're a soldier and claim that means what you did wasn't murder then you get a trial under the UCMJ and then get a firing squad or a hanging. Done.
|
Well that makes a bit more sense but the UCMJ only applies to US soldiers. Neither of the Hague's international courts have the power to execute people. So again you come accross the problem of prosecuting what we're hypothetically labelling "enemy combatants" in your own military court giving your enemys the excuse to do the same to you OR dismissing UCMJ and moving to the ICC/ICJ which cant issue the death penalty anyway.
Linear Mode
