On the events of Haditha [modified]
-
Diego Moita wrote:
So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this? Yes, I am talking about the court on war crimes in Le Hague. I claim that only a tribunal not handled by the politically involved would have a minimum of credibility to handle the issue in a politically viable manner. Who would respect a serbian judgement of Milosevic? In politics who does it is often more important than what is done, even if what is done is correct.
No. The United States has a stronger sense of justice than any European Court. If it turns out that these soldiers are indeed guilty of murder, then it's a violation of the code of military justice. They will be court marshalled and punished according to their crime. An international court threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination. It seeks to undermine localized Democracies in favor of potentially despotic regimes half a world away. In America you're tried by a "jury of your peers". There's a reason for that...Sometimes when you leave your neighborhood you realize that people have prejudices against you.
"An international court threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination." Since the US is policing the world and dealing out its own sense of justice just like an international court then by your own admition the US "threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination."
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
For the same reason you wrote your post?
No, it's not. I am intereste in a debate, you don't. That's why there are questions in my posts. You are just preaching.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why don't you list your "cares" in order and we'll compare.
It is the same, changing the country in 3. But you missed the point: conflicts between 3 and 4 is bad for both 3 and 4 (the same applies to all the others, too). At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego Moita wrote:
I am intereste in a debate, you don't.
Why? Because I don't agree with you? I thought that was the definition of debate.
Diego Moita wrote:
conflicts between 3 and 4 is bad for both 3 and 4
Agreed - but letting #4 circumvent the authority of #3 solves nothing. In fact, if done with the same "fairness" displayed by the UN over the years, it will cause more conflict not less. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Explain.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this?
no, absolutely not. international bodies operate on a far more politically motivated basis than our military and I would not subject any of our soldiers to the whim of those who would sit on such a body. Milosovic stretched crap out for years and our military's form of justice will be sure and swift. on a related note, situations like these happen in every war. it happened in WWII (ask the Japanese about surrendering on Iwo Jima), it happened in Veitnam (Mai Lai, sp?) and it is happening in Iraq and not doubt Afganistan. what is important is that we, the US of A handle it openly and effectively - for our own sense of justice and no one elses. modified to add this link[^] click on the video for an interesting commentary on the subject. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry! -- modified at 12:43 Wednesday 31st May, 2006
Iraq will turn out to be one of the longest wars in your history. It's been going on for 3 years and doesn't seem to be towards a soon end. Compare it to the 4 years of US involvement in WWII and the American Civil War. Vietnam lasted 8 years. I wonder how many people will be wondering if it couldn't be solved with a smaller price, when it finishes. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -
"An international court threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination." Since the US is policing the world and dealing out its own sense of justice just like an international court then by your own admition the US "threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination."
A Dingo Stole My Baby wrote:
Since the US is policing the world and dealing out its own sense of justice just like an international court then by your own admition the US "threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination."
Yep. We definitely need to change our policies and actions. IMO it's well past the time for the US to become very, VERY neutral - bordering on complete political isolation. However, do you honestly think the "rest of the world" is capable of showing the backbone and resolve to do much of anything in these regards? If so, why haven't they in the last 50 years? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
For the same reason you wrote your post?
No, it's not. I am intereste in a debate, you don't. That's why there are questions in my posts. You are just preaching.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why don't you list your "cares" in order and we'll compare.
It is the same, changing the country in 3. But you missed the point: conflicts between 3 and 4 is bad for both 3 and 4 (the same applies to all the others, too). At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego Moita wrote:
It is the same, changing the country in 3. But you missed the point: conflicts between 3 and 4 is bad for both 3 and 4 (the same applies to all the others, too).
There is a major flaw in your thinking. Advanced societies utilize democracy to solve large-scale conflicts (we vote on how we want things to be). It's a regression to absolve your own democratic power in favor of a court. It is equivalent to allowing a dictator to run your own country because the court decides the outcome regardless of what the people want and often contrary to it. What happens when a foreign court decides to take advantage of the US and simply rules all sorts of unfare judgements against us (and that would undoubtedly happen)? What happens when they excercise their bias against Brazil? What recourse would you have?...None.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
I am intereste in a debate, you don't.
