A law to their own

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I think this has been going on for a while, but just came up again in the news, America wants all of its citizens to be excused from International War Crime tribuinals. Who do the Americans think they are? Do they think they are more special than the rest of the world? I think that having INTERNATIONAL war crimes tribuanals without any prejudice is the only way all criminals will be fairly judged. How many of you Americans think it is your right to be above the rest of the world? If you are going to make a stand, please leave extreme right politics out of it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hey fuck off, be careful when generalising Americans. Noone asked me if I wanted to be immune from the IWC Tribunal

[ralphwiggum 6]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 28 2002,088)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are going to make a stand, please leave extreme right politics out of it.<span id='postcolor'>

ahh crap...then that pretty much leaves Americans who are indifferent to IWC.

you are definitely excercising an overgeneralization. the action of gov't can sometimes not equal that of its citizens's. currently, Bush administration is a bunch of assholes, so they will do anything. but that doens't mean that all americans are behind it.

i'm indifferent to having immunity. if we fear that our soldiers will be wrongfully accused, then we don't need to get involved in many international operations unless needed.(then those damn ppl will whine and bitch that US isn't doing much )

what i do want is, rest of the nations that criticize US's stance right now, should bear all of legal cost of each frivolous lawsuit(should it happen) then they will pay for their idiocy. of course, US should sign the treaty as is too.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Here is my position:

I know my country's soldiers arent Saints. Saints dont kill people for a living. But I do hold the basic assumption that all of them will abide within reason to the Geneva Convention. If they commit warcrimes, we ALREADY have a legal system for handling them. Considering all the antipathy towards the US these days, and considering so much of it comes from within "international communities" like the UN and the War Crimes Tribunal, we are being careful of who we give power to convict Americans of war crimes. Many a time we have seen 3rd world political quarterbacking set back the UNs agenda for the sole purpose of hurting the US (For a while, we got voted off the Human Rights Commission in favor of the Sudan. THE SUDAN!!! ).

Now, politics is one thing, but putting our troops in an even worse position than our UN diplomats is rather naive politically, and outright stupid militarilly.

And we have seen how just being accused of warcrimes creates almost a bad a stigma as actually being convicted of them. For example, earlier this year Israel was accused of warcrimes at the Jenin refugee camp, where, according to some reports, as many as 500 innocents died. This turned out to be untrue (only about 50 people died, almost all of them combatants), but the damage was already done. Europe turned irrevocably against Israel, and the Palestinians had a new reason to continue the intifada, even if the new reason was false.

Imagine, with all the anti US sentiment out in the world, how often these sorts of charges would be levelled at us, if our opponents thought that it would hurt or even end our efforts against them. Smaller countries like those in Western Europe dont have to worry about that sort of thing. Being the Western Worlds superpower, the 3rd worlds traffic cop, and the financial world's leader means carrying some rather extraordinary baggage, not the least of which is the fact that a whole lot of people are gunning to bring you down.

So, in conclusion, the idea of US troops being accountable to the IWC tribunal sounds good in the abstract, the current world situation will make such an action impossible to implement without serious abuses and problems which will ultimately do more harm to the US and the Western world than good

[Oligo 1]

Ok, Tex, you have points there. Consider these two things, though:

You cannot really expect the rest of the world to believe that you would prosecute your own soldiers when they commit warcrimes. You'd cover them all up, of course, rather than admit that your righteous soldiers have done anything wrong. This is what any nation would do.

You're not the only nation somebody is gunning for. On the contrary, you do some of the gunning yourselves. I don't remember Slobo agreeing on any War Crime Court thing, but yet you and euros gunned for him and brought him to a court he does not even recognize. The point is, you have nothing against international "justice" as long as it works for you. But the minute it could work against your interests, you decline to have any part of it, because somebody might gun for you. Judge not for you might be judged yourself.

[WhoCares 0]

The IWC takes only action, when the soldiers country is not willing or able to investigate war crimes on its own. So today the soldiers of most western countries have to justify their deeds at home and not at the IWC.

However, US justice has already shown, that it can be very biased, if the crime is commited by executives (probably the wrong term, but tell, me which one of these is correct ). But then again I guess, we can find such cases in every other country on the world as well...

[ralphwiggum 6]

the problem with IWC is that should US participate, and get flooded with unfound accusations, US will be the only one that gets all the ink on its face, while rest who pushed US to join will not get a drop of ink on theirs.

so i think IWC should make a rule that clearly says that "any accusation made to an accused, should it be deemed un-true, the cost of the process will be burdened upon every members except the accused. furthermore, each member, except that of accused will pay some monetary compensation for acused country which had to endure such process."

this way, should some country that start filing untrue accusations about US, rest of the members will bear the burden. upon seeing this possibilty, member countries will vigilantly look at each accusations b4 it gets to the court.

and it works both ways. US, with its untrue accusation can be faced with hefty fine.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Touche'. However, there was documented proof, everything from survivor accounts to sattellite photos to pictures themselves , of Serbian ethnic cleansing. I'd like to point out that US military intervention only went as far as curbing Soviet aggression, securing Bosnia-Herzegovenia and later Kosovo, and reeling in smaller fish like Radovan Karadzic & Co. Slobo landed in the Tribunal because his own people turned his sorry ass over. And there is a slight difference between war crimes (shooting POWs, etc.), and crimes against humanity (ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.). Slobo was guilty of both- noone was "gunning" for him. We would have left him alone if he hadnt ordered Serb forces to systematically murder Bosnian, ethnic Albanian, and Croat noncombatants.

Now, I have a very recent example of people actually trying to pin war crimes on the US. This new story, surfacing in the past few weeks, of the truck full of dead POWs, had nothing to do with the US other than the fact that the POWs were Taliban- the POWs were being handled by the now defunct Northern Alliance, which we had zero tactical control over. However, the fact that we shared an enemy with troops from a culture where POWs are treated like dirt was more valuable, has given many journalists the apparent license to call this incident a US War Crime.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml

(no US troops were present during the transport, despite this articles claim)

This is just a small sampling of the slander that is spread with zero proof, and yet is gobbled up by the European populations, about US military actions.

As for your suggestion that US troops that commit war would be given leeway in a trial or not be prosecuted at all- it is a valid concern, but right now it is just not feasible politically for us to allow other countries decide the fate of accused US troops. At the moment, you are just going to have to trust us to police ourselves.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Ahh sorry Mr. tex, my bad. I did not mean Americans as in the whole population, I was tlaking about yuor wonderful little goverment you have going. It would be very had to generlise Americans as they are diverse in many extreme diffrent ways.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 28 2002,21:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahh sorry Mr. tex, my bad. I did not mean Americans as in the whole population, I was tlaking about yuor wonderful little goverment you have going. It would be very had to generlise Americans as they are diverse in many extreme diffrent ways. <span id='postcolor'>

i just dont like the up themselfs americans the ones that think they won ww2 that they r the best etc the ones that think the abomb in japan was needed.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 28 2002,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahh sorry Mr. tex, my bad. I did not mean Americans as in the whole population, I was tlaking about yuor wonderful little goverment you have going. It would be very had to generlise Americans as they are diverse in many extreme diffrent ways. <span id='postcolor'>

FOR THE LAST TIME BUSH IS NOT OUR LEGIT PRESIDENT!

[Supah 0]

I dont really see what the USA has to fear. The IWT doesnt go above their laws that is just what bush wants americans to believe. If the country whose troops are accused is able to prosecute them theirselves, which the USA is more then able of. Besides since vietnam, and even those troops were tried and convicted, the USA hasnt really commited all that much bad stuff .... there are people who have done far worse shit. Even George W Bush himself, who is damaging the USA's standing abroad far more then any of its troops ever could probably claim that he is too stupid to be held accountable and get off the hook

[Longinius 1]

