View Poll Results: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    5 7.81%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    4 6.25%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    21 32.81%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    34 53.13%
Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 285

Thread: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  1. #121
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Hey Oftencold! I answered your questions. Are you going to answer mine? Or run away like you've just seen a killer rabbit?

    That's too bad, I was just starting to like you.
    Last edited by Billo_Really; 12-24-08 at 01:03 AM.

  2. #122
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    Hey Oftencold! I answered your questions. Are you going to answer mine? Or run away like you've just seen a killer rabbit?

    That's too bad, I was just starting to like you.
    Remain calm!

    I am researching answers to your post, as I believe they deserve that respect. I am also dealing with a toothache, the announcement that my job will not be funded after the turn of the year and lack of sleep resulting from the first two issues.

    As far as liking me, that is a risk I do not generally advise, as I am an odd and very archaic sort of friend. This is to say that I have from time to time filled the role of people last friend. That is, the one that is still there when they've managed to drive all the others away. Visiting friends in prison though, or sitting up with them through crises of one strip or another can be terribly tedious, causing me to lose some of my customary charm.

    I am also a friend that makes very much out of vogue demands on others in matters of honor and such.

    Tonight, I'll be working a twelve hour fill-in shift at the power plant, so that the family guys can be at home on Christmas Eve. I had hoped to spend the free time thee to respond properly to your material, and will plan still on doing so.

    [I have addressed some personal items here, which I do not like to do. However, I have reasons for doing so in this instance that I do not wish to elaborate upon --OC]

  3. #123
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    It is equally un-American to turn your back on the values that are the cornerstones of this country. Which is the rule of law.
    Right, and the rule of law is not on your side, everything since the outbreak of the war was done constitutionally.
    When you break it, you need to be held accountable.
    Correct, but since laws were not broken there is no justification for the actions of the far left anti-war movement, hence, they are exclusively Un-American.
    Especially, when your actions have the destructive results that Bush's actions have had towards this country.
    You'll have to do more than empty emoting here, what damages are you talking about? Last I checked the war hasn't damaged us personally or internally.
    We are not giving up any Constitutional authority trying him for war crimes. We would be showing the world that we are not a nation of god-damn hypocrits!
    Bull ****, the constitution does not allow for an international body to try the president of the United States, especially since the constitution was not violated in any way, shape, form, or logical stretch of the imagination. Also, we deal with our own affairs, I don't care how many pro "international law" nations are butt hurt that we don't give a damn about their lack of authority in the matter, the constitution must be upheld.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 12-24-08 at 06:35 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #124
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    Excuse me, but you didn't prove the assertion was false. You just proved that there is a chance that what Bush said was "unlikely". And there is also a chance that it is true.
    There is a chance that I'm a cloned space alien with a cybernetic implant taking instructions from an orbiting mothership too. Again, it is highly unlikely.
    At some point, we have to say that the burden of proof is on the party or person asserting the unlikely position.

  5. #125
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    There is a chance that I'm a cloned space alien with a cybernetic implant taking instructions from an orbiting mothership too. Again, it is highly unlikely.
    At some point, we have to say that the burden of proof is on the party or person asserting the unlikely position.
    You're trying to use an analogy that is off the planet and unrealistic with an issue that is quite real and very likely considering Bush's track record. Bush believes in a "unitary" Presidency. He also thinks God told him to run for President. With that in mind, it is very likely Bush would think the Constitution is just a piece of paper after someone had the gall to tell him some of the things in the Patriot Act were un-Constitutional. It is Bush's own MO to react that way. So your analogy falls far from its mark.

  6. #126
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057859243]
    Right, and the rule of law is not on your side, everything since the outbreak of the war was done constitutionally. Correct, but since laws were not broken there is no justification for the actions of the far left anti-war movement, hence, they are exclusively Un-American. You'll have to do more than empty emoting here, what damages are you talking about? Last I checked the war hasn't damaged us personally or internally. Bull ****, the constitution does not allow for an international body to try the president of the United States, especially since the constitution was not violated in any way, shape, form, or logical stretch of the imagination. Also, we deal with our own affairs, I don't care how many pro "international law" nations are butt hurt that we don't give a damn about their lack of authority in the matter, the constitution must be upheld.
    Go read Article 51 of the UN Charter if you think it was legal.

    And if you don't think we have been damaged because of this war, you must like the current economy.

  7. #127
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=Billo_Really;1057859468]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Go read Article 51 of the UN Charter if you think it was legal.
    Then you missed that whole part of it doesn't apply to our constitutional war powers, and even if it did, the UN is worthless, they wouldn't even hold Saddam accountable for his transgressions. What makes you think they would try to enforce anything against the U.S. even if it was valid?

    And if you don't think we have been damaged because of this war, you must like the current economy.
    If you think the war caused this economy, then there are alot of things you need to read up on. First, learn the basics of what makes the U.S. economic engine run, second, learn how the wrong people over the past century or so choked it off, third what unnecessary and unconstitutional spending has been doing to it since the early 1900's, third leaving the gold standard, etc. The economy we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with the war.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #128
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    09-16-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,644

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by MachuPicchu View Post
    Calls are getting more, not less, obvious in the public spectrum. So the question is, will we see prosecutions of public officials and are they justified?

