Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

International War Crimes Tribunal for Abu Ghraib Soldiers?

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

  • International War Crimes Tribunal for Abu Ghraib Soldiers?

    Do you agree with Kofi Anal of the UN that the tormentors of the Iraqi captives at Abu Ghraib and other places should stand war crimes trial before international community?
    25
    Defninitely Yes!
    36.00%
    9
    Definitely No!
    40.00%
    10
    Depends...I'm unsure
    24.00%
    6

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    no chance
    "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the low ranking individuals depicted in the photo's can be safely handled by their own mil law system.

      But for the higher ranking individuals whose idea it was to take photos, and then to not take precautions such that those photos became available for use as enemy propaganda should be taken and strung up from the highest yard-arm you can find for aiding the enemy and providing material benefit to them in time of war. And dragging their sorry backsides through the WCT won't be enough, but it will be better than nothing. And that applies to anybody who approved it too.

      Comment


      • #4
        MZ, how about instead of linking a picture of Kofi Annan you link the article next time ? I did a search at un.org for 'Abu Ghraib' but all I found was this:

        "An equally important and urgent measure was the grave issue of the prisoners detained in the notorious Abu Ghraib detention centre and elsewhere, he (LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General) continued. It would greatly help the new Government if that problem were to be completely solved even before 30 June. "

        but nothing about an international war crime tribunal.
        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

        Henry Alfred Kissinger

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kraut
          MZ, how about instead of linking a picture of Kofi Annan you link the article next time ? I did a search at un.org for 'Abu Ghraib' but all I found was this:

          "An equally important and urgent measure was the grave issue of the prisoners detained in the notorious Abu Ghraib detention centre and elsewhere, he (LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General) continued. It would greatly help the new Government if that problem were to be completely solved even before 30 June. "

          but nothing about an international war crime tribunal.
          Well, Kofi Annan was asked earlier this week if he thought the abuses fell under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and he clearly said no.

          I am somewhat open to the possibility though. I am concerned with the investigation, and who might be held accountable. I think more senior officers were either aware of abuses, approved the conduct, or should have been aware of the actions of their subordinates. I know investigations are still ongoing, but thus far it seems to be too focused on "immediate actors".

          If the US is unable or unwilling to execute justice, then the ICC offers an alternative. At the moment I am still reluctant to change my opposition to American participation in the ICC, but I give preference to justice.

          What is really at issue is the renewal of immunity for American peacekeepers. That vote is coming up next week, and Annan has expressed his opposition to such a resolution by the security council.

          Annan's position is understandable. If the UN Security Council continues to renew immunity for US peacekeepers, it would undermine the integrity of the ICC. However, the Serviceman's Protection Act was a statement by the American people. It was passed with very strong bi-partisan support.

          I don't feel comfortable demanding the UN continue to renew immunity. However, I also don't believe the majority is always right. I believe the US should outline her concerns with the ICC, and request negotiations to find an acceptable to term solution or compromises.
          "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


          • #6
            The poor idiots who committed these crimes are no more War Criminals that the fools who committed attrocities in a 1000 wars before (Russians, SS etc, etc) - though the level of crime is not comparable of course. They did it because they were told to and did not have enough humanity in them to stand up to a direct order.

            However there is no doubt that the people who ordered this should face the War Crimes court.

            For the US to stand up and invade another country, whilst refusing to submit to international law and to support another country that uses illegal means to combat its own problems (Isreal) is just stupid. As DeltaPooh pointed out in another post, people all over the world - friend, foe or neutral - see these things and the stench of hipocracy can be noticed by even the most ignorant redneck.

            I do not really think that an International War Crimes Court would be used for political purposes, the US is to strong for games like that - but it would certainly make fools like GWB and his chicken-hawks think a little more carefully before putting their teenagers in the firing line
            Legion's ASL AARs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Legion
              I do not really think that an International War Crimes Court would be used for political purposes, the US is to strong for games like that - but it would certainly make fools like GWB and his chicken-hawks think a little more carefully before putting their teenagers in the firing line
              I don't think the ICC should be used to influence American foriegn policy, particularly in an area as sensitive as national security. We have a well-established system for deciding if a President has made a wreckless decision. If the President is more concerned with getting dragged into court because some people in the world disagree with a decision, he will likely be more hesitant, which can compromise national security.

              My understanding of what the ICC treaty established is that it was limited to the conduct of war. It does not have the authority to decide whether or not a war was justified. The possibility that it can go beyond this scope is one of the reservations that keeps me from supporting US participation.
              "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


              • #8
                America should stand up and be willing to be subject to that type of trial. Then we should make sure that it's impossible for pentagon brass like Rumsfeld whose responsiblity it truely is to cover their asses and make scapegoats of soldiers like Karpinski.
                ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                -the Firesign Theatre

                Comment


                • #9
                  No! Nothing that happened in this Iraqi prison comes close to a war crime.

                  Does anyone really think that any of this equalled what happened in Bosnia, Ruwanda or what was already happening in the country?

