to think that the soldier who shot dead those people should be handed over to the Afghan government?

[TheRhubarb]

I'm not sure what responses I will get here so let me just run through my thoughts on this.

He shot dead children and beat the women before shooting them too and dragging their bodies to a house, covering them with cushions and sticks and burning them.

If this had happened over here, we would try the murderer according to our own laws.
Even if the murderer had fled back to his own country, we would order his deportation.
Afghanistan have full UK and US support, so what does it say about our faith in their government if the US refuse to release the man into their custody?
Why is it one rule for us and another for them?

Many soldiers will now also die because of this man's act and amongst them might be British soldiers, so he will potentially be responsible for many more deaths yet by revenge acts.

The only way to appease the Afghan people and to show our trust in the government is surely to hand the perpetrator over to them? Only in that way can we hope to prevent revenge attacks.

Is one man's life - a murderers life at that - worth more than those of serving soldiers in the US and UK army?

I'm willing to listen to all opinions on this.

Off now, back later.

very convoluted dallas but no you weren't

Umm, yes I was.

I haven't been smug and patronising yet

your tone is. Maybe unintentionally, but it is

Bye then scaryteacher, can't wait for your return so you can patronise some more! Thanks for enlightening me with your opinions by the way.

Dallas, thank you for illustrating your point clearly.

Let me answer that. In our psychology whilst the deaths of any people are undoubtedly shocking, we tend to accept it more in the military because we know that they are targeted day after day. For example, in World War Two, civilian deaths were always more shocking and reported on than military deaths. Because when you are at war, military casualties are expected - soldiers are shooting at each other. But civilans deaths are seen as tragic because they have not chosen to fight in a war.

Now I realise this is not a war before scaryteacher gets picky again. And actually I do find every death tragic. What affected me about this to be quite frank and honest, was that it was committed by a US soldier against men, women and children in their own homes.

This was not a roadside bomb or friendly fire. This was not a tragic accident that happened in the heat of the moment. This was a planned attack by a US soldier against Afghan civilians.

Do you know what finally turned the tide against the Vietnam war? It was the reports of the treatment of the Vietnam people by US servicemen. It was the accounts of rape of children, killings, torture etc carried out by US soldiers.

It is deplorable to insinuate that I view British soldiers deaths as less tragic than Afghan civilan deaths. I did not start this thread to say "OMG how awful and tragic!" I started it to question why the killer was not handed over to the Afghan government for his trial.

Is that a clear enough answer?

Oh and yes, the murder of women and children resonates with us more because we are women with children of our own and we have the priviledge of being safe in our homes (the vast majority of us are before scaryteacher again chooses to derail this by going on about DV) whereas they are not safe. They put their children to bed and none of them saw the morning.

That affects me more I admit, than a report of a soldier dying under fire. Because I can relate to it more. I have never been a soldier, but I am a mother.

I do think that the killing of children is more tragic and shocking than adult service personnel

I also think it is a very valid point to raise, that the death of Afghans and their suffering, is minimised in comparison with our forces

I meant to bold do rather than think

I am also appauled by the mass slaughter of civilians in Syria and I bloody hope that the Syrian President will one day be prosecuted for war crimes. There simply isn't enough room on Mumsnet for all the threads you could start on all the atrocities committed around the world against women and children.

This one caught my eye. Perhaps because it was committed by a US soldier. Perhaps because of the way he killed them. Perhaps because of the one personal story of the man who returned to find his entire family wiped out. Perhaps because the media are already blaming it on mental health problems. Perhaps because the day after the event and being heartbroken the US President and the PM were munching on hotdogs and watching a ballgame.

I don't know why this one and not the others caught my eye yesterday, but it did. I cannot rage against everything that happens in this world, I do my bit courtesy of Amnesty International but you can only pick on a few incidents or else you would be so busy raging that you would be incapable of doing anything constructive.

the incident was horrific.

i feel extraordinarily sick to my stomach that the colleagues of the soldier concerned were unable to recognise his state of mind and prevent such an atrocity.

i felt even more sick watching BO essentially promise the death sentence before an evaluation of the circumstances and prior to trial.

the leadership of the US have placed (and continue to place) fragile and unstable men and women in untenable positions, repeatedly, and are now dealing with the aftermath. he can't accept responsibility for over-stretch and poor screening, and so he has no option but to make the 'he will pay' call. US commentators are already noting the disregard for mental health provisions and bureaucratic complacency, and recognised inadequacies of the soldier's home unit.

v sad all round.

and really unlikely to win BO the military vote, however many ball games he fetches up to.

the least suitable response is to let the Afghan Govt deal with the incident. if that happens no status of forces agreement will stand again. no rules. descent into anarchy.

rest in peace, all involved.

Yes, absolutely, I understand what you are saying - obviously your point is clearer than mine!

...and I have no problem with it - I said at the very start (before the thread wandered off on a tangent) that I agreed with much of what you were saying. In some ways I do wish that the US soldier that committed this evil was handed over to the Afghani Government, but I know it wont happen.

I can also fully understand that you feel more for the children dying, so do I. Just because I am a soldier doesn't mean that I automatically feel more for them - quite the opposite. The soldiers (myself and my DH included) knew what they were getting into. I loved being on Ops, and I know DH did too - we felt more useful there than anywhere else. As terrified as I was of losing DH, I knew that if I did lose him he would have gone doing the thing he loved and was well trained for - I hope I would have been rather stoic and controlled about it. However, if I were an Afghani mum now I'm sure I'd be trying to find the nearest gun...

In fact the only point on this thread where I disagree with you is the basketball match of all things!

Really Dallas? Well we must agree to disagree on the match then. I felt it was an unnecessary trifle and could well be seen as insensitive to the people of Afghanistan to be pictured and filmed eating hot dogs, laughing and joking a day after the tragedy he was so heartbroken about and on the day the victims were buried (I note scaryteacher on the other thread hasn't accepted she was wrong on that point).

I am very concerned about retaliation attacks and how many more deaths this US soldier will be responsible for. I am also concerned about the US army even being there and how so many 'incidents' that occur usually involve the US army. Just how are they training them? What is going wrong?

I wish to goodness he was turned over to the Afghans but I know that, realistically it's never going to happen. Doesn't stop me being angry about it though. It does smack of the one rule for them policy.

Anyway, I have to go.

I too would like to say RIP for those victims. And for all the victims of Afghanistan. It's never acceptable and never should be.

The policy for US jurisdiction was agreed by the head of the Afghan government, and unless you say his rule is illegitimate, then what is happening is right under Afghan law.

I agree with madwomaninthe attic's latest post.

And would add that over two thirds of Afghan casualties are caused by other Afghans, and that the indiscriminate but systematic planting of IEDs is an abomination every bit as deplorable as this one incident.

And also a brief note of thanks to the military medical personnel stationed out there, who treat Afghan casualties on the same triage as service personnel, and who have done so much, with local counterparts, to extend medical services there from reaching 8% of the population (mostly male) when they arrived to over 80% with equal sex access now.

i think that's really important to note, edith.

no discrimination in care. easy to lose sight of that fact when the causes of injury and trauma are so blurred, and the focus is very much on attributing causation.

humanitarian acts don't make the headlines, particularly when they are ongoing and resolute.

EdithWeston, as the Afghan government is only in power through the support of the US and UK, I would say that perhaps agreeing to the policy for US jurisdiction was not a choice they had?

No-one is saying that the armed forces do not do a brilliant job in other areas or that injury and death on either side is any less horrific.

My initial question, before I knew of the US jurisdiction policy (which I hadn't in the case of SOFA as I'm not well acquained with military law) was whether or not this soldier should be tried in Afghanistan where he was stationed and where he committed the crimes. My reasoning behind that was that this new atrocity - following the burning of the Koran and the urinating on dead bodies - would led to more lives being lost and that as an example of the confidence the US has in the Afghanistan government, it would have been a show of solidarity and support to demonstrate to the people there that we do take these killings seriously and that just because they were committed by a US serviceman does not mean that he will get away with it.

I also wondered why that rule applied in Afghanistan and whether it applied here or in the US? Obviously we are not under military rule, but if someone from Afghanistan killed 16 civilians including women and children here, in Britain and then fled back to his country, would we not hunt him down and bring him back here to be tried and punished? We are very quick to act when it is our own being killed, but we seem rather lax lustre when it comes to civilians in other countries being killed.

Plus the ballgame match did seem as though the media and the governments were trying to brush it under the carpet and move on.

My opinions only and not meant as any statements of facts.

Whilst I can see your point that the visit to the ball game could be seen as insensitive, I agree with the poster that said the vast majority of Afghans will not have known about it. The only reason we know about it is because Cameron was there.

It was a political visit to a swing state. American politics is notoriously cut-throat. A cancellation could have easily been spun by some Republicans as "he doesn't care about you and your state".

'I am also concerned about the US army even being there and how so many 'incidents' that occur usually involve the US army. Just how are they training them? What is going wrong?'

