Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Criminal Investigation in Germany into Culpability of U.S. Officials in Abu Ghraib

roachboy · 12-03-2004, 10:56 AM

it is relevant only if--and only if--you prefer for aesthetic or political reasons to indulge the disengenous pattern of relativization particular to american conservative "thinking"---when something makes them uncomfortable, then the response is inevitably to create some fake equivalent situation and try to balance one off the other.

but say you want to play that game: given there is is hardly a nationalist tyrant on earth the americans have not eagerly sold weapon systems to (applying the same logic as above, that the actions of private corporations can be associated with those of states), on what possible basis can the americans say or do anything, at any point, about anything carried out by these tyrants? and why is any attempt to criticize these states not just hypocritical grandstanding by the americans?

you would also have to apply the same "logic" to the myriad american corporations who sold hussein arms under the reagan administration, including the technology to produce the gas that killed the kurds....since the americans were so willing to arm hussein to the teeth when it was convenient, and to pretend otherwise when it was convenient, how is bushwar not simple grandstanding by the right?

well it is...stupid question...sorry about that.

the real question here is more about legal accountability for war crimes.
the americans have tried to exempt themselves from it.
that is wrong.

i do not know if this case will work itself out----but if americans are found guilty of crimes against humanity as a result of this case, on what basis can you defend not respecting the judgement?

why should americans not be held accountable for war crimes, if they are found guilty of them?

on what basis is it the prerogative of a given nation-state to prosecute its citizens for crimes against humanity?
what about the american case, which is characterized by an obvious unwillingness to do it? asif there was something about the simple fact of being american that makes such actions impossible...as if that argument was not wholly absurd.

how did it get to be understood that war crimes are only carried out by citizens of nations that loose wars?

how is this not the basis for the american refusal to submit to war crimes judgements: since for the right it is unthinkable that the americans actually loose wars (witness the revisionist crap about vietnam so dear to them), it follows that war crimes are therefore impossible on the part of american troops?

12-03-2004, 10:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is relevant only if--and only if--you prefer for aesthetic or political reasons to indulge the disengenous pattern of relativization particular to american conservative "thinking"---when something makes them uncomfortable, then the response is inevitably to create some fake equivalent situation and try to balance one off the other. but say you want to play that game: given there is is hardly a nationalist tyrant on earth the americans have not eagerly sold weapon systems to (applying the same logic as above, that the actions of private corporations can be associated with those of states), on what possible basis can the americans say or do anything, at any point, about anything carried out by these tyrants? and why is any attempt to criticize these states not just hypocritical grandstanding by the americans? you would also have to apply the same "logic" to the myriad american corporations who sold hussein arms under the reagan administration, including the technology to produce the gas that killed the kurds....since the americans were so willing to arm hussein to the teeth when it was convenient, and to pretend otherwise when it was convenient, how is bushwar not simple grandstanding by the right? well it is...stupid question...sorry about that. the real question here is more about legal accountability for war crimes. the americans have tried to exempt themselves from it. that is wrong. i do not know if this case will work itself out----but if americans are found guilty of crimes against humanity as a result of this case, on what basis can you defend not respecting the judgement? why should americans not be held accountable for war crimes, if they are found guilty of them? on what basis is it the prerogative of a given nation-state to prosecute its citizens for crimes against humanity? what about the american case, which is characterized by an obvious unwillingness to do it? asif there was something about the simple fact of being american that makes such actions impossible...as if that argument was not wholly absurd. how did it get to be understood that war crimes are only carried out by citizens of nations that loose wars? how is this not the basis for the american refusal to submit to war crimes judgements: since for the right it is unthinkable that the americans actually loose wars (witness the revisionist crap about vietnam so dear to them), it follows that war crimes are therefore impossible on the part of american troops? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-03-2004 at 11:01 AM..