For conservatives who ALWAYS back US troops?

Either way, he is in for "double jeopardy" since he is in the military. Once the civilian authorities are finished with him, the military takes the case and he has to answer to them. Let me say, the military will not be as understanding as civilian authorities.

The link you provided says nothing about any physical rape, or such crime as your question suggests. I suppose he will be tried by the courts in NSW, then be handed over to the US armed forces for court-martial, in any event.

On the point of diplomatic immunity, why should we allow representatives of another country to get away with outright murder? It has happened when a drunk ambassador hit a pedestrian, killing them. He then claimed diplomatic immunity. He did NO time for his crime. He was simply expelled from the USA, and that's all that happened. Why should it be different for anyone representing our government?

I don't know where you have seen or heard the defense of adolescent rape or murder, but most people would not condone any such actions.

The man in the article is subject to a military court-martial because he is in the Navy. Time in a Military Prison and a bad-conduct discharge will ruin this mans life. Spending time in a foreign country's prison system will not show up on a background check in the United States. This means he would most likely never have to register as a sex offender, and he could get a job at Toys R' Us if he wanted to.

Innocent until proved guilty.... that is why I will defend troops, until they are found guilty (as I would any U.S. citizen).

Why should they U.S. preside in this case. We have an agreement with every country our troops go to (outside of war), some agreements (Singapore) specify that any missteps are tried there, others (like Australia) specify U.S. authority. If an agreement isn't reached and the world court gets involved the case will definitely be tried in the U.S.

Most people give some latitude to a person in combat to make an honest mistake. There are very few, if any, that would not want to punish severely any US soldier who committed crimes like rape.

We don't like to give our soldiers over to other countries for punishment. In this case I hope, and expect Australia will punish the guy unless we have a treaty with them. If the US government doesn't try to get him back, his family will probably give the State Department grief. They may not even expect the request to be granted.

There should be no fuzz actually for US authorities taking up the case. After all they are policing the world, justified their continued stay there, are leading in democracy, and their personnel dominate the world court. Who else can judge better or have the audacity to punish a US citizen? They are simply sacrosanct and should be allowed to enjoy their God- given (?) liberty.

Because they are US citizens operating in an official capacity, that makes them the responsibility of the US.

It is similar to diplomatic immunity. When you are there under the auspices of the military, it it their responsibility to deal with any misbeahvior that you have.

It is a legal point, not a moral one. As former US military I wouldn't serve any other way. Think of what would happen in foriegn countries if anyone could just throw you in jail. You would have local honchos trying to make names for themselves and it would be chaos.

court marshal