Why? Because I don't agree with you? I thought that was the definition of debate.
Diego Moita wrote:
conflicts between 3 and 4 is bad for both 3 and 4
Agreed - but letting #4 circumvent the authority of #3 solves nothing. In fact, if done with the same "fairness" displayed by the UN over the years, it will cause more conflict not less. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Because I don't agree with you? I thought that was the definition of debate.
Just because it don't seems to me you want to understand.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Agreed - but letting #4 circumvent the authority of #3 solves nothing. In fact, if done with the same "fairness" displayed by the UN over the years, it will cause more conflict not less.
Which brings back my original post again: letting the WTO (#4) decide on issues related to the interests of the US and other countries (#3) actually helped to solve many problems for both. Also, I agree that the UN has done a bad job in many conflicts in recent past. But the fact that they had some small successes (e.g. East Timor, Lebanese war, etc) is a evidence that international cooperation can be a solution. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -
Iraq will turn out to be one of the longest wars in your history. It's been going on for 3 years and doesn't seem to be towards a soon end. Compare it to the 4 years of US involvement in WWII and the American Civil War. Vietnam lasted 8 years. I wonder how many people will be wondering if it couldn't be solved with a smaller price, when it finishes. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego Moita wrote:
Iraq will turn out to be one of the longest wars in your history.
What are you psychic now?
Diego Moita wrote:
t's been going on for 3 years and doesn't seem to be towards a soon end.
Iraq just formed a government the other day, so it appears you're wrong.
Diego Moita wrote:
I wonder how many people will be wondering if it couldn't be solved with a smaller price, when it finishes.
It's still cheaper than the impact of 9/11.
-
Iraq will turn out to be one of the longest wars in your history. It's been going on for 3 years and doesn't seem to be towards a soon end. Compare it to the 4 years of US involvement in WWII and the American Civil War. Vietnam lasted 8 years. I wonder how many people will be wondering if it couldn't be solved with a smaller price, when it finishes. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego Moita wrote:
Iraq will turn out to be one of the longest wars in your history.
Possibly, but my personal view is that Iraq is one battle in a much longer war. the start of the war dates back to Reagan's presidency if not earlier. I guess Carter's time frame more properly dates it. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
"An international court threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination." Since the US is policing the world and dealing out its own sense of justice just like an international court then by your own admition the US "threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination."
A Dingo Stole My Baby wrote:
Since the US is policing the world and dealing out its own sense of justice just like an international court then by your own admition the US "threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination."
Wrong. The US has never invaded a Democratic Nation (in recent history). The countries we invade are populated by suppressed people who have no self-determination. We give it to them and let them be.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Because I don't agree with you? I thought that was the definition of debate.
Just because it don't seems to me you want to understand.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Agreed - but letting #4 circumvent the authority of #3 solves nothing. In fact, if done with the same "fairness" displayed by the UN over the years, it will cause more conflict not less.
Which brings back my original post again: letting the WTO (#4) decide on issues related to the interests of the US and other countries (#3) actually helped to solve many problems for both. Also, I agree that the UN has done a bad job in many conflicts in recent past. But the fact that they had some small successes (e.g. East Timor, Lebanese war, etc) is a evidence that international cooperation can be a solution. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego Moita wrote:
Just because it don't seems to me you want to understand.
:laugh: I understand your opinion - I simply reject it.
Diego Moita wrote:
letting the WTO (#4) decide on issues related to the interests of the US and other countries (#3) actually helped to solve many problems for both.
And nearly every country can point to issues where they believe the WTO has made biased decisions for political reasons. Blame is merely shifted, but the problems are the same. The WTO (like the UN) is largely a huge waste of time & money. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Why don't you look back at what you said here: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1511226&forumid=2605#xx1511226xx[^]
That supports what I said. Do you think a terrorist from Afghanistan should be tried in the US for a crime committed in Pakistan? You think that's fair? Pakistan should handle it. The same goes for any American being tried in France (since they're a bunch of anti-American bigots) or any Christian being tried in the middle east or an Indian being tried in Pakistan or vice versa or a Taiwanese being tried in China or vice-versa or an American being tried in Cuba, etc..., etc.... I wasn't stating that the world is biased against America. I was stating that the world has biases against other parts of the world, rendering an international court ineffective...And I haven't even gone into the fact that an international court without an enforcing body to back it up is senseless.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this? Yes, I am talking about the court on war crimes in Le Hague. I claim that only a tribunal not handled by the politically involved would have a minimum of credibility to handle the issue in a politically viable manner. Who would respect a serbian judgement of Milosevic? In politics who does it is often more important than what is done, even if what is done is correct.
No. The United States has a stronger sense of justice than any European Court. If it turns out that these soldiers are indeed guilty of murder, then it's a violation of the code of military justice. They will be court marshalled and punished according to their crime. An international court threatens the autonomy of every nation on earth because it places a power above your national government and subverts the will of your people and your right to self-determination. It seeks to undermine localized Democracies in favor of potentially despotic regimes half a world away. In America you're tried by a "jury of your peers". There's a reason for that...Sometimes when you leave your neighborhood you realize that people have prejudices against you.
espeir wrote:
In America you're tried by a "jury of your peers".
Not the case if you are in the military. The court will consist of a panel of superior officers, not a jury of peers. However,a 'war crimes' trial in the Hague would also not be by a jury of peers...which negates the prejudice argument to some extent. The biggest problem is that any single Security Council memeber may veto complaints of prosecutorial prejudice by the court, which leaves no fair recourse or appeal for the accused. There is nothing equivalent to a 'change of venue' which could mitigate incidents of prejudice.
-
I've been thinking one thing about the events of Haditha: what could and should be the consequences of it if the investigation and punishment were done by different people? It seems to me that the US army has been handling this much better than with Abu-Ghraib. You may talk about a learned lesson: the army didn't turn a blind eye just to let it explode in the press. According to Time magazine (the first to publish the whole story) they are doing a thorough and carefull investigation. But my point is that the political damage can't be stopped or recovered anymore. This story will certainly deteriorate an already critical situation in Iraq. In muslin and arab culture, a group which murders 20 people would deserve no less than death. Heck, in American culture too (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, the Washington sniper). But what we'll likelly see is prison for low-level soldiers, like in the Abu-Ghraib events. So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this? Yes, I am talking about the court on war crimes in Le Hague. I claim that only a tribunal not handled by the politically involved would have a minimum of credibility to handle the issue in a politically viable manner. Who would respect a [edit]serbian Serb [/edit] judgement of Milosevic? In politics who does it is often more important than what is done, even if what is done is correct. The argument used in US against such a tribunal is that it is unnacceptable to americans to have any foreigner with authority above the american law. I don't accept this argument. The WTO (for instance) has authority over the american laws (even when it conflicts american interests) and the issues the tribunal would judge (war crimes) don't conflict with american values. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -- modified at 11:56 Wednesday 31st May, 2006Diego Moita wrote:
The argument used in US against such a tribunal is that it is unnacceptable to americans to have any foreigner with authority above the american law.
No, that is not the primary objection. The primary objection is the absence of reasonable provisions to prevent or ameliorate prosecutorial prejudice, (Any single member of the UN Security Council can veto such a complaint, which clearly allows polictically based bias to prevent even a hearing of the complaint), and insufficient protections against frivolous prosecution. There are also complaints that the court's scope and authority are both too wide and without any external or procedural checks on its power. As your example of the WTO shows, we are not absolutely opposed to agreeing to submit to outside authority, when the provisions of such authority provide sufficient gaurantees of fairness and due process. The ICC, in its present form and scope, does not provide such gaurantees nor adequate due process.
-
I've been thinking one thing about the events of Haditha: what could and should be the consequences of it if the investigation and punishment were done by different people? It seems to me that the US army has been handling this much better than with Abu-Ghraib. You may talk about a learned lesson: the army didn't turn a blind eye just to let it explode in the press. According to Time magazine (the first to publish the whole story) they are doing a thorough and carefull investigation. But my point is that the political damage can't be stopped or recovered anymore. This story will certainly deteriorate an already critical situation in Iraq. In muslin and arab culture, a group which murders 20 people would deserve no less than death. Heck, in American culture too (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, the Washington sniper). But what we'll likelly see is prison for low-level soldiers, like in the Abu-Ghraib events. So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this? Yes, I am talking about the court on war crimes in Le Hague. I claim that only a tribunal not handled by the politically involved would have a minimum of credibility to handle the issue in a politically viable manner. Who would respect a [edit]serbian Serb [/edit] judgement of Milosevic? In politics who does it is often more important than what is done, even if what is done is correct. The argument used in US against such a tribunal is that it is unnacceptable to americans to have any foreigner with authority above the american law. I don't accept this argument. The WTO (for instance) has authority over the american laws (even when it conflicts american interests) and the issues the tribunal would judge (war crimes) don't conflict with american values. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -- modified at 11:56 Wednesday 31st May, 2006Diego Moita wrote:
Who would respect a serbian judgement of Milosevic?
A "serbian" judgement? :~
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Who would respect a serbian judgement of Milosevic?
A "serbian" judgement? :~
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
A "serbian" judgement?
Fixed. Sorry for the typo. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -
That supports what I said. Do you think a terrorist from Afghanistan should be tried in the US for a crime committed in Pakistan? You think that's fair? Pakistan should handle it. The same goes for any American being tried in France (since they're a bunch of anti-American bigots) or any Christian being tried in the middle east or an Indian being tried in Pakistan or vice versa or a Taiwanese being tried in China or vice-versa or an American being tried in Cuba, etc..., etc.... I wasn't stating that the world is biased against America. I was stating that the world has biases against other parts of the world, rendering an international court ineffective...And I haven't even gone into the fact that an international court without an enforcing body to back it up is senseless.
I wasn't commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of an international court. What seems to have gone clear over your head is that I was commenting on how ironic it was for you to whine about other peoples bias while repeatly demostrating that you are quite possibly the biggest bigot around (certainly on this board anyway). People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
-
I've been thinking one thing about the events of Haditha: what could and should be the consequences of it if the investigation and punishment were done by different people? It seems to me that the US army has been handling this much better than with Abu-Ghraib. You may talk about a learned lesson: the army didn't turn a blind eye just to let it explode in the press. According to Time magazine (the first to publish the whole story) they are doing a thorough and carefull investigation. But my point is that the political damage can't be stopped or recovered anymore. This story will certainly deteriorate an already critical situation in Iraq. In muslin and arab culture, a group which murders 20 people would deserve no less than death. Heck, in American culture too (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, the Washington sniper). But what we'll likelly see is prison for low-level soldiers, like in the Abu-Ghraib events. So I get back to my question in the begginning: isn't it the case of having an international institution to handle cases like this? Yes, I am talking about the court on war crimes in Le Hague. I claim that only a tribunal not handled by the politically involved would have a minimum of credibility to handle the issue in a politically viable manner. Who would respect a [edit]serbian Serb [/edit] judgement of Milosevic? In politics who does it is often more important than what is done, even if what is done is correct. The argument used in US against such a tribunal is that it is unnacceptable to americans to have any foreigner with authority above the american law. I don't accept this argument. The WTO (for instance) has authority over the american laws (even when it conflicts american interests) and the issues the tribunal would judge (war crimes) don't conflict with american values. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano Veloso -- modified at 11:56 Wednesday 31st May, 2006 -
I wasn't commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of an international court. What seems to have gone clear over your head is that I was commenting on how ironic it was for you to whine about other peoples bias while repeatly demostrating that you are quite possibly the biggest bigot around (certainly on this board anyway). People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Uh...Did you even read what I just said? I said I wasn't whining about peoples' biases...I was recognizing them. Americans have biases as do people in every other nation in the world. Everyone also has their own interests which often conflict. I was letting you know that the "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" cliche does not fit my comment. I'd have to be accusing people of faults while denying that I suffer from them.
-
Uh...Did you even read what I just said? I said I wasn't whining about peoples' biases...I was recognizing them. Americans have biases as do people in every other nation in the world. Everyone also has their own interests which often conflict. I was letting you know that the "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" cliche does not fit my comment. I'd have to be accusing people of faults while denying that I suffer from them.