Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ICC prosecutors: US forces may have committed war crimes

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

  • #16
    The irony will be if their suspects get clipped by any one of several nation's counter-terror efforts while the Hague is processing warrants.

    I can't decide whether this is funny or sad. Maybe just surreal: an extensive legal apparatus solemnly issuing warrants which may take a decade or more to be served. And lately it seems they acquit as many as they convict.

    I can't decide if it is a joke or an insult.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Who said anything about rape? That is a violation of military law.

      War crimes are different, unless they've changed the rules.
      (1)Prohibited conduct.—In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

      ...

      (G)Rape.—
      The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
      The adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, defined in Section 6 of the act grave abuses of Common Article 3 to only include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages, thereby limiting the scope of the original law.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996
      A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
      It was not until 1992, in the face of widespread rapes of women in the former Yugoslavia, that the issue came to the attention of the UN Security Council. On 18 December 1992, the Council declared the "massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, in particular Muslim women, in Bosnia and Herzegovina" an international crime that must be addressed.

      Subsequently, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1993) included rape as a crime against humanity, alongside other crimes such as torture and extermination, when committed in armed conflict and directed against a civilian population. In 2001, the ICTY became the first international court to find an accused person guilty of rape as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, the Court expanded the definition of slavery as a crime against humanity to include sexual slavery. Previously, forced labor was the only type of slavery to be viewed as a crime against humanity.

      http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide...violence.shtml

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        The irony will be if their suspects get clipped by any one of several nation's counter-terror efforts while the Hague is processing warrants.

        I can't decide whether this is funny or sad. Maybe just surreal: an extensive legal apparatus solemnly issuing warrants which may take a decade or more to be served. And lately it seems they acquit as many as they convict.

        I can't decide if it is a joke or an insult.
        I think both fit pretty well at the same time. It's probably better than nothing, but it's not so much slow as geological.

        But those big supranational organizations have to justify themselves somehow. And make themselves feel important to boot.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          (1)Prohibited conduct.—In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

          ...

          (G)Rape.—
          The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
          The adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, defined in Section 6 of the act grave abuses of Common Article 3 to only include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages, thereby limiting the scope of the original law.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996
          A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
          It was not until 1992, in the face of widespread rapes of women in the former Yugoslavia, that the issue came to the attention of the UN Security Council. On 18 December 1992, the Council declared the "massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, in particular Muslim women, in Bosnia and Herzegovina" an international crime that must be addressed.

          Subsequently, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1993) included rape as a crime against humanity, alongside other crimes such as torture and extermination, when committed in armed conflict and directed against a civilian population. In 2001, the ICTY became the first international court to find an accused person guilty of rape as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, the Court expanded the definition of slavery as a crime against humanity to include sexual slavery. Previously, forced labor was the only type of slavery to be viewed as a crime against humanity.

          http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide...violence.shtml
          Interesting: they don't mind if you get a BJ at gunpoint.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            Interesting: they don't mind if you get a BJ at gunpoint.
            You noticed that too, huh? Why do I have the feeling that that had more to do with stuffy old guy ignorance than a conscious decision to only make penetrating two of the three major orifices a war crime?

            Though then again, Washington isn't exactly filled with prudes either...

            Cigar, anyone?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              Americans do not commit war crimes.

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

              Being a superpower has its perks.
              America the country as not conducted war crimes. But Americans have done it and been punished for it. The fact that the UCMJ does not list shoot a wounded prisoner as a war crime does not mean it was not one. Any case i find it nice that ihe ICC is go after people out side of a Africa. The ICC is a broken system and even as a member we dont listen to them.
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                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."
                This group reports to the UN. Lots of Muslim countries like to see the US Lambasted at the UN. I wonder how often they have gone after Israel for acts in Gaza and the West Bank?

                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Interesting: they don't mind if you get a BJ at gunpoint.
                  With us it is the incerstion of any object in to any orfice. So a finger i. The ear is rape of course this law came about after a gang of women where rapeing men by putting netting needels up there dicks. Since the old law had that has just sexual assault.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                    America the country as not conducted war crimes. But Americans have done it and been punished for it. The fact that the UCMJ does not list shoot a wounded prisoner as a war crime does not mean it was not one. Any case i find it nice that ihe ICC is go after people out side of a Africa. The ICC is a broken system and even as a member we dont listen to them.
                    Actually, we have had guys shoot entire villages and go unpunished. Read up on Mai Lai.

                    The UCMJ is a very flexible thing.

                    But it does not include war crimes. You can get charged with rape or murder, but not a war crime.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Actually, we have had guys shoot entire villages and go unpunished. Read up on Mai Lai.

