Downtownat10

Okay, so I'm sure everyone has heard people yapping about Bush and Blair being guilty of War Crimes, and seen the many posters for Impeachment, etc. What do you guys think of all this? Al Jazeera had an article about it on 15 April, which you can find here but it had comments from Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who should be drug out and shot anyway.

So, war crimes, or no war crimes? Should we send these people to the Hague to face the ICC?

The War Journal

__________________
Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

crewsor

You're kidding. right?

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

Lebell

My understanding is that the US will never submit to the ICC simply because it doesn't provide the accused as much protection as US courts.

As to Bush and Blair being war criminals, who is doing the accusing? The left, those countries who tried to stop the war for their own profit, and radical Arabs.

The legality of the war is beyond question.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Downtownat10

Crewsor: No, actually, I'm not kidding about the question. I think the whole idea is totally rediculous, I am just wondering what everyone else thinks. I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but even amongst my close friends there are conflicting opinions.

zmiley: You're right, they didn't, but that won't keep the asshats like Ramsey Clark from trying, all at no avail.

__________________
Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

crewsor

Oh, I'm sure you will get plenty of positive responses from some who feel Bush and Blair are worse criminals than Saddam and his cronies. But actual repercussions and war crimes convictions, hardly likely.

gibber71

I think accusing Blair and Bush of war crimes is insane.If the ICC wants to do something like that they should start with those guilty of crimes against humanity all over the world.That would keep them busy until they started pandering to political correctness much like the UN did ages ago.

The_Dude

i want 'em tried int he world court

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Easytiger

Out of curiosity, why do you guys think the US stayed out of the ICC?

Dragonlich

What potential war crimes are we talking about?

1) attacking a country without reason --- technically, the US and Iraq were still at war. We had a ceasefire, listing certain things Iraq had to do. Iraq failed to comply (UN inspections, disarm within x days, etc). The US was, again technically, at war with Iraq, and fully entitled to attack. Also, technically, resolution 1441 allowed war; "serious consequences" *can* mean war.
2) killing innocent civilians --- I'd think it would only be a warcrime if you do it on purpose? In reality, the US/UK tried to cause as little civilian casualties as possible.
3) parading Iraqi POWs on TV --- the US/UK did not do it, the *independent* media did it. The US/UK tried to stop it, they did it anyway. Again, not something that is really *that* bad.
4) not protecting certain infrastructure/cultural sites --- excusable, seeing the chaos that resulted after Saddam's demise. Also, is this law supposed to protect against looting by the invading army, or the conquered/liberated people?

I can't think of any other crimes here... Besides, if you look at the big picture, it's obvious that potential US warcrimes are nothing compared to Iraqi warcrimes, for example.

anyone comment?

Pacifier

Even if the USA had signed in the ICC american war criminals would have only been brought befor it, if the US refuses to do so.
So if soldier x has done some crimes and is punished in the US he don't has to be afraid of the ICC.

What kind of crimes?

- shooting of civillians, there are a couple of incidents that require a closer investigation

- shooting of the palestine hotel, someone made a terrible mistake, the hotel is known, for years, that it is the "journalists hotel". seems that someone forgot that -> also closer investigation

- looting of the museum, the occuping force has to protect the cultural sites of the nation. the usa was able to protect certain other buildings (Oil ministry....) inside baghdad. a single tank or maybe a humvee would have been enough.

oh, and in germany schroeder could be sued for the support of an aggresive war (a let bombers fly over germany) since that is against our Constitution

True, but that doesn't matter, one atrocity does not justify another.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

Pacifier... look at your own post!

Certain *incidents* require further investigation. If they're incidents, they are NOT war crimes. They'd need to be pre-planned and on purpose.

- The Palestine hotel: you have to protect civilians if possible. But if the civilians stay in a combat zone, they're putting themselves in danger... The US says there was firing in the general area, which makes it a combat zone. I.e. the journalists there should have moved away.

- The museum: if the US is able to protect certain sites in central baghdad, that does not mean they can protect *every* site in the city. And suppose they set up a tank in front of the site, and have to shoot looters... more war crimes? It's just not that simple, as usual.

You cannot set up *one* tank or humvee - that would isolate these protectors; they'd be open to attack from enemy fighters... there was still a war going on, remember?

(by the way... your take on the ICC is not quite accurate. If the US launches an investigation into war crimes, the ICC is out of the loop. Whether the US punishes the soldier or not does not matter. They have to bring him to court, that's it.)

Pacifier

So if i shoot a civillian just becaus i didn't like his nose it is not war crime since i didn't planned that? strange....

