Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

As this is an extension of the UN Security Council, I haven't paid much attention to it, but now that Bolton is saying we aren't participating, my Leftist FB feed is talking about how Trump is doing this to hide his atrocities.

Related to this, did our troops have any sort of prosecutorial protection from the countries they were trying to liberate?

How about war crimes?

C'mon. Spill it.

SeattleGriz wrote:C'mon. Spill it.

I don’t know about the ICC, but reference your question about troops, I have a little info...

During combat, troops are covered by the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention...

During other than combat operations, generally there is a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)...

During the Obama Administration, the reason given for withdrawing our forces was the lack of a SOFA...

A SOFA outlines, among other things, how alleged crimes involving US personnel will be handled...

CAA Flagship wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:C'mon. Spill it.

Yes!

SeattleGriz wrote:As this is an extension of the UN Security Council, I haven't paid much attention to it, but now that Bolton is saying we aren't participating, my Leftist FB feed is talking about how Trump is doing this to hide his atrocities.

Related to this, did our troops have any sort of prosecutorial protection from the countries they were trying to liberate?

How about war crimes?

Yes, they had qualified immunity via a MOU with the Iraqi government once it was stood up - the reconstituted Iraqi government was largely Shia (still is) and was all too happy to sign it

for the invasion itself, there may not have been although Im sure a legal opinion was prepared to go




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Col Hogan wrote:I don’t know about the ICC, but reference your question about troops, I have a little info...

During combat, troops are covered by the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention...

During other than combat operations, generally there is a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)...

During the Obama Administration, the reason given for withdrawing our forces was the lack of a SOFA...

A SOFA outlines, among other things, how alleged crimes involving US personnel will be handled...

I called it a MOU but SOFA was the actual term - thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I don’t know about the ICC, but reference your question about troops, I have a little info...

During combat, troops are covered by the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention...

During other than combat operations, generally there is a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)...

During the Obama Administration, the reason given for withdrawing our forces was the lack of a SOFA...

A SOFA outlines, among other things, how alleged crimes involving US personnel will be handled...

I called it a MOU but SOFA was the actual term - thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would a SOFA apply to somebody like Blackwater? Was anybody ever charged over hanging those guys from a bridge and setting them on fire?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I called it a MOU but SOFA was the actual term - thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would a SOFA apply to somebody like Blackwater? Was anybody ever charged over hanging those guys from a bridge and setting them on fire?

They were taken care of the following week

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Would a SOFA apply to somebody like Blackwater? Was anybody ever charged over hanging those guys from a bridge and setting them on fire?

They were taken care of the following week

And yes, the SOFA applied to contractors

CID1990 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
They were taken care of the following week

And yes, the SOFA applied to contractors

Would an Eric Prince report to somebody in the military?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

And yes, the SOFA applied to contractors

Would an Eric Prince report to somebody in the military?

No, the contract manager would


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Would an Eric Prince report to somebody in the military?

No, the contract manager would


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do the troops have to bail out the mercenaries if they get into a jam?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
No, the contract manager would


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do the troops have to bail out the mercenaries if they get into a jam?

I see the dead end you are leading yourself into... do you wish to continue?

The SOFA had nothing to do with whether or not the military gave assistance to contractors.

Rarely was it needed or requested though - we were attacked frequently and never once called for the QRF

and the military could come - or not - based on their discretion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Do the troops have to bail out the mercenaries if they get into a jam?

I see the dead end you are leading yourself into... do you wish to continue?

The SOFA had nothing to do with whether or not the military gave assistance to contractors.

Rarely was it needed or requested though - we were attacked frequently and never once called for the QRF

and the military could come - or not - based on their discretion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is what I was wondering about

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I see the dead end you are leading yourself into... do you wish to continue?

The SOFA had nothing to do with whether or not the military gave assistance to contractors.

Rarely was it needed or requested though - we were attacked frequently and never once called for the QRF

and the military could come - or not - based on their discretion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is what I was wondering about

Logically how could it be any other way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
that is what I was wondering about

Logically how could it be any other way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know - I was wondering if the troops were obligated to bail out the mercenaries if the mercenaries got into a jam.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Logically how could it be any other way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know - I was wondering if the troops were obligated to bail out the mercenaries if the mercenaries got into a jam.

There weren’t any mercenaries there.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I don't know - I was wondering if the troops were obligated to bail out the mercenaries if the mercenaries got into a jam.

There weren’t any mercenaries there.

But if there were...?

SeattleGriz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
There weren’t any mercenaries there.

But if there were...?

That isnt how the SOFA works. It was an agreement between the governments of the US and Iraq.

It has nothing to do with the military's "obligation" do do anything. They aren't "obligated" to do crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
But if there were...?

That isnt how the SOFA works. It was an agreement between the governments of the US and Iraq.

It has nothing to do with the military's "obligation" do do anything. They aren't "obligated" to do crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I was teasing Houndawg over his insistence.

SeattleGriz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
That isnt how the SOFA works. It was an agreement between the governments of the US and Iraq.

It has nothing to do with the military's "obligation" do do anything. They aren't "obligated" to do crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I was teasing Houndawg over his insistence.

I didn't insist anything, I asked how it works and if it works the same for the civilian mercenaries from outfits like Blackwater. What is it that you think I'm insistent about?

Blackwater contractors were protective details. They were not involved in offensive combat ops, and they did not serve with the military. They were not mercenaries.

You also do not appear to understand what the SOFA entailed

But now that you are clearer on what you are asking- the SOFA applied to ALL Americans working on behalf of the US government - the same immunities enjoyed by our soldiers also applied to every diplomat, contractor, and foreign militaries and their diplomats and contractors as well.