                      The UCMJ is a very flexible thing.

                      But it does not include war crimes. You can get charged with rape or murder, but not a war crime.
                      Indeed, you can't be charged under the UCMJ. That's what the War Crimes Act is for.

                      From the link above:
                      The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                        Actually, we have had guys shoot entire villages and go unpunished. Read up on Mai Lai.

                        The UCMJ is a very flexible thing.

                        But it does not include war crimes. You can get charged with rape or murder, but not a war crime.
                        I was talking about a incident where punshment took place.


                        And even though the charg was murder and not war crime. It was a war crime. Just like abusing a prisoner is a war crime but the charge would probaly be assault.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          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?
                          That misses the point. You are confusing morality, which I agree what they did was an atrocity and immoral, with criminality. Who will charge them with a crime? Think of it this way: Stalin killed millions collectivizing farms. So did Mao. Pol Pot killed millions in his bid to make a communist paradise. They only get charged if someone can do that and in war, that means their opponent(s) have to win.
                          North Vietnam rounded up tens of thousands as political prisoners who in their eyes were war criminals following their defeat of the South. It doesn't matter if they were moral or immoral, right or wrong. They won, they can set the rules.


                          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?
                          Sure it does. If you don't lose, you don't get charged. The current "International" courts, even the UN have to rely on nations to provide the muscle to make their rulings stick. Do you really think that a US President could be convicted and imprisoned by one of these courts? Not bloody likely. The US as a nation has too much clout to allow it to happen.
                          So, it's sort of like playing at court... Like a moot court. They can get convictions against small time Third World "war criminals" because the major countries will back that up. But, no major power is going to let some little international court tell them what to do.

                          And yes, when it comes to international relations, if nobody can stop you, you can do whatever the hell you please as a nation.
                          For example, if Argentina had taken the Falklands and Britain just went to some international court and protested, what'd the likely outcome be? The court finds for Britain and the Falklands become the Malvinas Islands and part of Argentina.
                          Look at Israel and the West Bank, etc. Plenty of nations, courts, and leaders have sided with the Palestinians. The Israelis still own the land for all intents.
                          Look at what China is doing in the South China sea...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            That misses the point. You are confusing morality, which I agree what they did was an atrocity and immoral, with criminality.
                            But why not consider them simultaneously? Dismissing a "war crime" as irrelevant because it won't lead to any punitive measures doesn't seem to gel with how we actually live our lives. If you knew your boss had opened fire with a handgun in his last office, but hadn't ever been charged with a crime, it would alter your behavior, or at the very least elicit acknowledgement that such an act was wrong.

                            I imagine that some of the same things could be said in this case. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the ICC was correct: that the US was truly guilty of all the war crimes they accuse them of.

                            Would her actions still be immoral? And if so, does their very immorality still elevate them above irrelevancy, just because the US wouldn't ever actually be punished for them? Does committing an act, even if never to be punished by a greater authority, still render one "guilty" of said act?

                            Sure it does. If you don't lose, you don't get charged. The current "International" courts, even the UN have to rely on nations to provide the muscle to make their rulings stick. Do you really think that a US President could be convicted and imprisoned by one of these courts? Not bloody likely. The US as a nation has too much clout to allow it to happen.
                            So, it's sort of like playing at court... Like a moot court. They can get convictions against small time Third World "war criminals" because the major countries will back that up. But, no major power is going to let some little international court tell them what to do.

                            And yes, when it comes to international relations, if nobody can stop you, you can do whatever the hell you please as a nation.
                            For example, if Argentina had taken the Falklands and Britain just went to some international court and protested, what'd the likely outcome be? The court finds for Britain and the Falklands become the Malvinas Islands and part of Argentina.
                            Look at Israel and the West Bank, etc. Plenty of nations, courts, and leaders have sided with the Palestinians. The Israelis still own the land for all intents.
                            Look at what China is doing in the South China sea...
                            I think my point is that just because they got away with it doesn't alter the morality of the act. We often see people adopt the "it's not wrong if you can do it" mentality for international acts while also espousing a strong sense of personal morality closer to home. Yet most of us would admit that a murder unseen or excused would still be a murder.

                            Saying "the only war crime is losing" implies (amongst other things) that the acts committed are themselves not war crimes - and not as in "innocent until proven guilty" but in an objective, absolute sense. "It's not murder if I don't get caught."

                            And if they're not war crimes, then what are they?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I don't expect this to go anywhere. Especially with an incoming American president who has had less than favorable things to say about NATO.
                              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X