The morality of Italian agent killing

[adios]

....

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,
Due to Geneva Convention (yes, the convention that most Europeans manage to see that is more important than national security) an occupier is responsible for law & order in the occupied country.

The killing seems to be a result of not handling law & order in a satisfactory matter and is thus by the Geneva Convention US responsibility.

Messing with these principles (like Guantanama) reduces the state to a institution to work in its citizens interest without moral responsibility. This is very dangerous, as Hitler wanted the best for Germans as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this rate, I am starting to believe we should kill some more. I like Italy, and I like Italians, but my God, enough is enough. Get over it. It was an accident, mostly the fault of those in the car from what it looks like too.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other ones discussing what happened, this one is focusing on US' lame attempts to not take responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's a shame. But for this administration, looks like it's a virtue not to take responsability of anything. Some posters here even think it's courageous to have such attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant liberals say this alot. However, why would you take responsibility for something that is clearly not your fault?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Interesting post. My own experiences are coherent with your.

Just an interesting perspective. An communications expert here was interviewed about this incident and the general PR-failure of the Pentagon. He said that they have three audiences in this matter, the Arab world, U.S. allies and the domestic public. The arab world is already lost; the message needed to be sent to allies (humility) and the message needed for the domestic public (backing of troops) is so contradictive that the Pentagon needs to prioritize its own domestic public since the war on terror is dependant on domestic support.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The stone cold fact of life that, legally, the United States military personnel enjoys practically total immunity in almost all the countries around the world. If, for example, a soldier walks out of his base in Germany and kills two women for fun or whatever reason, he will be legally put on a plane and whisked off to his base in the States to face trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like the US arbitrarily makes these decisions. Anywhere that US troops are presentin a foreign country, there exists something called a status of forces agreement which delineates what types of offenses the host country will try themselves and which ones they will release the perpetrator to US custody for trial. Notice the key word agreement. American service members have been tried in Japan, Okinawa, Turkey, and Slovakia just to name a few. There is currently a US service member awaiting trial in Hong Kong for assaulting a taxi driver. So, no, US forces dont practically enjoy immunity.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
At this rate, I am starting to believe we should kill some more. I like Italy, and I like Italians, but my God, enough is enough. Get over it. It was an accident, mostly the fault of those in the car from what it looks like too

[/ QUOTE ]

Tw@thead - u get over it. Your troops suck like shite. Cannon fodder for the Arabs. They should complain to their officers and people in the US should demand better training and preparation. This isn't the Second World War, where Montgomery was quoted as saying he was sick of American Generals sacrificing needlessly their troops to achieve objectives - e.g. Macarthy.

Jeez, if someone like you had a gun it would be frightening

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
They should complain to their officers and people in the US should demand better training and preparation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont you ask someone who actually knows something about the military and war if they think that American troops are "shite" and poorly trained.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Vulturesrow: "It's not like the US arbitrarily makes these decisions. Notice the key word agreement. No, US forces dont practically enjoy immunity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so ? "Agreement", you say? Well, I take drastic arm-twisting by a superpower to be the same as unilateral action. Am I wrong? Read on:

[ QUOTE ]
In capitals around the world, U.S. government representatives are seeking bilateral immunity, or so-called “Article 98” agreements (dubbed “impunity agreements”) by leading legal experts, in an effort to shield U.S. citizens from prosecution by the newly-created International Criminal Court (ICC or Court).
<font color="white"> . </font>
The pursuit of bilateral immunity agreements is part of a long history of U.S. efforts to gain immunity for its citizens from the ICC.
<font color="white"> . </font>
From 1995 through 2000, the U.S. government supported the establishment of an ICC, yet one that could be controlled through the Security Council or provided exemption from prosecution of U.S. officials and nationals.
In 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued participation in ICC meetings and, on 6 May 2002, officially nullified the Clinton administration’s signature of the Rome Statute.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Contrary to assurances from high-level U.S. officials, the U.S. is not respecting the rights of States that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute. As it did in seeking an exemption for peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the ICC through the Security Council, the U.S. government is using coercive tactics to obtain immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC for its nationals.
<font color="white"> . </font>
U.S. officials have publicly threatened economic sanctions, such as the termination of military assistance, if countries do not sign the agreement.

<font color="white"> . </font>
: From Global Policy Forum


[/ QUOTE ]

And here's a sample immunity agreement, USA &amp; East Timor:

[ QUOTE ]
In October 2003, East Timor’s President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister traveled to Washington to meet with George Bush and Colin Powell. Only one formal agreement emerged from their conversations: the government of East Timor gave up its authority to ask U.S. soldiers in East Timor to obey East Timorese laws.
<font color="white">. </font>
East Timor and the United States signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which defines the rights and responsibilities of soldiers from one country (the “sending state”) who are based in another (the “receiving state”). *
<font color="white"> . </font>
<font color="blue"> The SOFA treats United States military personnel in East Timor as if they were administrative staff in the U.S. embassy.</font> East Timorese authorities cannot arrest or detain them, charge them with crimes, extradite them to other countries, compel them to testify in court, or hold them responsible for any half-East Timorese children they might father. Their homes and personal property are “inviolable.” They are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties. link

[/ QUOTE ]

* : Note that, theoretically, the agreement is equally balanced. If East Timor has, in the future, military bases in the United States, its soldiers will enjoy the same kind of immunity from U.S. authorities!

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The killing seems to be a result of not handling law &amp; order in a satisfactory matter ....

[/ QUOTE ]
You raise excellent points but this is putting it mildly. The U.S. war against Iraq was an illegal, criminal act of aggression under U.S. and international law. (For discussions of this proposition, see here). The invasion plainly violates Article 2 the UN Charter (also a U.S. law), which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" while compelling resort to peaceful means to resolve disputes. It is an act of aggression, a war crime under UNGAR 3314.

Common sense suggests that states who kill people while committing criminal acts should not be shielded by the standards of evidence applicable to those who kill while acting legally. A burglar who kills a homeowner trying to defend his property, for example, should not be able to claim self-defense. This principle is enshrined in the much broader felony murder rule used by most if not all states in the U.S.: any homicide by committed by someone while perpetrating a felony is deemed to be murder without regard to the defendant’s state of mind, including any defense based on justification or accident. The U.S. has as much right to invade Iraq, erect lethal roadblocks and execute those who fail to obey orders.

Caprini was shot by forces engaged in an illegal war and was therefore murdered. His killers should not be able to rely on the almost ubiquitously ignored speed limit that his driver allegedly violated.

[Utah]

Well, if your argument is correct that who cares if Caprini was killed. After all, he was a criminal agent of the criminal actions of the corrupt Italian Government. His death would then be akin to Hitler killing an SS officer who was performing his duty.