Civil trial opens of US ex-marine

Civil trial opens of US ex-marine

news.bbc.co.uk

The civil trial has opened of a former US marine accused of killing unarmed Iraqi detainees in the city of Falluja, in the first case of its kind.

Jose Luis Nazario, 28, denies charges of voluntary manslaughter and assault over the deaths of four Iraqis in 2004.

He is the first former US soldier no longer serving to be tried for crimes committed while on active duty.

The trial, in the state of California, will use a law designed to be used for prosecuting civilian contractors.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It's a shame it takes a civil court to try those considered guilty of murder, rather than the military cleaning theor own house properly.

Is this another indication of cover ups in the military?


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

To be honest I don't know what to make of this other then that the state of California is overstepping the mark by putting Jose on trial to begin with . In my mind he is either in the wrong court or shouldn't be there at all .
I am sure that an American would be able to clear up the legal and constitutional ramifications of a state putting a solider on trial for a crime committed abroad .

There may be a political element to this someone dislike of the war in Iraq may have lead to the chargers being laid or some other form of political gain may have been on offer . Just look at how those college basketball players got stitched up a while ago .

reply to post by xpert11


According to the article, the trial "will use a law designed to be used for prosecuting civilian contractors."

Perhaps this is to be a test case so that even if the military don't prosecute, civil courts can.

And let's be honest here, there should have been a lot more prosecutions than there have, if the reports we've seen are correct - especially in fallujah.

Shouldn't people accused of crimes in Iraq be tried in Iraq by Iraqis?

We prosecute Mexicans and other foreigners accused of crimes in the US and send them to US jails. What's the difference?

As can be seen by the recent threads regarding the "hacker" that the US want extradited, there is a double standard clearly visible when it comes to US citizens - the US simply won't allow one of it's citizens to stand before a foreign court.

They even refused to send a couple of airmen to testify at an inquest into the deaths of UK servicemen by friendly fire.

And we're supposed to be allies - no way will they let the iraqi's get their hands on a citizen, or a soldier, or even a prairie dog.

And then they wonder why no-one trusts them