There were certain incidents were soldiers perhaps did something wrong, and those incidents have to be investigated. But I think Rummy will only say "those things happen, and will happen again"

Sure, but the museum is one of those you have to protect.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

No, that's not what I meant (and you know it). If the soldier shoots a civilian *on purpose*, it's a war crime. If that civilian is shot in a warzone, by accident, it's not a crime. If the enemy makes it impossible to distinguish between soldiers and civilians, it's even worse: you cannot say that shooting a couple of people in a car at a checkpoint is a war crime, if it is known that soldiers in civilian clothes have used this as a means of attack...

And the museum is not one of those that you have to protect! If it is impossible, or at least quite difficult to protect a cultural site, you shouldn't have to do it. The reality of war isn't as nice as some legal documents would like. (And since when is "not protecting a museum during a war" a war crime?)

Pacifier

there was this incident where a soldier, according to some reporters who were embedded in the unit, didn't shoot warning shots, but started shooting directly at the truck. he was disobeying a direct order which resultet in the death of a couple of civillians.
warcrime is maybe not the correct term, but i thnik those kind of incidents require a closer look.

the cultural heritage has to be protected, as far as i know it is an article in the GC. and the museum wasn't looted only at the first day. if i remember correctly the looting began a few days after the major fighting.
plus one of an other problem with that is that this shows somehow the US priorities, protect the Oil ministry but "forget" the museum. Again this doesn't look good for the people down there.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/legalp...index_en.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...15_forum.shtml

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

You can be certain that this soldier will be punished by the US army... But still, this is not a war crime perpetrated by the US President, because he did not order it, nor did he know of it and was capable of stopping it; in fact the US military wanted to *prevent* civilian casualties, and the direct orders to soldiers were to act in an appropriate manner. In other words: the ICC has nothing to do with it.

1) I believe it was in the "The Hague convention", not the Geneva convention.
2) Baghdad is *still* not 100% safe and secure. The fact that the looting started a couple of days after the major fighting does not mean that area was safe enough to send tanks to. At the moment there are some 11,000 troops in a city of 5 million. How do you propose they protect everything?
3) It shows the US priorities if you believe that it was pre-planned. To me the situation does not show any US priorities, other than securing the city center first, and the rest later (when possible).

If I remember correctly, some western leaders were also accused of war crimes in Serbia (Kosovo campaign), and the charges were dismissed eventually. The Iraq campaign is very similar, so I doubt Bush/Blair would ever be convicted.

Dragonlich

The <a href="http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/page2.shtml">regular convention</a>

The questions are: Was the museum in "occupied territory", and was it reasonably possible to protect it?

Both questions are debatable.

Okay, the <a href="http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/protocol2.shtml">second protocol of the Hague convention</a> (the updated version) says:
The Iraqi guys are guilty of the second thing, by hiding in that Mosque in Najaf, amongst other things.

The US is not guilty of any of these, because *they* did not attack any protected side if they could avoid it, and *they* did not pillage the museum!

In my opinion, the case against Bush is very, very weak.

stan the man

for the record if the us was to take part in the icc a fair number of vietnam vets would be tried for war crimes

reason being a shot gun and a flam thrower is very wrong in the eyes of the geneva convention

__________________
long live the hud

Downtownat10

Damn, sorry, I vanished from my own post. I've been sick as a dog.

Okay, to cover the main topics people have mentioned, yes, there are a few incidents that require closer inspection. As far as the Palestine Hotel, I honestly believe that someone fired from the hotel. Considering the lengths the coalition forces went to in order to prevent civilian casualties, I find it difficult to believe that they would throw all that to the wolves and shoot some journalists. When it comes to war, that old saying of "any publicity is good publicity" definitely does not apply.

Yes, it is a definite tragedy that cultural places were not protected, and that because of that many artifacts have been destroyed, but let's look at all the elements in the equation before we go throwing around accusations. Numerous witnesses have stated that they saw people going into the museum, directed by "well-dressed men with keys," and looted items. Strangely enough, these items are showing up all over the world in the black market trade. How could an Iraqi civilian break into the museum, steal the items, make it out of the country, and align an international buyer? They can't, plain and simple. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this seems a bit too fishy. I can say, though, if I were Saddam, or anyone else in power, I would sure as shit sell artifacts worth millions to people just before I disappeared. What better way to make money? Also, it has been noted by numerous sources that the museum had plans for locking everything up in the event of war. The place supposedly had plenty of vaults to protect the important items, and they were even said to have dummy artifacts for display in an event such as that. If it wasn't an inside job, how could the museum staff be so careless? Plus, with contigency plans like that, why should troops be held entirely liable for something that happened which should have been prevented through standard museum protection plans?

