Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: DeathByAnts
Um, in certain states in the US, it is legal (and practiced) to permanently impound the vehicle of someone who witnesses a drug sale and does not report it. I don't see how this is really any different/worse.
I am unaware of any such laws, and I have been a criminal litigator for five years. The federal law does allow for the seizure of property and vehicles that have been used for drug transport and trafficking, but generally there are no laws against failing to report crimes committed by others, and I would be interested if you could point me to such a law.
The thing is, our nation
has laws that allow for civil forfeiture of property for drug traffickers. I personally think they are questionable from a constitutional standpoint, since the constitution generally requires the government to provide due process before taking life, liberty or property, but that's a topic for another day. The point is, there is no such law in Iraq, and these soldiers simply made up what they thought was an appropriate sanction. They are not lawyers or judges, and were basically acting as uniformed vigilantes.
The fact of the matter is that, in this country (which the Army is obviously acting on behalf of), a person would typically get a few month's probation for stealing a few dollars worth of wood. Instead, the Army destroyed what was likely the owner's only valuable property. That's wrong, and sends the worst possible message to the people whose country we went there to liberate.