Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ICC prosecutors: US forces may have committed war crimes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ICC prosecutors: US forces may have committed war crimes

    THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — U.S. armed forces and the CIA may have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan, the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor said in a report Monday, raising the possibility that American citizens could be indicted even though Washington has not joined the global court.

    "Members of US armed forces appear to have subjected at least 61 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity on the territory of Afghanistan between 1 May 2003 and 31 December 2014," according to the report issued by Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda's office.

    The report added that CIA operatives may have subjected at least 27 detainees in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania to "torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and/or rape" between December 2002 and March 2008.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d4a6c...ed-afghanistan

    The last sentence of the first paragraph explains just why this won't go anywhere.

  • #2
    Yeah, let us let Hilary go without charges but throw the book at low level Military and CIA people. If we do not belong to the ICC, they can't serve a warrant.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      Yea, everything's a "war crime" to these idiots. I've said it before. The only real war crime is losing.

      Comment


      • #4
        'em. If they want a war, let it begin over this.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Yea, everything's a "war crime" to these idiots. I've said it before. The only real war crime is losing.
          Not to defend the fools behind this (they may have their little PR victory in those circles that listen to them) but your statement implies that a government can morally or legally do whatever it wants as long as it says it was necessary for victory.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Not to defend the fools behind this (they may have their little PR victory in those circles that listen to them) but your statement implies that a government can morally or legally do whatever it wants as long as it says it was necessary for victory.
            You mean like firebomb cities, bomb population centers, inflict six figures worth of collateral damage in lives, or stockpile enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over?

            War crimes apply to the defeated side.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Dragging the U.S. into two World Wars was sufficient punishment for the U.S. not recognizing the superiority of European culture.

              Fortunately we didn't follow their hypocritical advise and elect an incompetent criminal president and the possibility of a third World War.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Not to defend the fools behind this (they may have their little PR victory in those circles that listen to them) but your statement implies that a government can morally or legally do whatever it wants as long as it says it was necessary for victory.
                You can debate the morality of that, but in fact, yes, governments can do pretty much as they please in war. Do you really think if Germany won WW 2 that a single Nazi or SS man would have been prosecuted for any of the atrocities they did?

                Like I said, the real war crime is in losing. Then, the other side can take whatever moral high ground it wants, even ignore its own excesses, and impose whatever criminal sanctions on the losers it wants.

                The Soviet Union put German soldiers in the gulag for decades in some cases simply for being captured on the Eastern Front. Their crime was fighting the Soviet Union, and nothing more.

                I'm not trying to justify atrocities here. All I'm saying is a nation can commit them and get away with it when they win. They can't when they lose.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  You mean like firebomb cities, bomb population centers, inflict six figures worth of collateral damage in lives, or stockpile enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over?

                  War crimes apply to the defeated side.
                  So again, it's not morally or legally objectionable for military or government officials to engage in something such as rape, regardless of military utility, as long as you don't lose to whoever you molest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    You can debate the morality of that, but in fact, yes, governments can do pretty much as they please in war. Do you really think if Germany won WW 2 that a single Nazi or SS man would have been prosecuted for any of the atrocities they did?
                    To continue that example, then if they'd have won you'd see nothing they did as fitting the concept of a war crime, since they were victorious?

                    Like I said, the real war crime is in losing. Then, the other side can take whatever moral high ground it wants, even ignore its own excesses, and impose whatever criminal sanctions on the losers it wants.

                    The Soviet Union put German soldiers in the gulag for decades in some cases simply for being captured on the Eastern Front. Their crime was fighting the Soviet Union, and nothing more.

                    I'm not trying to justify atrocities here. All I'm saying is a nation can commit them and get away with it when they win. They can't when they lose.
                    But that doesn't go against the assertion that the "only" war crime is losing. If that is the criteria, then there is nothing that could be considered a crime in war outside of a loss. To phrase it another way, isn't that like saying any action is okay as long as nobody stops you?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If the crime is loosing wht was Japan not punished. Any case i am sure America's courts have punished any real war crimes internally. Thats what we do.
                      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                      CPO Mzinyati

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                        If the crime is loosing wht was Japan not punished. Any case i am sure America's courts have punished any real war crimes internally. Thats what we do.
                        That's the one thing that makes this so pathetic: the court has zero jurisdiction over the US, making this a feeble and worthless exercise in every practical sense.

                        It would be like a US court deciding to hold a trial to determine whether or not Putin was elected legitimately. Even if they had a case, it would still amount to zilch.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          So again, it's not morally or legally objectionable for military or government officials to engage in something such as rape, regardless of military utility, as long as you don't lose to whoever you molest.
                          Who said anything about rape? That is a violation of military law.

                          War crimes are different, unless they've changed the rules.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            That's the one thing that makes this so pathetic: the court has zero jurisdiction over the US, making this a feeble and worthless exercise in every practical sense.

                            Americans do not commit war crimes.

                            Occasionally a violation of the UCMJ, but not war crimes.

                            Being a superpower has its perks.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ICC: Libya will be top priority in 2017 including extremists

                              UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The International Criminal Court is committed to making Libya a priority next year and expanding investigations, potentially including alleged serious crimes by the extremist Islamic State group and its affiliates, the prosecutor said Wednesday.

                              Fatou Bensouda told the U.N. Security Council that her commitment is the result of a number of factors: widespread violence, lawlessness and impunity in many areas, a desire to provide justice for victims, and alleviating the suffering of civilians "who continue to endure the tragic consequences of the conflict in Libya."

                              She said her office intends to apply for new arrest warrants "under seal as soon as practicable and hopes to have new arrest warrants served in the near future."

                              http://bigstory.ap.org/article/33ead...ing-extremists

                              It's getting to be a week of bold, decisive action by the ICC. Who knows, maybe their next statement will actually target some place where they have the authority to actually do something?

                              Does DoD really need the sarcasm tag for that first sentence?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X