in the coming decades the US may become embroiled in more and more police actions in different parts of the world(more iraq and afghanistan type conflicts). therefore there is the possibility that there will be more abu garib type incidents involving us soldeirs. next time if a problem like abu garib happens, those responsible should be brought to trial before the international court. if those libyans responsible for the 88' lockerbie bombing , and if milosovic of yugoslavia
can be put on trial at the hague, us soldiers who step out of line(like at abu garib) should also face trial at the hague. rule of law should be applied equally to all nations.
Last edited by mich; 12 Feb 06, at 03:52.
Not a chance in hell.
The Lybians were tried by a Scotish Court. Milosovic was brought before an International Jurisdiction since the Yugoslav Civil War was under International Jurisdiction (UNPROFOR). The US (and everybody else for that matter) is under no obligation to submit to the ICJ when it does not have jurisdiction in the 1st place. In other words, if the UN weren't involved from the get-go, the ICJ can't decide.
And the US has NEVER submitted to a Blue Beret operation.
Chimo
Rule of law should only be applied to those who had representation in the making of it. We fought a war or two for just that principle, I believe.
So, you and the international lawyers and judges and bailiffs run along now. Unless you think y'all can enforce your laws on us. If you DO, we'll meet you on any ground you care to name.
We'll take care of our own justice, thank you very much, I'm sure, just like we did at Abu Grhaib. Don't trouble yourself about it. It seems that the Rest of the World could stand to look to its OWN justice systems, LONG before it concerns itself with ours.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Well said Bluesman.
Hey B-man-
If'n you're still up, gimme a jingle.
As far as International Law, it's a silly concept. And the U.S. is never going to put its neck on the block at the whim the likes of Eritrea or Burkina Faso.
It's ridiculous to even contemplate the idea.
-dale
certainly not. the opposite of international law is the law of the jungle, by which the strongest survive while the weakest die. certainly the international arena is littered with a million examples of the latter, but international law at least forces a veneer of civility where in many cases there would have been none.As far as International Law, it's a silly concept.
so while international law is definitely not (and probably never will be) the main factor of consideration for nations, one should appreciate that it does remain a factor, nevertheless. life would have been a lot harder on groundpounders, for example, if the geneva conventions didn't exist...
The opposite of International Law is International Agreement Between Adult Nations. Works much better.Originally Posted by astralis
-dale
the chinese would heartedly disagree; and so too would americans if france and britain decided to intervene (as they were on the verge of doing) in the civil war.The opposite of International Law is International Agreement Between Adult Nations. Works much better.
-dale
I can see somebody needs a visit from the JDAM fairy.
Last edited by Bill; 12 Feb 06, at 07:27.
And notice that Britain and France stayed out of our Civil War without the benefit of any International Law. They stayed out because it was the politically expedient thing for them to do.the chinese would heartedly disagree; and so too would americans if france and britain decided to intervene (as they were on the verge of doing) in the civil war.
And China doesn't obey any International Law anyway - why bring them into this?
-dale
Hee hee!
-dale
Just where can I find this book containing International Laws? The "Conventions" are a series of agreements between nations on how they will conduct war. You really can't expect me to obay laws if I don't have access to published laws. In fact .... are these "Laws" published?
Are these 'laws' definitive in nature? All words used in the 'law' must have exact definitions, not subject to interpretations.
Do these 'laws' have specified punishments for violating them?
Just what are the "Rules/Laws of Evidence" for this court? Are they published? Are there punishments specified for violating them?
Just what is the procedure, & evidence required, for determining that there is 'probable cause' to justify prosecuting me?
Are there punishments, sufficient to inhibit the filing false charges, unwarranted prosecution and perjury?
Since the International Prosecuter will have access to vertually unlimited resources, I take it that the 'court' will pay all my legal fees?
Just how are you going to insure the "Neutrality" of those who will sit in judgement of me? A pacifist is 'out', since they believe that the use of violence is wrong. And, I am a member of an organization that achives results by the threat, or application of violence. Also those who've made adverse comments, publically or privately, about my country (political system, policys & people), or about the justification of and conduct of the confict in which I was engaged. Have fun!!
Will I be able to appeal the 'findings' & punishments imposed by this 'court'?
Will I be able to "Post Bond"? If you're going to 'lock me up' & I'm found innocent, or the 'charges' are dropped, will I be compensated?
The big problem is who should be tried by this court. You say the 'Abu Garib' soldiers should be tried, but I have yet the see a cry that those (in Iraq) who ordered or placed weapons and defensive positions in and around schools, hospitals, etc should be tried, for example.
Just how are you going to enforce these laws?? Who is going to conduct arrests? Will they be able to use force to achieve an arrest? Can they invade a country to arrest someone?
Jake
I'll let others finish tearing your statement apart, since they're already off to a great start. I'd simply start and finish with the assertion that what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing more serious than what can be found on most any college campus…….. where it’s called hazing.
i suppose that the 'My Lai massacre' commited by us soldiers in vietnam during the early 70s was also '...nothing more serious than what can be found on most any college campus.....where it's called hazing'.
Unless you're comparing a massacre to Abu Ghraib, you have no point...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: