Following the news today about more soldiers committing atrocities in the name of the west while on tour in Iraq, what should the punishment be for soldiers found guilty of committing such crimes (rape and murder)?

In this case linked above, should Iraqi courts try the soldiers, with punishment meeted out by them - in all likelihood, death?

Your link didn't mention "more atrocities committed by soldiers", it's a review of old cases. Care to explain your choice of phraseology?

I don't believe in subjecting our soldiers to an arbitrary and chaotic justice system because they were sent to do a job in conditions bordering on anarchy, no. Soldier Green should be entitled to the same legal protections offered to Ted Bundy and Danny Rolling. This doesn't mean that justice shouldn't be served. Both of those men received the death penalty, but only after being provided a reasonable defense.

I'd say, the same as given in any civilian court of law for such crimes with perhaps an extra severity of sentence, or lack of parole opportunities (if such things are indeed extended to murderers) for the added misdeed of bring shame upon the coalition forces.


That would depend on the legal nature of the relationship between the USA and Iraq, but since I am opposed to the death sentence in nearly all crimes (everything up to dictatorship and genocide) then I could never condone a judicial execution following such a case and I would see it as wrong for these soldiers to be tried in any court that would pass a death sentence.

The fact that they might possibly be dealt a lighter sentence if tried and found guilty in the USA though, does not sit well with my sense of justice, but neither does the prospect of an Iraqi court given the mood of many Iraqi's. Personally, I'd be inclined to withhold the soldiers if they were under my authority and try them under US military law. If I was an Iraqi, I would no doubt see things in a very different light. I know it bothers me no end when Muslim immigrants in Denmark are given ridiculously lenient sentences for raping Danish girls, even under aged girls, but I must be content with the law and decision of the courts and the same goes for the people of Iraq.

Even if you don't agree with a legal decision, you must respect the decision or call the legal system to order by means of one's democratic vote. By which I mean, vote for people who will strengthen the laws to your liking.

Mrs P already addressed the 'newness' of this case....but committed in the name of the west? That's certainly some editorializing. Until a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) can be negotiated, those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines cannot be tried by the Iraqi Justice system.
A SOFA between the US and Iraq was supposed to be implemented by 31 March 2004, but it never materialized.
If found guilty, however, those convicted should be prosecuted to the absolute fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Tsk tsk. A red herring makes its continuous appearance. And lost in the muddle is the fact that a 14 year old child was raped and murdered. The only way...the only way such an attitude can be accepted is if they truly believe that if it were an Iraqi raping and murdering a 14 year old American girl, they would demand the same. Meaning, if Iraqi soldiers raped and butchered an American child in Washington D.C, Mrs. Pigpen would be the first to rise up and tell her fellow Americans that the Iraqi soldiers ought not be prosecuted in the US by Americans, but rather the Iraqi soldier should be given justice by the Iraqi courts with no US invlovement. Since that's hardly likely, I have to place the person in the one-sided-blind-to-co-relation slot. I wonder...If China were to invade the US because of their very real WMD stockpile, would Mrs Pigpen be the first to apply to the Chinese-US provisional government to become a Chinese-controlled police officer to best suppress any and all attacks her fellow American citizens may commit against the Chinese Provisional Government which takes its orders from Beijing? Like I've always said, you have to take in the whole picture, by which I mean if you think it's fine for the US to kill Iraqis while they build schools in Iraq, you'd have to accept that it's fine for the Chinese to kill Americans while they build schools in the USA. Otherwise, you're biased and lack credibility.

TM can tsk tsk all he wishes to. Status of Forces Agreements are binding law. If you would choose not to follow the law, then what moral high ground can you possibly take when all you have to fall back on is irrelevant analogies about Chinese and emotion?
This thread is not about the emotional aspects and the shamefulness of the crime of rape and murder. This thread is about how to punish them within the constraints of US and international law.

Iraqis visiting America are bound by American laws, and subject to our legal system. Likewise, American citizens visiting overseas are bound by that country's laws and legal system (I'm reminded of the Singapore caning incident). Soldiers are sent in harms way under orders and penalty of imprisonment if they refuse. They are not visitors in the same sense of the world. Furthermore, they are placed in situations of anarchy (war is their job, afterall), and in the case of Iraq the legal system is corrupt and arbitrary.

Ergo there is absolutely no comparison to the Iraqi in America versus the AMerican soldier forced to serve in Iraq. Your argument makes no more sense than saying "you are biased and uncredible because you would trust the legal system in France but not the Sudan." You could repeat this as a mantra and claim bias as many times as you wish, but it does nothing to support your argument...as there will still remain, at the end of the day, a significant difference between France and the Sudan.

Soldiers do not relinquish their rights to legal protection when they enlist in the service. I would say, though, that this hypothetical Iraqi in such an instance should receive every protection afforded by our legal system, just as our soldiers should. The day that the Iraqi government is able to offer such protections (like most first world countries) we could come to a SOFA agreement and then our soldiers might be subject to the Iraqi court system. That isn't the case now.

Actually, technically, they can try them. A SOFA protects the servicemember from the local authorities, not grants the authorities the right to try them. Right now we are acting under "Law of the Flag," in essence, we are just going to try our people, becasue, well, we have them and we have the hardware to keep them. It is a pragmatic approach to Justice more than anything.

B