                  This is a case of the UN chasing after the U.S. because they know we'll pay attention to them. Also, there is a faction of the Democratic party that desperately want Iraq to be another Vietnam and they are grabbing this issue and trying to make it into something huge. But, after all the info is out, this will pass.
                  "Nations are never content to confine their rivalships and enmities to themselves. It is their usual policy to disseminate them as widely, as they can, regardless how far it may interfere with the tranquility or happiness of the nations which they are able to influence." -- Alexander Hamilton

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yikes! Just when I was about to quote something it disappeared!
                    My sense of the situation is that the administration was trying to foster a climate in which it was easy to get intelligence. This climate, reinforced by "innovations" like Guantanamo bay, is the climate in which these soldiers got out of hand. If you're going to foster that type of climate you've got redouble your efforts to prevent abuses. No I've got nothing on Rumsfeld. His *ss is covered. But he is at the top. It was his responsibility to make sure nothing like this happened, is it not?
                    ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                    -the Firesign Theatre

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      We have a well-established system for deciding if a President has made a wreckless decision. If the President is more concerned with getting dragged into court because some people in the world disagree with a decision, he will likely be more hesitant, which can compromise national security.
                      Sorry mate, but must disagree here... the recent events prove you wrong. A congress comittee found that there was no evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, and yet the president decides that this is not the case and only he knows best... this is really a scary thought and starts to look like it is bordering on Fascism.

                      While i agree with you that the threat of a court case is enough to scare any world leader, i do not see this as a bad thing.

                      The UN was 100% behind you for the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, and as a result you were able to protect your national security and indeed protect the world. Thank you! But the UN wanted there to be a more moderate result in Iraq, and again for damn good reasons! The war in Iraq has made ALL of us less safe! It was illegal (under the terms it was presented to the UN for being a 'valid' war ie WMD) and therefore there SHOULD be some form of censure over what was essentially a personally motivated decision by the Bush White House. Should Bush be shot for Crimes againsdt Humanity - HELL NO (i am against capital punishment, even for the most severe crimes, and this war was very naughty but not on the same level as the genocide in Yugoslavia or WW2!) but he does need to be accountable for his actions


                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      My understanding of what the ICC treaty established is that it was limited to the conduct of war. It does not have the authority to decide whether or not a war was justified. The possibility that it can go beyond this scope is one of the reservations that keeps me from supporting US participation.
                      Yes, i agree that this is a legal grey area, but one that needs to be addressed. I cannot agree that the decision to start a war can not be held to be accountable.

                      I think too the thing that most inflames me in this is that the US is illegally holding captives in Guantanamo bay (including 2 Aussies that our goverment does not have the balls to demand be returned to us, at least Blair had the guts to do that!), it has just been revealed that they have been llegally holding captive without informing the Red Cross of their existance, and of course EVERYONE knows that 6 redneck kids did not decide to start torturing prisoners just because there was nothing on TV that day! YET the US was consistantly harping on about bringing even soldiers who faught against them (Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraqis too) up to face charges of war crimes!

                      As ye reap so should ye sow... it is impossible to take these threats as anything short of hypocracy from the mouth of one who doesnt follow the laws he demands others to suffer from!
                      Legion's ASL AARs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hello,

                        Just remember America is not a third world country, it is a powerful nation with leaders held accountable by their own people, which is certainly a lot better than what can be said of other countries.

                        America already has a good justice system to take care of mistakes made by leaders and other important officials. It has some flaws, there's no doubt on this, but as long accountabiity is there, I don't see a reason to put our elected leaders before an international court.

                        For the record, I am opposed to any war triburnal or international court for ANY leader, including those of other countries like in Africa or Yugoslavia. I think any leaders found to be responsible for whatever humanity crimes should be tried by their own people. That's why we're planning to turn over Saddam to his own people. Let him be tried by his Iraqi peers in an Iraqi court, as long it provides a fair trial for him.

                        Having an international court in my opinion is an infringement upon America's national sovereignty and her proud sense of intregity.

                        Any treaty on international court must be ratified by the Senate, fortunately, it's unlikely such treaty will be passed even with numerous reservations placed on for America's sake. Otherwise, it will face one angry American eager to vote out whosoever foolish enough to vote 'aye' on it in my state.

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

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Legion
                          Sorry mate, but must disagree here... the recent events prove you wrong. A congress comittee found that there was no evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda,
                          This is incorrect. The report stated that there were links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but they found no evidence that the two collaborated with regard to the 9/11 attacks.
                          "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kid kool
                            This is incorrect. The report stated that there were links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but they found no evidence that the two collaborated with regard to the 9/11 attacks.
                            http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

                            No evidence that there were anything else than some small talk between the two.
                            Wisdom is personal

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kid kool
                              This is incorrect. The report stated that there were links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but they found no evidence that the two collaborated with regard to the 9/11 attacks.
                              Weren't the extent of the links 'invitations' by Al Qaeda to Saddam that were turned down?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X