RE: War Criminals, Beware

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: War Criminals, Beware

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: War Criminals, Beware

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 1:03:42 PM

Masterofmind1973

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

I just have to reply to this, what an absolute load!!!

There was good and there was bad within the British Empire, for the good, think of Monty Pythons 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' for the bad, well, there are many examples. By its nature an Empire (an Emperor being a King who has dominion over other Kings) occupies and administers another country and there are those who see the bad from this and those who see the benefits.

Your laughable student politics blind you to any good that the Imperial past produced and your line about being for the benefit of the upper classes drips with class hatred.

Sorry to all, I dont wish to hijack your thread but when such comical statements are made I do tend to jump in and defend. this isnt the place for a discussion on the merits of the Empire so I wont go on about it any further.

As to the original question, it smacks of more gesture politics and selective hand wringing. Have there been trrops seeking out the evil dictators in Zimbabwe for example or Sudan, or Somalia or how about what the Russiansd have been doing in Chechnya? WHat about those responsible for the largest ethnic cleansing since WW2, the Croat massacre and forced removal of 250,000 Serbs?

It is all selective for political gain. Im quite sure Rumsfeld will sleep soundly at night.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 1:09:58 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Gent;

"the people of such a country can only be described as weak. "

Yes. In this country we can do nothing to stop it. I for one, and almost everyone I know is against the government's actions, but we are not strong enough to do anything about it.

The government tarnishes the Citizens' name in alot of ways. And by the way, the MFs ARE guilty of war crimes. The use of depleted uranium weapons is specifically defined as a war crime, and they did it. They know it, we know it and you know it.

It has been said that US policies are actually a good thing for recruiting new terrorists, but if we commited war crimes we are the terrorists, they are actually freedom fighters.

A real Patriot does not follow the government blindly, he questions and accuses and complains when necessary. There are too few of us and too many of them.

I hope they do bust them.

T

Termyn8or, the British people are no better. As you say, too few people care - in both countries.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 1:10:47 PM

LordODiscipline

Posts: 995
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

No -
But unlike the Geneva Conventions, the US has not signed on to this central action - therefore it is not law in the US.

Law has nothing to do with "personal morality" and everythign to do with conceptual justice as determined by the constituents that comprise the body that makes the laws...

Without direct voluntary participation, this is simply an exercise in politics that will go no where..

No matter the half baked rhetoric tossed behind it.

~J

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"that wont happen. the masses would view this as a soviehnty issue."

....there is no sovereign right to commit war crimes........however, i would suggest that there is a prima facie case for a prosecution of the IDF for war crimes.

_____________________________

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
William Thomas

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 1:12:55 PM

LordODiscipline

Posts: 995
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

I am with you...

A lot of noise and fury signifying nothing.

~J

_____________________________

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
William Thomas

(in reply to Masterofmind1973)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 1:53:13 PM

peterK50

Posts: 433
Joined: 1/12/2006
Status: offline

We hanged a lot of Nazi's under the statute "Waging a war of aggression", or in other words, invading without provocation or cause. Sound familiar?

_____________________________

Religion Is About Seeking Knowledge, Not Knowing All The Answers.

(in reply to LordODiscipline)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 2:16:21 PM

LordODiscipline

Posts: 995
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

It sounds very "familiar" - however, it was for personal, public and/or gain of their contry and incorporated within the singular issues describing each chargable action.

This generic statement was not used in the prosecution except as a descriptor of actions that were agreed to under various conventions in action and enforcable at that time between the parties involved.

That means that the government of Germany had subscribed to them - and therefore it's people.

The only issue that the defendants were tried for that was not an "agreed upon" situation was "Crimes against humanity" and then there were specific instances of slave labor, incarceration under grotesquely inhumane conditions, and the the execution of murder and genocide, and the planning for the enslavement and murder and genocide of prisoners - non-combatants (civilians) as well as combatants.

So, while 'familiar', your invoking the memory of it in this instance is less than genuous or applicable.

Nice simple sound bite to invoke pliable emotions though (And, we have just crossed into the "Nazi Zone")

~J

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterK50

We hanged a lot of Nazi's under the statute "Waging a war of aggression", or in other words, invading without provocation or cause. Sound familiar?

(in reply to peterK50)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 2:52:56 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
"When the Nicaraguans took the US Government to the International Court of Justice in 1986, the US were ordered to pay $12bn for voilating Nicaragua's sovereignty. The US Government simply withdrew from the ICJ. I would seriously doubt the likes of Rumsfeld is remotely worried at the prospect of being tried as they will simply ignore it."

....truth, justice and the American way?

It has nothing to do with the American way. It is the way strong countries play the game. It has never been any different, and never will be.

caitlyn:
You are absolutely right. If you are a thug stand up and say so and be proud of it.
If you don't like being a thug then stop.
I am just tired of thugs telling me that they are the good guys making the world safe for freedom democracy.
thompson

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/9/2006 3:29:32 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Elucidate please, 'cause I didn't get a fuckin' thing outta that.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to LordODiscipline)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/13/2006 8:27:07 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

"The War Crimes Case Against Donald Rumsfeld"
By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted November 13, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/story/44213/

Rumsfeld had come under fire from many quarters, not the least of which was a gaggle of military officers who had been clamoring for his resignation. Bush said he decided to oust Rumsfeld before Tuesday's voting but lied to reporters so it wouldn't affect the election. Putting aside the incredulity of that claim, Bush likely waited to see if there would be a changing of the legislative guard before giving Rumsfeld his walking papers. If the GOP had retained control of Congress, Bush would probably have retained Rumsfeld. But in hindsight, Bush has to wish he had ejected Rumsfeld before the election to demonstrate a new direction in the Iraq war to angry voters.

---

Much more at the link. The scapegoat has been found. Rummy no longer has any protection under executive privilege nor any immunity as an official of the federal government.

Sometime last week someone asked about executive privilege. Here's this as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/13/2006 9:13:12 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

People always want to throw up the No UN authorization argument but fail to address the section in the 91 resolution that specificly authorizes all means nessisary for "...this and all subsequent relevent resolutions".

From Resolution 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

The authorization was there paper at least, you could argue the details either direction.
Secondly the facts of the matter on paper are, the initial invassion was not over even after 14 years, based on the fact that, all that was ever signed was a cease fire, the legal definition of which does not preclude a "resumption of combat" should the conditions of the cease fire not be met.

Legally there is plenty of cover for the Bush Adminstration, at least enough to muddy the waters enough to never have a Guilty Verdict that is based on the situation on paper and the law. And legalities all hinge on paper situation.

< Message edited by Archer -- 11/13/2006 9:27:04 AM >

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/13/2006 10:17:11 AM

saskslave

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

Well, Germany certainly knows a thing or two about war crimes.

The group which filed this suit, the Center for Constitutional Rights, is a far left group that was founded by radical attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, Arthur Kinoy, and William Kunstler. This group defends terrorists and extreme leftwing organizations (like the first World Trade Center bombers, the plotters to blow up NYC tunnels and landmarks, Lynne Stewart, the Black Liberation Movement, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society, Women's Strike for Peace, the Communist Party, the Black Panther Party, the Chicago Seven, and the Catonsville Nine). One of the attorneys on their staff is Rachel Meeropol, the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg--who were both convicted and executed for providing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union.

They [the CCR] tried this 2 years ago and the German prosecutor threw it out.

(in reply to Archer)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: War Criminals, Beware - 11/13/2006 3:28:33 PM

UtopianRanger

Posts: 3251
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

"The War Crimes Case Against Donald Rumsfeld"
By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted November 13, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/story/44213/

Rumsfeld had come under fire from many quarters, not the least of which was a gaggle of military officers who had been clamoring for his resignation. Bush said he decided to oust Rumsfeld before Tuesday's voting but lied to reporters so it wouldn't affect the election. Putting aside the incredulity of that claim, Bush likely waited to see if there would be a changing of the legislative guard before giving Rumsfeld his walking papers. If the GOP had retained control of Congress, Bush would probably have retained Rumsfeld. But in hindsight, Bush has to wish he had ejected Rumsfeld before the election to demonstrate a new direction in the Iraq war to angry voters.

---

Much more at the link. The scapegoat has been found. Rummy no longer has any protection under executive privilege nor any immunity as an official of the federal government.

Sometime last week someone asked about executive privilege. Here's this as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Nah.... The semblance of the Baker-Hamilton commission signaled they've had plans to jettison Rumsfeld for a while. He was gone win or lose.

The good news is Pelosi announced just a little while ago that they're gonna pass Jane Harmon up for the chairmanship of the House intelligence committee and award it to Alcee Hastings instead {Yes indeed...we want someone who's angry with the status-quo chairing this committee}

Translation: That means any of this talk about bombing Iran and listening to Israeli intelligence operatives is going to come to a screeching halt. These ‘’intelligence characters'' are going to be scrutinized like never before.

The other move they are talking about, is making / moving Murtha the chairman of the Defense appropriations committee or the House Armed services committee.

This is good news unless you're a war monger.

- R

< Message edited by UtopianRanger -- 11/13/2006 3:36:05 PM >

_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 32