Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraqi warcrimes

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

  • Iraqi warcrimes

    The US has stated that it will prosecute some Iraqi officials with warcrimes. Does the US have a legal right to conduct a warcrimes court by itself, or will it have to go to the International Criminal Court (I can't remember if the USA supported/signed on with the ICC), or set up some kind of international tribunal?

  • #2
    The US can either conduct trials on site in Iraq or hand them off to the UN.
    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

    Comment


    • #3
      Would a US trial use US law? I would assume there wouldn't be much legal precedent for 'warcrimes' under domestic US laws.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, the US wouldn't use US law I don't think. They would probably use Iraqi law. The London Times is reporting that if Saddam is caught the US will have him tried in Iraq. The punishments for Iraqi war criminals will range from "incarceration to the death penalty”.
        "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

        Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

        Comment


        • #5
          Aw...

          Why not dispense with laws, and just shoot and kill the bastard? A lot easier, and we could bill his next of kin, oh wait, his kin is full of war criminals, isn't it true? I guess, we'll just have to bill France, after all, she did want to do business with Saddam....

          Dan
          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

          "Aim small, miss small."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cheetah772
            Aw...

            Why not dispense with laws, and just shoot and kill the bastard? A lot easier, and we could bill his next of kin, oh wait, his kin is full of war criminals, isn't it true? I guess, we'll just have to bill France, after all, she did want to do business with Saddam....

            Dan
            Yes lets just start shooting people without a trail then we can be just like................Saddam.

            Geez........

            _Tim
            "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cheetah772
              Why not dispense with laws, and just shoot and kill the bastard?
              Now, there's a true Christian talking...
              “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


                Now, there's a true Christian talking...
                Relax, I was merely being sacrastic.

                It's just that so many times throughout history, the bad guys always get off that easy. The justice isn't exactly fair to many people, especially these victims.

                Dan

                EDIT: I am also annoyed by the very fact any trial would be a mere display of show rather than a genuine trial for Saddam and his loyal supporters. His victims never got a fair chance to defend themselves, and in my mind, we're trying to keep the high moral ground, this is good to me. BUT, we are at war with Saddam, and I would rather have him killed than having to go through the due process merely to vertify or confirm that he is indeed responsible for the countless deaths of his people.

                It's like trying to decide whether a red apple is in fact a red one, which make the whole thing pointless, because it's right in front of you. In the other words, if we're going to do it, then I only ask for a genuine one rather than a kangaroo trial. The publicity isn't always the best way, and Saddam could use it as a platform for his final propaganda in hopes of inciting Arabs to do something incredibly stupid.
                Last edited by Cheetah772; 08 Apr 03, 17:29.
                Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                "Aim small, miss small."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why not dispense with laws, and just shoot and kill the bastard?
                  Relax, I was merely being sacrastic.
                  Too late! Seems the US military liked your idea a lot and right now are trying to put it into practice, the latest airstrikes apparently are directly targeted at Saddam and his sons...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That actually poses an interesting question. Should world leaders be considered valid command and control targets?

                    If an Iraqi agent assasinated Bush, would that be considered legit or not?
                    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MikeJ
                      That actually poses an interesting question. Should world leaders be considered valid command and control targets?

                      If an Iraqi agent assasinated Bush, would that be considered legit or not?
                      Technically, Bush is off limits because he's not involved in the operational to tactical level decision making process. Saddam is. Yet, Bush is still the Commander-IN-Chief. Taking him out would impact the war effort (or so someone like Saddam would think).

                      If you kill Saddam, it would seriously degrade, if not destroy resistance. His subordinates depend on his instructions to conduct any level of operations. If you kill Bush, he'd be immediately (and I do mean immediately) replaced by the Vice President. It would not effect tactical and operational levels of warfare. I also doubt it would effect the strategic level as well. The new President would most likely continue the previous President's agenda.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh


                        Technically, Bush is off limits because he's not involved in the operational to tactical level decision making process. Saddam is. Yet, Bush is still the Commander-IN-Chief. Taking him out would impact the war effort (or so someone like Saddam would think).

