Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If this gets kudos after I got nuttin' on my "Prisoner Abuse Probe Widened" headline, I'm gonna be seriously pissed.

That big tittied cow from Taxi still has a sucessful stage career, ................................in Podunk. You don't like the reaction here, you just need to take it on the road. Shoot, few weeks back I got a post of the month from plated on infirm for a run of the mill Gilligan post. Folks here expect too much. I think it stems from the witty repartee of the nightly Ty/notme arguments.

How are a couple a journeymen like us gonna rise over that atticus?

[sgtclub]

http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...r=World%20News

[Iniquity]

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/sto...503/FP_005.htm

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If this gets kudos after I got nuttin' on my "Prisoner Abuse Probe Widened" headline, I'm gonna be seriously pissed.

I was really just copying you.

But better.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was really just copying you.

But better.

Is plagiarism still in? I forget. Short-term memory thing.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was just asking if it was. I wasn't arguing with you. Its you guys that get to decide what is racism. We're just trying to keep score.

Would never have thought you were arguing, Hank. I know you understand the rules.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
[What I want to know is if "contractor" is the same code for "mercenary" that we were talking about last week, or is this a different sort of contractor. Also, what jurisdiction is such a "contractor" under? Can't be court marshalled, as far as I can tell.

If by "mercenary" you mean civilians paid as "independent contractors" to do military or quasi-military tasks, then yes. Could easily be in the employ of "OGA" (to use the au courant phrase), however, rather than the military.

The jurisdictional question is real intersting. As civilians, they can't be court-martialed. I doubt there is any kind of SoF agreement with the provisional government. U.S. law does not apply in Iraq, and we sure wouldn't turn them over to Iraqi courts.

S_A_M

[Iniquity]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If by "mercenary" you mean civilians paid as "independent contractors" to do military or quasi-military tasks, then yes. Could easily be in the employ of "OGA" (to use the au courant phrase), however, rather than the military.

The jurisdictional question is real intersting. As civilians, they can't be court-martialed. I doubt there is any kind of SoF agreement with the provisional government. U.S. law does not apply in Iraq, and we sure wouldn't turn them over to Iraqi courts.

They could agree to binding arbitration.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The jurisdictional question is real intersting. As civilians, they can't be court-martialed. I doubt there is any kind of SoF agreement with the provisional government. U.S. law does not apply in Iraq, and we sure wouldn't turn them over to Iraqi courts.

This can't possibly be a novel question (he says, talking out of his ass). I don't agree that U.S. law doesn't apply to American nationals in Iraq. You could treat the entire nation of Iraq as a federal reservation --- civilians commit crimes on military property all the time, and aren't court martialed. They get prosecuted by AUSAs or the DOJ. I'm sure there's also some procedure for prosecuting crimes committed by American nationals in embassies. I don't think the jurisdiction issue is all that tough.

What's tougher is the second part of your observation --- which law applies, which as we all know is a different question from jurisdiction. When a crime is committed on a federal reservation in the United States, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes state law applicable on the federal reservation because the USC is not comprehensive. Maybe there's some USC section allowing prosecution for common law crimes when an underpaid diplomat steals the silver candlesticks from the consulate or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
the second part of your observation --- which law applies, which as we all know is a different question from jurisdiction. When a crime is committed on a federal reservation in the United States, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes state law applicable on the federal reservation because the USC is not comprehensive.

If you're saying local law applies, then wives should be warned of that whole "not hard beating" thing before any conjugal visits.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're saying local law applies, then wives should be warned of that whole "not hard beating" thing before any conjugal visits.

True. We should also account for the fact that it's going to take a while to bring the Army medical corps up to speed on modern clitorodectomy techniques.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This can't possibly be a novel question (he says, talking out of his ass). I don't agree that U.S. law doesn't apply to American nationals in Iraq. You could treat the entire nation of Iraq as a federal reservation --- civilians commit crimes on military property all the time, and aren't court martialed. They get prosecuted by AUSAs or the DOJ. I'm sure there's also some procedure for prosecuting crimes committed by American nationals in embassies. I don't think the jurisdiction issue is all that tough.

You could treat it as a reservation, but under what authority? That the military has invaded and occupied it? THat seems a stretch. We have treaties with Indian reservations, and those territories are part of the united states, authority over which has been granted back to the relevant tribes.

And embassy property is US property. Indeed, I travel through Canada quite often on my way to lunch, and sometimes walk over to south Africa on the weekends if the weather is nice.

(ETA): Or we can just rely on 18 USC § 2441, which pretty much seems to cover it, at least if you take Less's view that these were war crimes.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You could treat it as a reservation, but under what authority? That the military has invaded and occupied it? THat seems a stretch. We have treaties with Indian reservations, and those territories are part of the united states, authority over which has been granted back to the relevant tribes.

And embassy property is US property. Indeed, I travel through Canada quite often on my way to lunch, and sometimes walk over to south Africa on the weekends if the weather is nice.

I wasn't joking about arbitration. If we're going to contract out the military, then why not contract out the regulation of it?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I wasn't joking about arbitration. If we're going to contract out the military, then why not contract out the regulation of it?

Enough with the socks. When were you joking, as this is your first post, no?

As for arbitration, have they agreed to it already? There's no reason that their contracts couldn't specify that Halliburton can discipline people for conduct prohibited by federal law as if commited in the US. But if there's no contract saying such for these folks, kind of out of luck.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You could treat it as a reservation, but under what authority? That the military has invaded and occupied it? THat seems a stretch. We have treaties with Indian reservations, and those territories are part of the united states, authority over which has been granted back to the relevant tribes.

And embassy property is US property. Indeed, I travel through Canada quite often on my way to lunch, and sometimes walk over to south Africa on the weekends if the weather is nice.

We are still talking about Abu Whatever prison, right? When the military appropriates foreign property for a battlefield purpose, I'd say it's federal land for purposes of jurisdiction, which was what we were talking about as the first stage of the analysis.

In retrospect, saying the federal reservation rule would apply to the whole of Iraq was excessive, but the prison, definitely. As for the rest of it, there's probably some doctrine of international law (ha!) that says you can prosecute your foreign nationals committing crimes abroad. It's not like it would be a double jeopardy problem --- just a "principles of comity" one. You get to hang your guy after the other guys quarter him.

We're going to need a Restatement of the Law (Colonialism) after this is done.