"I know my country's soldiers arent Saints. Saints dont kill people for a living. But I do hold the basic assumption that all of them will abide within reason to the Geneva Convention. If they commit warcrimes, we ALREADY have a legal system for handling them. Considering all the antipathy towards the US these days, and considering so much of it comes from within "international communities" like the UN and the War Crimes Tribunal, we are being careful of who we give power to convict Americans of war crimes. Many a time we have seen 3rd world political quarterbacking set back the UNs agenda for the sole purpose of hurting the US (For a while, we got voted off the Human Rights Commission in favor of the Sudan. THE SUDAN!!! ). "

Well Tex, the problem is that the US government sees it fit to use their own courts to sentence international citizens, but there is no way for others to bring up cases against the US.

There are numerous examples of non US citizens sentenced by US courts for crimes not comitted in the US. Sometimes it didnt even go to court, they were just sentenced with support of these new laws and rules dealing with terrorism.

So, it all boils down to the US being able to take action against anyone and everything else, but noone being able to take action against the US when the government or citizens do something wrong.

With the US denying to be a part of the ICC it becomes even worse. How can the US expect anyone to take their claims and causes legitimatly when they are not willing to play the same game?

"And we have seen how just being accused of warcrimes creates almost a bad a stigma as actually being convicted of them. For example, earlier this year Israel was accused of warcrimes at the Jenin refugee camp, where, according to some reports, as many as 500 innocents died. This turned out to be untrue (only about 50 people died, almost all of them combatants), but the damage was already done."

So? Israel still refused internation observers to enter the area. They stopped international aid organisations from going in. They let people die needlesly. That is a crime no matter how you look at it. Maybe there wasnt a massacre, but I would say still there was murder, either through neglegency or through intent.

"So, in conclusion, the idea of US troops being accountable to the IWC tribunal sounds good in the abstract, the current world situation will make such an action impossible to implement without serious abuses and problems which will ultimately do more harm to the US and the Western world than good"

So what you are saying is that US soldiers shouldnt be held accountable for the crimes they commit, by the people they commit it against? You said that Americans that commit warcrimes are handled in American courts. This is true. But that does not mean justice is served. Would you like to see Osama Bin Laden sentenced in an Afghan court of law? Or maybe in an Iraqi one? Would you respect the decision if he was set free? Doubtful. Why? Because you wouldnt feel justice had been served as the court most likely was biased. It is the same when a US court sentences a US citizens from warcrimes perpitrated in a foreign country, against foreign nationals.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

umm, Supa, I dont really understand your post... do you support the US position? Do you oppose it? Are you aware that there is a thing called a spell checker? I can barely understand your writing because of the odd spelling

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Longinius, the international citizens you speak of are not being charged with war crimes in the US. They are being charged with crimes that are of a domestic nature- Conspiracy to commit murder, Terrorism, etc. They were committed on US soil against US citizens, and these cases resolution have no bearing on this argument.

Im not going to argue for or against Israel on this one, but the last time I checked, refusing to let inspectors from organisations that have been continually been extremely critical of your country into sensitive areas is not a war crime. Distasteful, yes, illegal, no.

Your final argument is inflammatory, nontopical, and irrelevant. Osama Bin Laden could not be tried in Afghanistan, because he is not a citizen of Afghanistan and he did not mastermind the bombing of Kabul's twin towers. He would either be tried in America, where his crimes have taken place (The USS Cole counts also, as an attack on a US ship is as good as an attack on mainland US), or in Saudi Arabia, where most of the money trail leads, and where he and most of his not so smart bombs- I mean loyal followers come from. There, they would be subject to all the hallmarks of an Islamic Law trial- speedy, fair, and entirely aware that letting Osama off the hook will get the US pissed at Saudi Arabia. Most likely, he would receive the death penalty in both cases. However, this was not a war crime, and it is therefore completely irrelevant.

And one last thing. Its stupid to be tried in a court of law by the people who are the victims of the crime. If you are on trial for breaking and entering, the jury doesnt consist of the people whose house got broken into. It consists of unbiased peers. And if the US submits to the IWC, we will put ourselves in the position of having a jury stacked with every political adversary we have had in the past 30 years, just salivating at the chance to convict a US soldier of war crimes.

