MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Some questions about this movie (and abo...

Some questions about this movie (and about Military Court).

posted 10 years ago by jutuomin
6 replies | jump to latest

I am not American and not part of US NAVY (or any armed US unit) so I don't know much about the subject, but for some reason the whole premise of this movie seems kind of out of ordinary..
I've also heard that military court is to justice what military band is to music so perhaps it's all supposed to be out of place.

Here's my problem with this movie:
If you commit a murder in Yemen as American soldier that would definitely be an international crime. Especially if you are located in an Embassy when it happens.
So I would assume that the court would take then place in Yemen. If you commit a murder in USA it would definitely be tried in USA!
(Or is different now because he was in the embassy when it happened? The victims for sure were not.)
And if not held in Yemen (as it's an international crime), then why not in Haag's International War Crime Court? Those seem like much more logical places to have a trial than the NAVY's Military Court.

Also can someone answer what happens if you are sentenced guilty in military court in a case similar to this one? Would you then go to an another trial too in Haag (or in civil court in Yemen etc.)? Or is that all?

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 9 years ago

I think it's because it was a mission of the marines. Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) was the commander of the troops. Also the country of Yemen was corrupt and was also very poor. Which is why he wasn't tried there. On a side note, Yemen is no longer a country. Anyway, the military court handled it to see if there was any real wrong doing. Of course in the end it was found out that one young Senator burned the evidence that proved Childers' side of the story so he got his. If not for that young Senator doing that the whole thing would've been dropped once that tape got subpoenaed into Evidence and shown in court. Though later at the end of the film all the hundreds of bullet holes shown in the picture of the embassy proved there was more than just snipers shooting at the building/Marines.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

[–] jutuomin 9 years ago

Not really getting much our of this, but you are correct that Yemen is one of the most poor countries in the World. So perhaps they wouldn't have resources to held a court hearing like this. Which is probably a good reason to held them in Haag (which should have the resources). As a UN member Yemen probably have connections to held these hearings..
Also.. How come Yemen is no longer a country? That doesn't make any sense.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 9 years ago

I admit I heard years ago that it was part of some other country now.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

[–] jutuomin 9 years ago

African Countries can be tricky..
If I have understood correctly Yemen declared independency in 1918 and later was devided into South and North Yemen in 1967. And later those countries were united as a whole country in 1990 (which is what Yemen is today).
And during the times the country has also changed from a monarchy to a republic and probably some other things too. I am really not an expert about Yemen.

[–] svtii 8 years ago

An embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the country it belongs to so the attack technically happened on US soil. In addition, courts-martial of US armed forces are held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7994) 5 years ago

Since this topic is about military court, I'm posting it here. Even though it's an entertaining scene, the prosecutor played by Guy Pearce could not have insinuated that there weren't weapons in the crowed just based off a recording of Childers saying, "Waste the mother *******!" That doesn't really prove whether or not there's weapons in the crowd. It maybe proves that he acted unprofessionally. But it does seem dumb the judge goes along with the prosecutor's improper conduct when he doesn't even have proof of whether there's guns in the crowd.