    To me, it is not a left vs right issue. This isn't just about Bush/Cheney. It is an issue of the highest ethical implications. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. Our public leaders must be held responsible for criminal actions. We must set a precedent that politicians are not above the law, regardless of their motivations.
    No. In my opinion, from everything I have seen, there simply are not legitimate grounds for such prosecutions. To borrow from the Rome Statute, which encapsulates the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions that define the paramters of war crimes, the following conditions need to be satisfied:

    2.For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

    (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
    (i) Wilful killing;
    (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
    (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
    (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
    (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
    (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
    (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
    (viii) Taking of hostages.

    (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
    (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
    (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
    (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
    (vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
    (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
    (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
    (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
    (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
    (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
    (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
    (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
    (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
    (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
    (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
    (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
    (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
    (xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
    (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
    (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
    (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
    (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
    (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
    (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.
    At this time, there is no credible legally-admissable evidence that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney deliberately and knowingly sought to evade international obligations arising from the Laws of War. Bad policy choices, ill-informed decisions, a poorly-designed tribunal process (since addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court), unpopular decisions, etc., do not constitute war crimes. Such matters are beyond the scope of the Laws of War. Instead, they properly rest in the electoral process and other domestic political machinery. Given that neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be serving in office beginning January 20, 2009, the best one can reasonably expect is to learn more about the decisionmaking process, assess what went right and wrong in their judgment, learn from the experience, etc.

  9. #129
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post

    At this time, there is no credible legally-admissable evidence that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney deliberately and knowingly sought to evade international obligations arising from the Laws of War.
    Correct.
    Bad policy choices, ill-informed decisions, a poorly-designed tribunal process (since addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court), unpopular decisions, etc., do not constitute war crimes.
    Reasonable approach, there were missteps along with good decisions in the entire process, but such happens in any administration especially during a war. The SCOTUS decisions are I feel more of a matter of opinion, but some were pretty attrocious.
    Such matters are beyond the scope of the Laws of War. Instead, they properly rest in the electoral process and other domestic political machinery. Given that neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be serving in office beginning January 20, 2009, the best one can reasonably expect is to learn more about the decisionmaking process, assess what went right and wrong in their judgment, learn from the experience, etc.
    I fully agree with this.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #130
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    No. In my opinion, from everything I have seen, there simply are not legitimate grounds for such prosecutions. To borrow from the Rome Statute, which encapsulates the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions that define the paramters of war crimes, the following conditions need to be satisfied:
    You have got to be kidding!

    2.For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

    (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:


    (i) Wilful killing; Massacre's at Haditha and Ischagi

    (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; Using WP in Fallujah

    (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; Using cluster bombs in urban areas

    (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Assault on Fallujah

    (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; The Awakening

    (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; Military Commissions Act

    (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; Renditions

    (viii) Taking of hostages. Italy charges 5 CIA agents with kidnapping

    (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Bombing hospitals

    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; Checkpoint shootings

    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; US snipers shooting ambulances

    (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Using depleted uranium munitions

    (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; Wedding party bombed by a Predator drone in Afghanistan

    (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; There is a recent video (see "Iraq war is Just" thread) that shows un-armed belligerants being executed by a helicopter gunship AFTER they laid down their weapons

    (vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; I know of no incident where we have done this

    (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; 5 million Iraqis are now homeless and living as refugee's in the desert

    (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; Again, bombing hospitals

    (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; The beatings at GITMO

    (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; Waterboarding

    (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given; US snipers shooting Iraqis holding white flags

    (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; Building the largest US embassy in the world in Bagdad Green Zone

    (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; US position on "unlawful combatants" in violation of the Geneva Conventions

    (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; Shia death squads coming into power on the back of US tanks

    (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, etc.

    (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; Using depleted uranium munitions

    (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; I know of no incident where we have done this

    (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; Again, depleted uranium munitions

    (xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123; Using the napalm-like substance "Willie Pete" in Fallujah

    (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; The abuses at Abu Ghraib

    (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions; The marine charged with raping an Iraq 14 year old

    (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; We are not guilty of this one either

    (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; Bombing hospitals, shooting ambulances, refusing access to medical personel in Fallujah

    (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; Shutting off basic utilities in Fallujah if residents did not hand over insurgents

    (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities. We didn't enlist children, we just tortured them at Abu Ghraib
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make you eat these words.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    At this time, there is no credible legally-admissable evidence that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney deliberately and knowingly sought to evade international obligations arising from the Laws of War. Bad policy choices, ill-informed decisions, a poorly-designed tribunal process (since addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court), unpopular decisions, etc., do not constitute war crimes. Such matters are beyond the scope of the Laws of War. Instead, they properly rest in the electoral process and other domestic political machinery. Given that neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be serving in office beginning January 20, 2009, the best one can reasonably expect is to learn more about the decisionmaking process, assess what went right and wrong in their judgment, learn from the experience, etc.
    Give me a break!

    We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iraq did not attack us. Which makes this war, a war of aggression. Your position is so partisan it makes me vomit!
    Last edited by Billo_Really; 12-25-08 at 08:55 PM.

Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •