Coroner finds US troops guilty of killing journalist - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Lungfish · #31 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

But the job of a british coroner does both. Didn't WOI say that in the article where you said that his responce doesn't address that? I don't get it. I've seen that a number of dissagreements are based on misunderstandings, so maybe I don't understand how WOI's response doesn't address the issue of that particular coroner's specific job description, which does, it turns out, include detirmining the reason it occurred.

WarOnIgnorance · #32 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Jurisdiction is ordinarily determined by territory, not nationality. In this case, the U.K. does not have jurisdiction

The Coroners Reform Bill has a subsection that provides for deaths outside the territoriality of the UK, which is applicable when:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.dca.gov.uk/legist/coroners_draft_explanatorynotes.pdf

This subsection applies if the coroner has reasonable cause to suspect that the circumstances of the death might reasonably be expected to give rise to action in England and Wales to avoid deaths in similar circumstances in the future

I assume this subsection has been applied in this case.

Marcus1124 · #33 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

WarOnIgnorance
The Coroners Reform Bill has a subsection that provides for deaths outside the territoriality of the UK, which is applicable when:

Originally Posted by http://www.dca.gov.uk/legist/coroner...atorynotes.pdf
This subsection applies if the coroner has reasonable cause to suspect that the circumstances of the death might reasonably be expected to give rise to action in England and Wales to avoid deaths in similar circumstances in the future
I assume this subsection has been applied in this case.

I have no problem with them investigating, but they have NO jurisdiction with regard to criminal charges.

Fidei Defensor · #34 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

The coroner has the authority in the U.K. to determine how the man met his unfortunate demise, but the U.K. does not, as a matter of international law, have jurisdiction over the attack on the minibus, which occurred outside its territory during a war.

WarOnIgnorance · #35 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Here's more on the role of the coroner in British law:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/corbur/coron02.htm
An extract:

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

What is the purpose of an inquest?
The inquest is an inquiry to find out who has died, and how, when and where they died, together with information needed by the registrar of deaths, so that the death can be registered.

'Why' is not part of the task, that is true.

@Marcus:
There are as of yet no criminal charges. I'm demonstrating that the coroner is well within his rights to investigate this death, and that this is not restricted to merely medical observations.

muspell · #36 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1764729.htm

Quote:

He was then shot in the head by US troops after he had been picked up and put in an Iraqi minibus, the court heard.

...what the hell?

..I didn't have much faith in US military commissions when it comes to investigating potential crimes in the low- intensity warfare- scenarios in the first place.. but this seems a bit too much like that special kind of incompetence you need to be pretty crafty to pull off.

Really, this is even better than the Sgrena- incident. Where they swore in a couple of soliders in the field, and used these accounts to conclude that the car was speeding towards the roadblock, where it was shot to bits. That is, speeding so fast it couldn't have made the turn onto the highway the roadblock was guarding. But because it did come so fast, it meant it was within the ROE for the soliders to shoot. Simple.

Marcus1124 · #37 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

WarOnIgnoranceThere are as of yet no criminal charges. I'm demonstrating that the coroner is well within his rights to investigate this death, and that this is not restricted to merely medical observations.

And I was responding specifically to goober's post:

Quote:

goober
surely the next step would be to indict the suspects, and bring the matter to trial. I'll leave guilt or innocence for the trial court to decide.

Regardless of any investigation, they have NO jurisdication for a criminal trial.

varrussword · #38 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Here's a question, how does a Coroner establish that someone was "unlawfully" killed? His declaration that "I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus." is a legal conclusion for which his medical training hardly gives him any special insight into.

It's like the left lapping up every the drivel of every "professor" who says anything they like to hear, from global weather patterns to constitutional law, even if it is from a professor of mideaval poetry!

He must have been one of those coroner/lawyers.

Anything that's anti-USA they're all for. If i've said it once i've said it a million times. Liberals are self-loathing america-haters.

Varus

varrussword · #39 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Here's more on the role of the coroner in British law:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/corbur/coron02.htm
An extract:

'Why' is not part of the task, that is true.

@Marcus:
There are as of yet no criminal charges. I'm demonstrating that the coroner is well within his rights to investigate this death, and that this is not restricted to merely medical observations.

You do understand there's a difference between coroner and csi investigator don't you?

Varus

Marcus1124 · #40 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

varrussword
Liberals are self-loathing america-haters.

Well, half right, I hardly think they are self-loathing, the are largely self-important, self-agrandizing, and incredibly narcissistic. But yeah, the far left is almost exclusively america-haters.

goober · #41 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

And I was responding specifically to goober's post:

Regardless of any investigation, they have NO jurisdication for a criminal trial.

There is a crime reported, the next step is to investigate the crime, I'm not saying the coroners office should indict the perpetrators, but there should be an investigation by the proper authorities, this shouldn't just be dismissed as anti-american propaganda.
If the investigation reveals reason to believe the soldiers may have acted improperly, they should be charged and brought to trial.

daisym · #42 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

This is all just a screech from a partisan.

"I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus."
So he was there and can attest to the fact that the troops with malice and fore thought opened fire on this van?

"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which US soldiers declined to attend.

Why should the soldiers attend? Well, I can tell you; An inquest is an examination INTO the death, before hand there are no facts that would ascribe the action as unlawful, as the results of the Inquest have not been made yet, so in effect, this author is using a slimy semantic trick to paint the troops that had been there as guilty before the facts where in. Please.

"It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act," he added.

In his “opinion”, again, looking at this from afar, it may be easy to take this tack, but doesn’t mean he is right.

He says the unlawful killing verdict had been "inescapable" and has come about because "US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys."

Appear hummmm appear….yes that’s a “maybe” or “might have” , and as far as acting like trigger “happy cowboys”, that’s a judgment call, and unless he was there he cannot know. Just another article built on supposition.

He was then shot in the head by US troops after he had been picked up and put in an Iraqi minibus, the court heard.

Can we have a few more facts please? Like the range and circumstances at which the firing took place, getting hit in the head, and leaving these facts out is misleading, and you don’t have to be point blank to get hit in the head, if a number of troops opened fire from 50 yards he could have been hit in the head as well. Where are the facts regards the actual event? This is half baked. If you are going to write an article like this, add some meat to the potatoes. This describes nothing regards the actual event. In a word, sloppy and overly emotional.

its a report from a reliable news service.

daisym · #43 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Similarly, an inquest that draws a conclusion based on only one side of the story has credibility problems......

It is entirely within the scope of a medical examiner's inquest to determine the cause and manner of death.

So for Dr. Walker to say the cause was GSW to the head, and the manner homicide is entirely proper.

For him to draw a conclusion that the homicide was lawful or unlawful is well outside the scope of a medical inquest.

That kind of a conclusion is only properly drawn following a trial, where both sides are represented.

Matt

you are well aware Matt, that as US troops are protected from being tried for war crimes by the international community that this is likely to be the closest to the truth we ever get in a matter such as this.

and I believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand how this may appear to others ... citizens from other nations can end up in indefinite detention in US custody, and be tortured, for simply being in the wrong time and the wrong place and on uncorroborated hearsay evidence, while US troops can not be charged with war crimes even when eye witness accounts are well documented.

Do you wonder why it is that the bad hair guy and armoured dinner jacket want nukes? its the best protection they can have against your 'justice'.

MattLarson · #44 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

This inquest, to me, represents a similar manner of "justice" - only one side of the matter presented, guilt assigned without trial, etc.

As for indefinite detention, did you know the ICC charter permits that as well?

Matt

Marcus1124 · #45 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

daisym
Do you wonder why it is that the bad hair guy and armoured dinner jacket want nukes? its the best protection they can have against your 'justice'.

And it is utterly idiotic, american-hating nonesense like that which is the very reason any leader of THIS country that ever leaves the disposition of justice over OUR brave troops in the hands of some unaccountable "international" organization should be tried for treason themselves.

The bad haired guy who starves his own people? Routinely slaughters political dissidents? And you have the morally repugnant nerve to suggest that an evil butcher like that has any reasonable justification for wanting nukes because of THIS country.

Waiting for those of you on the left who put yourself forward as patriots to show even a modicum of outrage over this abhorent garbage as some of you have over something as pithy as a quote from a T.V. show.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode