Federal prosecutors charged a veteran of the Iraq war with murder and rape Monday in connection with the killing of an Iraqi woman and 4 members of her family.
Steven D. Green, a 21-year-old former private first class who was discharged from the Army, appeared in a federal magistrate's courtroom in Charlotte Monday.
The charges grew out of a military investigation involving up to five soldiers in the March rape and killing of the woman in Mahmoudiya and three of her relatives.
( Note:...My question is:.....He is no longer in the military so how can they arrest him for something that happened 10,000 miles away and in a war zone. the Military should not be able to touch him. He no longer comes under the U.C.M.J.)
2006-07-03 05:19:57 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
A murderer should be arrested at any time any where.They are still arresting the German alleged abused Jews in mid 40's- What is the difference? Only the victims or is it because the victims here are Muslims so they are worthless and cheap??? I wonder.
2006-07-03 05:27:16 · answer #1 · answered by coco 2 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Yes they can. Just because he's out of active duty dosen't mean he's out of unactive duty. Usually there is a time period after a person gets discharged from active duty when they are still in an inactive reserve component of some kind. This usually last from one to four years after. He can be called back at anytime during that time period for anything and prosecute him under the UCMJ.
But since it's for a murder charge even if he was COMPLETELY out they could still arrest him for that.
2006-07-03 12:31:32 · answer #2 · answered by c_jrose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course they can charge him for actions taken while in service. just getting a discharge does not give you a pass for crimes committed while on duty. the UCMJ covers anywhere a serviceman is and there's no staute of limitations on murder so the fact that it happened 10000 miles away, in a war zone, and some time ago in meaningless. he's on the hook and if guilty rightly so. other armies might rape and murder but our's doesn't condone it for a second.
2006-07-03 12:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by glen t 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're wrong about the UCMJ not having jurisdiction. The military can reach out years later to try a former GI for crimes he committed while in uniform. Civilian statute of limitations plays no part in the military's authority.
2006-07-03 12:35:51 · answer #4 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is being tried for what is esstntially a war crime. Just because you are discharged from the military does not remove clean your plate of indescretions you may perform while active. He is still accountable to the military and country for his actions while he was a member.
2006-07-03 12:25:59 · answer #5 · answered by NukinHawg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He can be charge under the UCMJ because he was in the service at the time and was named as a suspect in the murder. He can be "re-activated" and required to stand Court Martial for his alleged crimes because they happened while he was active in the Military.
2006-07-04 01:11:47 · answer #6 · answered by eldertrouble 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They certainly can. If his crime was commited while wearing the US Military Uniform he is still responsible for his actions. If he is proven guilty he should be punished no matter if he was in a war zone or not. He was under UCMJ at the time he commited his action.
2006-07-03 12:55:49 · answer #7 · answered by AL 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they can prosecute him for more that just that. He still falls under the USMJ...and he can still be prosecuted for war crimes...which is punishable by death. Any wrong doing that you cause under normal circumstances is one thing, but during war it heighten. He was still part of a military institution at the time so he defiantly can be tried under the UCMJ and he can be prosecuted federally.
2006-07-03 13:05:34 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad that he was arrested and he should be tried and convicted of rape and murder. What he did should be considered a war crime. Are you saying that he shouldn't be? That's sickening! There have been people who have been tried and convicted of war crimes long after the war's over. He should be punshed to the fullest extent of the law.
2006-07-03 13:23:34 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is probably a statute of limitations that allows the military to pursue ex-soldiers indicted for crimes committed during their service.
2006-07-03 12:28:16 · answer #10 · answered by Truth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