                        If you kill Saddam, it would seriously degrade, if not destroy resistance. His subordinates depend on his instructions to conduct any level of operations. If you kill Bush, he'd be immediately (and I do mean immediately) replaced by the Vice President. It would not effect tactical and operational levels of warfare. I also doubt it would effect the strategic level as well. The new President would most likely continue the previous President's agenda.
                        I agree, but that wasn't really my quesiton . In a moral or legal sense (whichever, or both even), should Bush be considered a valid target as Saddam is considered a valid target by the US?

                        I really don't know on this one and am wondering what others think.
                        "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                        – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MikeJ


                          I agree, but that wasn't really my quesiton . In a moral or legal sense (whichever, or both even), should Bush be considered a valid target as Saddam is considered a valid target by the US?

                          I really don't know on this one and am wondering what others think.
                          The Whitehouse spokesman says "Get an international lawyer"

                          I think the short answer is yes; although I feel for the idiot that tries it.
                          "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MikeJ


                            I agree, but that wasn't really my quesiton . In a moral or legal sense (whichever, or both even), should Bush be considered a valid target as Saddam is considered a valid target by the US?

                            I really don't know on this one and am wondering what others think.
                            We'll start with the law in the US

                            Executive Order 11095 Section 5(g)

                            Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

                            Executive Order 12036 Section 2-305 (supercedes EO 11095)

                            Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

                            Executive Order 12036 Section 2-306

                            Restrictions on Special Activities. No component of the United States Government except an agency within the Intelligence Community may conduct any special activity. No such agency except the CIA (or the military services in wartime) may conduct any special activity unless the President determines, with the SCC's advice, that another agency is more likely to achieve a particular objective.

                            Executive Order 12333 Section 2.11 (revokes EO 12036)

                            Prohibition on Assassination No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

                            Executive Order 12333 Section 2.12

                            INDIRECT PARTICIPATION No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

                            What none of these orders extend to is the right of self-defense. Many leaders believe the United States has the right to target with the intent to kill, an individual who is a "combatant" actively engaged in the killing, threat to kill, or cause serious bodily harm of American citizens. Furthermore, the ban does not consider it assassination when the US kills a target during an attempt to arrest him or her.

                            If an Iraqi assault team tried to kill the President of the United States, they would technically be within the bounds of our own rules. The President is a combatant actively participating and is responsible for the killing of Iraqi civilians.

                            There is alot of debate about all this though. 12333, which was signed by President Regan in 1981 was very clear. However, Regan was the first to break it in 1986. He authorized airstrikes on Col. Mu'ammar Qadhafi's residence. The President was the first to invoke the Self Defense ideal. President Bush Sr. used a different strategy. He said Saddam Hussein was an combatant. Under EO 11095, this is legal. Clinton used both defenses. Bush Jr, is using the combatant defense. While EO 12036 supercedes Eo 11095, it doesn't revoke it. That is where legitimacy is often found.

                            So Iraq has the justification to eliminate President Bush. He is a threat to the current government of Iraq, and is technically at war with them.

                            Morally, I also believe Bush is fair game. He is the leader. Any military force seeks to decapitate the leadership from the lower echelons. Of course, the US would not accept the assassination of it's president as "just a military act." Niether does the Iraqi government.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Iraqi warcrimes

                              Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
                              The US has stated that it will prosecute some Iraqi officials with warcrimes. Does the US have a legal right to conduct a warcrimes court by itself, or will it have to go to the International Criminal Court (I can't remember if the USA supported/signed on with the ICC), or set up some kind of international tribunal?
                              Well considering the US wants no part in the ICC how can they try anyone for war crimes ? However, if they decide to be hypocritical then we need to address the issue of US war crimes. Such as shooting women in cars at checkpoints, scared women who do not speak english and who have never even seen westerners before, especially not the 'cowboy' type of westerners. There is also the A-10 pilot, described by his victims as a 'cowboy' out on a 'jolly'. When will he be punished for his sheer incompetence. And then there is the US pilot who just vapourised 11 Afghan civilians, when will we see him doing hard time ? Double standards yet again. The British had similar incidents in Northern Ireland with regard to shooting people at checkpoints, proxy bomb or not, they do time for it. So lets get those pesky US gung-ho soldiers bvehind bars so we can all relax when driving our children away from the shelling and bombing.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X