The US army is there as are we as part of ISAF www.isaf.nato.int/, which is a NATO led operation, backed by the UN, and as the US is part of NATO, they are in Afghanistan. They also have the largest army in NATO. As they have the largest army, it's probably why they have the most incidents.

It's not just the US and UK there; the Aussies have troops there, as do the French, the Germans, the Danish, the Italians, the Canadians, the Romanians, Georgia, even the UAE; have a look at the list.

For what is going wrong read what Madwoman said upthread.

As for the SOFA, it would apply to a US serviceman who murdered civilians in UK - they would be tried under US law afaik.

This may explain it more clearly

'The Visiting Forces Act 1952 was passed to incorporate the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement into United Kingdom law. SOFA provides a basis for a mutual and reciprocal system of exemptions, immunities and privileges for visiting forces when exercising or stationed in a host country. A major feature of SOFA, which is implemented by the 1952 Act, is the question of jurisdiction for dealing with offences committed by visiting service men, civil servants accompanying a force, dependents and contractors. Its main provision is the agreement that the visiting force will retain jurisdiction for its people, which applies equally to United States personnel based in the United Kingdom and British forces serving in NATO countries, Commonwealth countries and, more recently, those countries that have signed up to the NATO partnership for peace.[15] Usually, the service authorities for the visiting force member alleged to have committed an offence and the United Kingdom authorities will be able to agree which jurisdiction is appropriate to deal with the case. If agreement is not reached the decision as to jurisdiction will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. Where United Kingdom jurisdiction is appropriate the visiting forces case will normally be dealt with locally unless other criteria require the case to be dealt with by Crown Prosecution Service headquarters.

TheRhubarb: setting jurisdiction in that way is standard practice for all nations. The Afghan government, in signing up to it, was following totally normal international practice. So the question becomes; why would US waive its legal position in Afghanistan, when it does not do so in another country in the world?

And if a SOFA was shown to be a non-binding arrangement, then I think that would have serious repercussions for willingness of nations to send troops on any operations other than war and would significantly reduce the ability of bodies such as the UN to mount peace-keeping operations.

and the willingness of troops to put themselves in danger for the common good in the first place.

it's no recruitment drive, abandoning your service personnel to the whims of any host nation, when the very fact that there is a military presence usually signifies some difficulties with the application of law and order...

I don't think the Afghan Government is among those calling for him to be tried there.

Edith, the Kabul Parliament have called for him to be tried there.

I recommend Archie Bland's excellent article which pretty much says everything I have wanted to say but obviously in a much better way - well, he is a journalist!

"An Afghan trial is almost certainly not going to happen: the demands of realpolitik are too great and it is true that it is hard to see such a trial being conducted fairly. But what about a compromise: a joint tribunal conducted in Afghanistan, open to the Afghan public, and attended by Afghan legal representatives?

If such an idea is really beyond the pale, then one has to question whether the airy assurances that the country won't implode when Nato forces leave can carry any weight. And if even this argument doesn't move you, consider this: not an imaginary American soldier in Kent, but an imaginary Afghan soldier in Kansas. The US wouldn't dream of selling its citizens out by allowing a foreign country control over the fate of the person accused of their murder. And the rest of the world wouldn't dream of asking that it do so."

This 'person' will disappear or be found hanging somewhere. Accidental death/suicide - whatever - those poor people whose lives have been torn apart will not see justice done.
BO and DC's antics are crass and insensitve at best. They should know better.

Surely, policy which means that the US retainsd jurisdiction over its personnel , is to prevent them being fit up for crimes they didn't commit, to avoid corruption?

well, he wasn't off duty, was he?

he was a service man on active duty, therefore the status of forces agreement is in place.

i would fully expect a US serviceman gunning down women and children in Kent to be returned to the US. i don't think Archie Bland understands that this is a perfectly normal and unilateral agreement.

and i'm staggered that he sees the returning of the soldier to the US to be dealt with as some sort of panacea. BO has pretty much said the death penalty will apply (before trial, even though there may be any number of mit circs). it's tidying up of loose ends and clawing back face, not saving his life. the actual outcome is going to be identikit. he's damned right about the demands of realpolitik. BO can't afford to let anything get in the way of the death sentence.

no-one comes out of this covered in glory.

and i bloody well hope this forces a re-think over combat stress and multiple lengthy deployments. it won't happen in public, because the 'demands of realpolitik' won't allow actual debate over causation, but it had better be happening behind the scenes.

it will.

too late for the soldier and the civilian victims, though.