Who'll commit the most war crimes?

shotamoose

Spotted today a quote from George W. Bush:

President Bush seemed to have some of these officials in mind when when he told reporters that Iraq's generals should "clearly understand that if they take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held to account as war criminals."

Is this another case of if someone else takes innocent life and destroys infrastructure, it's a war crime, but if the US does it it's a necessary sacrifice in the struggle for freedom, ie war not crime?

How would the US or anyone else set about trying Saddam and / or other captured Iraqi military leaders for war crimes? And would Britain, the US, Turkey or others be subject to the same rules and institutions? I note that it has been suggested that the use of depleted uranium - tipped weapons be designated a war crime.

The Saint

"Is this another case of if someone else takes innocent life and destroys infrastructure, it's a war crime, but if the US does it it's a necessary sacrifice in the struggle for freedom, ie war not crime?"

Well, the US is already thinking about destroying electricity installations which will in turn disable the water system which is classed as a war crime under the Geneva convention as they did during and after the first Gulf War.

"How would the US or anyone else set about trying Saddam and / or other captured Iraqi military leaders for war crimes? And would Britain, the US, Turkey or others be subject to the same rules and institutions? "

They wouldnt, as they never have when these countries have perpitrated war crimes in the past.

DANGERA NAJBAR-AJO

War IS a crime!

The Saint

War, huh, What is it good for? Besides commercial gain and imperialism. Absolutely nothing, sing it with me!

Éomer of Rohan

Laughing my ass off. Nice one guys

Daily D

I have no opinion on this matter.

bonkey

Well dont post on politics again unless you do please.

We have enough muppetry at the moment, thanks, we aren't looking for any more just now.

jc

JohnK

I think that its another example of double standards. As shotamoose said

...if the US does it it's a necessary sacrifice in the struggle for freedom...

Quite sickening actually.

If I'm not mistaken, a few weeks back some British lawers said that they were going to try and charge Bush & Blair with war crimes if they went to war without UN backing. Haven't heard any more about that though.

DadaKopf

Is this another case of if someone else takes innocent life and destroys infrastructure, it's a war crime, but if the US does it it's a necessary sacrifice in the struggle for freedom, ie war not crime?

This is why every state (not 'nation', *ahem*) should obviously ratify the ICC and it's exactly why the US refuses to do so. They don't want a level playing field. It's really sad.

The US is absolutely prohibited from bombing any structures essential to the basic provisions ensured by the UN Charter and the UN Convention on Human Rights - two documents that the Bush administration is trying to make it look like they respect; and that's kind of funny considering that a number of US departments and think tanks endorsed this UN document which, in detail, outlines the likely humanitarian crises/transgressions that will ensue as a direct result of US/UK/UN/whatever bombardment. The US and UK have openly admitted and accepted at least 500,000 fatalities due to war, starvation and disease when it's entirely possible that this scenario can be avoided.

Balls.

DadaKopf

Oh yeah, and the amount of gross double standards made in Bush's speech tonight (even though he's clearly softening his position - he even came close to praising the anti-war movement) was enough to make me puke.

The Saint

I saw the speech and it almost made me feel ill.

bonkey

Originally posted by JohnK
If I'm not mistaken, a few weeks back some British
lawers said that they were going to try and charge Bush & Blair with war crimes if they went to war without UN backing. Haven't heard any more about that though.

Was it not that they were going to try and take Blair in front of the International Criminal Court on charges of war-crimes if there was evidence of any being performed by "allied" troops, where Blair was either complicit or at least aware.

They can't charge Dubya, cause the US doesnt fall under the juristiction of the ICC.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

TomF

Are warring sides justified in locating military installations (read "targets") next to homes and hospitals as a technique to protect such targets from attack?

Snowball

Originally posted by bonkey
They can't charge Dubya, cause the US doesnt fall under the juristiction of the ICC.

they dont realy have a juristriction. it has to be recognised by the state/country/etc in which the person is being acused. But dont they used the UN as their enforcement agents? I though it was the UN that was used my the ICC to make people recognise them, no?

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Are warring sides justified in locating military installations (read "targets") next to homes and hospitals as a technique to protect such targets from attack?

That would depend.

Any nation I can think of who is likely to be involved in a war will tell you that it is not justifiable to use human shields, and that such actions cannot deter them from their course. Therefore, they will attack their targets, express regret at the loss of innocent life, but insist that it is the fault of those they were attacking for putting their valid targets in such inappropriate settings.

However, if those whom they are attacking should actually use the same logic and tactics back, they will be branded as inhuman monsters who place no value on human life.

jc

This is a dodgy one, since many towns have grown up around military bases. Also, many military bases will have areas for their own wives/children.

In this age of "precision bombing" (which isn't really precise enough), the superpowers will attack military targets in civilian areas, and vice versa, and simply say that any civilians killed were an accident, and move on swiftly to the next target.

But heres a question: if a military hospital is bombed, is that a crime, since the wounded are not fighting at that time?

DiscoStu

this one was too good not to post. aside from spelling osama bin laden wrong our friends at fox have outdone themselves again.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79913,00.html

some choice quotes

--Terrorism, defined as killing or hurting people or attacking property in an attempt "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government."

--Killing or attacking civilians.

and who said americans dont do irony

and finally rape the horrible crime it is now seems to imply membership of a terrorist organisation. does that mean all those women raped in vietnam is the effort to flush out 'charlie' and other conflicts that they have been involved in can prosecute american servicemen as terrorists?