Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
4. Not exactly accurate
Thu Oct 2, 2014, 09:37 AM
Oct 2014

It wasn't immunity, it was a disagreement over who would try Americans in the case of alleged crime. The Iraqi government wanted the ability to try and convict Americans accused of crimes. The US government refused and retained the right to try Americans accused of crimes.

Historically it's always been that way, although there have been cases where the US turned over servicemen to the host country to face trial. Japan springs to mind as a country we have turned people over to them.

My guess is that the historical reason for this has been a combination of : they are Americans and as such they have a right to a trial under American law; it's the United States responsibility to try and convict them and it prevents politically motivated charges by the host country.

Do things always work out the way we want, no, of course not and sometimes the US will allow the host country to try the American of the alleged crime.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US army drops murder char...»Reply #4