On the events of Haditha [modified]
-
espeir wrote:
The United States has a stronger sense of justice than any European Court
Yes, of course it does, it has to doesnt it, after la it is the god ld US of A! Supreme in all things, the inventor of democracy, of equality, of, well, everything!
espeir wrote:
In America you're tried by a "jury of your peers"
So no lawyer ever chooses which state to bring a case to trial in based on a prior understanding of the attitude of people in that state and the likely effect on him or her winning? Face it, the US doesnt want its soldiers to be tried by the Hague because it is afraid it will limnit the ability of the US military to do whatever the hell it feels like. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Face it, the US doesnt want its soldiers to be tried by the Hague because it is afraid it will limnit the ability of the US military to do whatever the hell it feels like.
No, we've just seen what the Germans are capable of. We're not stupid.
-
Actually that was the UN.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Face it, the US doesnt want its soldiers to be tried by the Hague because it is afraid it will limnit the ability of the US military to do whatever the hell it feels like.
No, we've just seen what the Germans are capable of. We're not stupid.
-
- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
- No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
- All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile
- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation
- Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of their state
- Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
- Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution
- Everyone has the right to a nationality
- No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
- Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family
- Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country
- Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country
- The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
- Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security
- Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment
- Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work
I agree with most of those (which are all basic to and US citizen). I object to 3 of them, however: 24) Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security... -This can't be a right. It is a government service. If the citizens of a country decide that they don't want social security, then this "right" is placed in direct conflict with number 23. Basic human rights cannot be in conflict with one another. 25) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment -There are problems with this because again "protection against unemployment" is a government service and can be in conflict with #23. "Free choice of employment" also assumes that an employer's rights are restricted. This basically comes out of the socialist labor handbook. 28) Everyone has the right to rest and leisure. -This one is just kind of silly. Firstly, I don't think there has been a civilization in history that prohibited "rest and leisure" (even US slaves had that). It just doesn't need to be stated. Besides those, I don't really have a problem with them. But being an American I'm used to having all these rights.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Unless the EU says 'find him guilty or you will never join the EU'
Or, better: "Poison him, or you will never join the EU" ;P
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Unless the EU says 'find him guilty or you will never join the EU'
Or, better: "Poison him, or you will never join the EU" ;P
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Miladic or Karadic
Mladić or Karadžić :)
fat_boy wrote:
forgive my spelling
Spelling was almost OK, but why don't you try to pronounce it?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
How soon we forget!...Actually I think you just committed a felony in your country. I think I might call your secret police.
-
How soon we forget!...Actually I think you just committed a felony in your country. I think I might call your secret police.
-
Bollocks, it was a NATO act of war against Serbia. The UN passed a resoloution calling for that action long after the US and UK attacked. Nunc est bibendum
Actually the UN was in Serbia 5 years before the US engaged in any bombing (which I admit the US should have left that to Europe). However, Germany participated in the bombings and was sued by Serbs because they bombed civilians...One of Germany's favorite pasttimes.
-
Ah, so by 'just' you mean 50 years ago. OK, interesting deffinition. So, what have you learnt from the Nazis that dissuades you from allowing your troops to be tried in the Hague? Nunc est bibendum
Uhh....I didn't say "just". You did. Although I'm sure plenty of people from a certain religious group might be pretty offended at your dismissal of what your people did. I don't think your secret police would approve either.
-
Actually the UN was in Serbia 5 years before the US engaged in any bombing (which I admit the US should have left that to Europe). However, Germany participated in the bombings and was sued by Serbs because they bombed civilians...One of Germany's favorite pasttimes.
-
Uhh....I didn't say "just". You did. Although I'm sure plenty of people from a certain religious group might be pretty offended at your dismissal of what your people did. I don't think your secret police would approve either.
espeir wrote:
I didn't say "just".
'No, we've just seen what the Germans are capable of. We're not stupid.' OK, now scan what you wrote and see if you can see the word 'just'...
espeir wrote:
your people did. I don't think your secret police would approve either
My people? What, Am I German, am I a Nazi? Are you mad? I am English you fool! Nunc est bibendum
-
Shifts. The tigress is here :-D
-
Wrong. The UN was in Bosnia, which was part of Yugoslavia, not Serbia. Nunc est bibendum
I can't keep up with those losers. They change borders every couple of years. You dodged the fact that Germany bombed civilians, however.
-
I can't keep up with those losers. They change borders every couple of years. You dodged the fact that Germany bombed civilians, however.
espeir wrote:
They change borders every couple of years
Well, actually, it only changed once since 1919, when Yugoslavia was formed by the Versailles Treaty, and that was when it fell apart in the 90s into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and somewhat loosely MontNegro. We also blew up a convoy of fleeing Albanians on tractors, and hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with a missile, so really, what is so special about Germany bombing civillians during the same war? Nunc est bibendum
-
I agree with most of those (which are all basic to and US citizen). I object to 3 of them, however: 24) Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security... -This can't be a right. It is a government service. If the citizens of a country decide that they don't want social security, then this "right" is placed in direct conflict with number 23. Basic human rights cannot be in conflict with one another. 25) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment -There are problems with this because again "protection against unemployment" is a government service and can be in conflict with #23. "Free choice of employment" also assumes that an employer's rights are restricted. This basically comes out of the socialist labor handbook. 28) Everyone has the right to rest and leisure. -This one is just kind of silly. Firstly, I don't think there has been a civilization in history that prohibited "rest and leisure" (even US slaves had that). It just doesn't need to be stated. Besides those, I don't really have a problem with them. But being an American I'm used to having all these rights.
espeir wrote:
It just doesn't need to be stated
I could say the same about each of the others too.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy Falcon -
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, 2006Just like to make one point, often overlooked, but mentioned with great emphasis on the news here the other night. The massacre was done THE DAY AFTER the marine was killed by the bomb. THEY WENT BACK and killed women and children. In the US you probably were not shown the filmed footage, use the web and look. Andy