__________________
Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

Downtownat10

Actually, official reports (from both CNN AND Al Jazeera) said that the soldier did fire warning shots, but that the shots weren't fired early enough. It has been clearly said that warning shots were fired, but the commanding officer said they should have been fired earlier. I wasn't there, and anyone can report it based upon whatever they prefer to write, so we won't know for sure. However, considering the reason they fired on the vehicle, after car bombings and so forth, and considering that they were positioned at a checkpoint and not hiding in the bushes, the vehicle should have stopped. Warning shots should not be necessary if there is an existing checkpoint. I hate to say that these people deserved it, because they didn't, but if I were coming up to a checkpoint of any kind, whether I had done something wrong or not, I would stop. During a war, you have to expect that anyone at a checkpoint is going to be armed. I wouldn't expect the opportunity to drive right through it and ahve them throw cotton balls at me or something.

Pacifier, if you want a better position to argue, I suggest you read about the incident in Nasiriya, also referred to as the Bridge of Death. There were a number of civilians killed in that incident, and it has some questionable actions. You can find the article here:
http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre...ist=/home.php&
Read up on that one, if you haven't already. It definitely gives support to your anti-war and pro-warcrime stance. I don't agree with the war crime issue, but by all means, read up and we can debate on that one.

__________________
Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

Liquor Dealer

Don't know if any of you have considered this aspect of the whole damned thing - only losers commit and are tried for war crimes - Winners aren't.

Dragonlich

Downtownat10, I read the story, and agree that it's not a warcrime. To me, it's not even questionable. You see, shooting civilians during a war is not wrong per se. It's only wrong when there's no danger, and no "reason" to fire.

In this case, the civilians were in a combat zone, some even helping the Iraqi soldiers.

Sorry, but I won't feel sorry for those people - they should have run away if they had the chance. If they didn't have a chance because Iraqi soldiers stopped them, the Iraqi soldiers are responsible, not the US guys.

Sun Tzu

IMO its a general universal understanding that civilians will die in war. Its a good thing the death toll has been low, unless your one of the families affected. Maybe perhaps its not being looked at in singular incidents (which do need investigation because of Republican Guards killing people), but the fact of going in all together, thus placing the blame for death. That argument brings the whole thing full circle though.

When I first read the top, I was certain this was going to cause a flame war. While everyone appears to have the same beliefs they did before the battle, the debates dont seem as heated.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Nad Adam

I think the intresting thing here is why the US won't sign on to the ICC. I don't belive it is since it doesn't provide the accused as much protection as US courts, especialy when the US court system seems to be a bloody mess(that's another discussion). I also don't think that it's because the ICC could be used for attacking the US politicly by other countries, there's too much respect for the court in the world. The US as a whole simply doesn't have enough self-criticism to see that the people they send of to war could possibly do anything wrong. No matter what their soldiers do they will always be considerd heroes in the eyes of the US public.

I don't think that Bush or Blair should be tried as war-criminals. Starting the war wasn't a war crime, they where breaking international law but that's not a war crime. As for the war in Iraq I haven't heard of any side doing anything that could be considerd a war-crime. Maybe some incidents should be looked in to, some bombings where the ratio of collateral damage to military gain could be questioned but nothing serious. Trying to bitch about war-crimes in this war is probably nothing any serious politician will do unless new information turns up.

__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

Dragonlich

...and that's where you're wrong. Belgium has a law that states war crimes committed anywhere in the world, by anyone, can be investigated and tried in Belgium. This has resulted in lawsuits by Palestinians against Sharon; it has resulted in lawsuits by Jews against Arafat; in other words: the law has been used for political ends, to complement the battle in the courts.

In the past months, Iraqi people have launched lawsuits in Spain, against the Spanish government; they have launched lawsuits in Belgium, against the Belgian government... in other words: they've tried to use legal means to stop a war.

What makes you think people like this wouldn't abuse the ICC for their own end? If the US were to sign on, you'd see an immediate lawsuit against Bush by anti-war people; you'd see an immediate demand for US troops to be tried for warcrimes; Clinton would be put on trial for his acts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries... It'd be payback time.

Nad Adam

...and there's a big difference between filing a lawsuit and a process actually starting. This is like reasoning that there should be no law because people could try to abuse it.

__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

Dragonlich

Well, in the Iraqi cases, they were dismissed. Sharon, however, is sort of on trial. As soon as he leaves office, and loses his immunity, a Belgian court will start dealing with the case. That is, unless the government there changes the law, which seems likely.

Nad Adam

Well, I know that you are jewish but with Sharon, the butcher of Lebanon, they could have an even better case than with ol' Slobodan.

__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

KillerYoda

The US loves war criminals. Remember all those Nazi officials we snuck out so they'd tell us commie information?

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

Dragonlich

Ah, I see you don't assume he's innocent until proven guilty, then?

I don't like the man either (nothing to do with me being Jewish), but don't really care if he's brought to justice. If he were, Arafat should be put on trial too, as would all those terror leaders. And don't forget about the Lebanese resistance leaders, the Syrian leadership that encourages terrorism, and many other Arab guys.

I somehow doubt you'd see any of *them* put on trial, though. After all, we shouldn't insult the Muslims, lest they blow us all up...