[Longinius 1]

"Longinius, the international citizens you speak of are not being charged with war crimes in the US. They are being charged with crimes that are of a domestic nature- Conspiracy to commit murder, Terrorism, etc. They were committed on US soil against US citizens, and these cases resolution have no bearing on this argument."

No so. There are people who got put on the terrorist list simply for being affiliated with organisations that had possible ties with potential terrorists. None of them got a chance to defend themselves in court, none of them had any say. They were simply sentenced, their assests locked and their livelyhoods destroyed. And noone could do jack shit about it.

"Your final argument is inflammatory, nontopical, and irrelevant. Osama Bin Laden could not be tried in Afghanistan, because he is not a citizen of Afghanistan and he did not mastermind the bombing of Kabul's twin towers."

So? I was making the point that noone accepts the trial if it is done by a biased court. And I think that example was appropriate in that remark. Do you think it was right that Americans accused of warcrimes in Vietnam were tried by an American court? Do you think the relatives of the Vietnamese that were killed felt justice was done? No, of course they didnt. Neither would Americans if people that comitted crimes against America were tried by their own courts.

"And one last thing. Its stupid to be tried in a court of law by the people who are the victims of the crime."

Of course, like I said, a court shouldnt be biased. But why are you so sure the ICC is out to get Americans? There wouldnt only be potential adversaries in a court like that, but also allies. Most of Europe IS allied with America don't you know. Just because critical opinions are raised does not mean people would jump at the chance to sentence Americans for crimes they did not commit.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The prisoners you speak of have not been sentenced. In fact, they havent even been charged with anything. They are just being held. This is a direct violation of the the Constitution, only made legal by a recent Presidential "finding". Its wrong, and there are groups in America trying to see that justice is done. Even so, it is completely irrelevant to the topic. Also, hasnt anyone told you that equivalency is the lowest form of argument?

Point taken. However you have just exxed yourself out, because justice was done. We did our best to police oursleves, and we did a pretty good job of it. Somehow I dont think having a VC political officer presiding over the legal hearings would have made things any more fair.

As for your sudden reversal, saying that most of European countries are still our allies. Could have fooled me. Look, I call them like I see them, and when I see and hear the things Europeans think about America, I am rather inclined to think that we are pretty much on our own. There is a difference between critical opinions and unfounded accusations of mass murder. Also, allies act together for a common cause. Most of Europe is not doing that with us. That makes them friendly nations, not allies.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 28 2002,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

"Touche'. However, there was documented proof, everything from survivor accounts to sattellite photos to pictures themselves , of Serbian ethnic cleansing. I'd like to point out that US military intervention only went as far as curbing Soviet aggression, securing Bosnia-Herzegovenia and later Kosovo, and reeling in smaller fish like Radovan Karadzic & Co. Slobo landed in the Tribunal because his own people turned his sorry ass over. And there is a slight difference between war crimes (shooting POWs, etc.), and crimes against humanity (ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.). Slobo was guilty of both- noone was "gunning" for him. We would have left him alone if he hadnt ordered Serb forces to systematically murder Bosnian, ethnic Albanian, and Croat noncombatants."

I don't care about Slobo, he got what he deserved. It was just an example and a poor one at that. But you do gun for people, currently it seems that some of your administration are really out to get Iraq. And in case of Saddam and his cronies being captured alive, I'm pretty sure you'd make sure they would be sentenced in some court, perhaps even the ICC. So you DO gun for people, just like everybody else.

"Now, I have a very recent example of people actually trying to pin war crimes on the US. This new story, surfacing in the past few weeks, of the truck full of dead POWs, had nothing to do with the US other than the fact that the POWs were Taliban- the POWs were being handled by the now defunct Northern Alliance, which we had zero tactical control over. However, the fact that we shared an enemy with troops from a culture where POWs are treated like dirt was more valuable, has given many journalists the apparent license to call this incident a US War Crime."

I've read about this and I categorized it as moronic journalists trying to sell papers with sensational headlines. Do you really think that cases like this would hold in ICC? They have to have some standard there, you know, in order to keep up the prestige of the court.

"This is just a small sampling of the slander that is spread with zero proof, and yet is gobbled up by the European populations, about US military actions."

We're not stupid just because we're euros, you know.

"As for your suggestion that US troops that commit war would be given leeway in a trial or not be prosecuted at all- it is a valid concern, but right now it is just not feasible politically for us to allow other countries decide the fate of accused US troops. At the moment, you are just going to have to trust us to police ourselves."

Yeah, it's not like we have any choice. Anyway, not agreeing to ICC will erode your image around the world, however you justify it to yourselves. It looks like you do not want to play ball with anyone anymore.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Not when the ball's color, texture, density, political significance, shape, and ethnicity have to be ratified by a bunch of insignificant sniveling countries with GNP's smaller than Los Angeles' who just happen to love to give us a hard time.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 28 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not when the ball's color, texture, density, political significance, shape, and ethnicity have to be ratified by a bunch of insignificant sniveling countries with GNP's smaller than Los Angeles' who just happen to love to give us a hard time.<span id='postcolor'>

Right.

[Longinius 1]

"The prisoners you speak of have not been sentenced. In fact, they havent even been charged with anything. They are just being held. This is a direct violation of the the Constitution, only made legal by a recent Presidential "finding"."

I am not talking about prisoners. I am talking about people who were sanctioned against without a chance for a trial. Their bank accounts frozen, their travel rights restricted and their places of work shut down. They were not American citizens, they did not live in a America and there was no proof what so ever that they had ties with terrorists.

"Even so, it is completely irrelevant to the topic. Also, hasnt anyone told you that equivalency is the lowest form of argument?"

No, it isnt. The topic is about the American government eating the cake and keeping it at the same time. They want the power to bring anyone to court or put up sanctions against them but they do not want anyone else to hold the same power in return, not even the international community.

"Point taken. However you have just exxed yourself out, because justice was done. We did our best to police oursleves, and we did a pretty good job of it. Somehow I dont think having a VC political officer presiding over the legal hearings would have made things any more fair."

No, but a UN officer might be a step in the right direction, don't you think? Or as it could be, an ICC. And justice was not done. Several of the American soldiers brought to trial got of rediculously easy, sometimes without doing any prisontime worth mentioning.

"Could have fooled me. Look, I call them like I see them, and when I see and hear the things Europeans think about America, I am rather inclined to think that we are pretty much on our own."

Interesting. You said earlier that the government and the citizens arent the same so one cannot be held accountable for the stupid actions of the others. Most governments in Europe back the US without a doubt.

"Also, allies act together for a common cause. Most of Europe is not doing that with us. That makes them friendly nations, not allies."

Ah, I see. Just because we wont help you bomb Iraq to pieces, we arent allies anymore? Europe has stood by the US in the War Against Terrorism and anything in the wake of it except the coming Lets Bomb Iraq © campaign.

[Guest]

Two posts deleted

Major Fubar, if you have something to contribute with do so. If you don't then stay away and don't sabotage a thread that has been working very well so far.

And Avon, don't encourage him.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 28 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Major Fubar, if you have something to contribute with do so. If you don't then stay away and don't sabotage a thread that has been working very well so far.

And Avon, don't encourage him.<span id='postcolor'>

How can I encourage someone who doesn't even have a post here?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Aug. 28 2002,14:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can I encourage someone who doesn't even have a post here? <span id='postcolor'>

Listen, I am not in the mood for jokes. He made a spam post here and you replied to it. I deleted both posts.

Now, stop that or I will have to do something about it.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 28 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not when the ball's color, texture, density, political significance, shape, and ethnicity have to be ratified by a bunch of insignificant sniveling countries with GNP's smaller than Los Angeles' who just happen to love to give us a hard time.<span id='postcolor'>

That's the whole problem, isn't it

Smaller countries trying to tell you how to behave in the international community