Well, the European socialists would probably be the US's closest allies on such a court.

I don't percieve the US as being very popular in the world at this particular time. Leaders who do what they think is right seldom are. Just look at your chapter's president, he has to make some tough choices and do what he thinks is right although many people disagree with what he does.

The US is one of the few countries that actually prosecutes our own soldiers for atrocities committed on the battlefield. If anyone thinks these soldiers are going to walk away from this scott-free they are certainly mistaken.

I would, however, accept it if a US military tribunal decided to turn these fellas over to the court.

Those images were absolutely disgusting, and they undermine our moral authority.

Also, they weaken our military. The US has had a reputation of running POW camps that are almost fun. This makes it easier to get opposing troops to surrender. That means fewer deaths on both sides, and quicker battle resolution.

The Americans who participated in those pictures deserve the maximum allowable punishment, under American law.

If anyone wants to look up the Geneva Convention , here's the link:

Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

And another site relative to US and international military law:

Military Law and Legal Links

Anybody know what is the possible sentences, if they are found guilty, the soldiers might face?

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2002 edition:

Article 93—Cruelty and maltreatment

a. Text.

“Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

b. Elements.

(1) That a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and

(2) That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person.

c. Explanation.

(1) Nature of victim. “Any person subject to his orders” means not only those persons under the direct or immediate command of the accused but extends to all persons, subject to the code or not, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused, regardless whether the accused is in the direct chain of command over the person.

(2) Nature of act. The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard. Assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense. Sexual harassment includes influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both.

d. Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts

e. Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

f. Sample specification.

In that (personal jurisdiction data), (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data , if required), on or about _________________ 20__ , (was cruel toward) (did (oppress) (maltreat)), a person subject to his/her orders, by (kicking him/her in the stomach) (confining him/her for twenty-four hours without water) (_______________).

Don't forget the ever popular "conduct unbecoming" that gets tacked on to any charge....

AlphaSigOU -> I always thought that Arcticle 93 apllied to members serving with you, or under your authority, not enemy combatants or prisoners... aren't they in violation of another Arcticle or two?

I have seen a case like this before in the Canadian military... and I wouldn't be suprised if more comes of it; as it is I have seen allegations/accusations that Military Intelligence is trying to cover-up it's involvement..... hopefully the military will come down hard and fast, investigate all angles and most importantly be very forth coming in the investigation and prosecution.... because a cover-up exposed can be even more damaging..... as I said i've seen it, and the results, sad to say it's what led to the disbandment of our Airborne Regiment.


PS> Has anyone heard anything more about the Brit's? Last I heard there was suggestions that the photos seemed "off" (wrong headdress and weapon for theatre).

Herd that some interogations are now handled by "contractors"

I doubt that.... that violates to many laws and articles to mention....

Some news report seems to verify that contractors are used for interogation. Here is one:


Link to the Rest of the Story

Article 93 is generally interpreted to also cover prisoners (general and prisoners of war) and detainees under a person's command or control.

In most cases, they'll probably be stuck with several other charges and lesser-included offenses including the catch-all Article 134 (general article) which covers conduct unbecoming.

We should classify them as enemy combatants and then go to town.

-Rudey

Remember one thing, There is a Military Code Of Conduct! If these Soldiers did what is reported, they should be punished! Why, because, that makes US no different than those we are fighting.

Other Non Combantats, Does the CIA, NSA, or some others that we hear nothing about that are out there!

So we pull out of Fu*k city and turn it over to a Bathist General from The Rep. Guard and now the Iraqis are calling us cowards. Well, lets just wait and see if this General gets Their S**t together or be a typical dick!

Wow, The Americans are gone, lets shoot weapons up in the air for celebtstion! Really makes sense doesnt it!

Goes up=comes down!

I hope this reaction by the US giving a Homiey General the Power turns out all right! How, crack down on the die hards, dis arm them and restore order! But again, time will tell!:(

Stay tuned, it should not take long to find out if the General Loves His Country or Hates America or anyother Coellition Country!

Actually even if they were classified as enemy combatants (which most actual probibly are by looking at the dates that the incidents happened) they would fall under equal protection under US military law....