Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. On the events of Haditha [modified]

On the events of Haditha [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
questioncsshelp
72 Posts 15 Posters 7 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • W Wjousts

    Why don't you look back at what you said here: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1511226&forumid=2605#xx1511226xx[^]

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Red Stateler
    wrote on last edited by
    #23

    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.

    W 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R Red Stateler

      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.

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Rob Graham
      wrote on last edited by
      #24

      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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • D Diego Moita

        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

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Rob Graham
        wrote on last edited by
        #25

        Diego 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.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • D Diego Moita

          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

          N Offline
          N Offline
          Nemanja Trifunovic
          wrote on last edited by
          #26

          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.

          D 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • N Nemanja Trifunovic

            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.

            D Offline
            D Offline
            Diego Moita
            wrote on last edited by
            #27

            Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

            A "serbian" judgement?

            Fixed. Sorry for the typo. At a close look, no one is normal.
            Caetano Veloso

            N 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R Red Stateler

              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.

              W Offline
              W Offline
              Wjousts
              wrote on last edited by
              #28

              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.

              R 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • W Wjousts

                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.

                R Offline
                R Offline
                Red Stateler
                wrote on last edited by
                #29

                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.

                W 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D Diego Moita

                  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

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  led mike
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #30

                  Diego Moita wrote:

                  Who would respect a serbian judgement of Milosevic?

                  Yeah, like who would accept an Iraqi judgment of Saddam Hussein? Oh wait.... X|

                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Red Stateler

                    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.

                    W Offline
                    W Offline
                    Wjousts
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #31

                    espeir wrote:

                    Americans have biases as do people in every other nation in the world.

                    Don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody is as hate filled as you are.

                    R 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • W Wjousts

                      espeir wrote:

                      Americans have biases as do people in every other nation in the world.

                      Don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody is as hate filled as you are.

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Red Stateler
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #32

                      I'm not hate filled. I'm just not naive. I'm guessing you're one of those Americans whose foreign experience is limited to spring break in Tijuana.

                      W 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • D Diego Moita

                        Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

                        A "serbian" judgement?

                        Fixed. Sorry for the typo. At a close look, no one is normal.
                        Caetano Veloso

                        N Offline
                        N Offline
                        Nemanja Trifunovic
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #33

                        Diego Moita wrote:

                        Sorry for the typo

                        Both are valid. I was more asking about your use of lowercase, but then again, what the heck? And to stay on the topic, if Milosevic's trial had been organized in Serbia, they wouldn't bother to poison him like the guys from Hag did; they would simply put him in jail with other inmates and they would beat him to death.

                        My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.

                        R 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • D Diego Moita

                          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

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #34

                          Diego 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. I don't accept this argument.

                          Yet they take people and deny them human rights. The tigress is here :-D

                          R R 2 Replies Last reply
                          0
                          • L Lost User

                            Diego 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. I don't accept this argument.

                            Yet they take people and deny them human rights. The tigress is here :-D

                            R Offline
                            R Offline
                            Red Stateler
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #35

                            Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.

                            realJSOPR L D 3 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • R Red Stateler

                              I'm not hate filled. I'm just not naive. I'm guessing you're one of those Americans whose foreign experience is limited to spring break in Tijuana.

                              W Offline
                              W Offline
                              Wjousts
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #36

                              Then you'd assume wrong. I'm not an American and I've never been to Tijuana.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • L Lost User

                                Diego 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. I don't accept this argument.

                                Yet they take people and deny them human rights. The tigress is here :-D

                                R Offline
                                R Offline
                                Rob Graham
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #37

                                Diego is wrong. So are you.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • N Nemanja Trifunovic

                                  Diego Moita wrote:

                                  Sorry for the typo

                                  Both are valid. I was more asking about your use of lowercase, but then again, what the heck? And to stay on the topic, if Milosevic's trial had been organized in Serbia, they wouldn't bother to poison him like the guys from Hag did; they would simply put him in jail with other inmates and they would beat him to death.

                                  My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.

                                  R Offline
                                  R Offline
                                  Rob Graham
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #38

                                  Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

                                  they wouldn't bother to poison him like the guys from Hag did; they would simply put him in jail with other inmates

                                  No, they'd just decare him innocent and re-elect him... And what evidence that Milosovec was poisoned? The official statement is that he died of a heart attack. Why would the "Hague guys" want to poison him, they were about two days away from convicting him...

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • R Red Stateler

                                    Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.

                                    realJSOPR Offline
                                    realJSOPR Offline
                                    realJSOP
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #39

                                    I think the right to pee when and where you want is an important one... The right to a decent steak... I'll think of some more soon...

                                    "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                                    -----
                                    "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                                    E 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • R Red Stateler

                                      Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      Lost User
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #40

                                      The right not to be driven to a mental breakdown by sleep dperivation is one. The tigress is here :-D

                                      K 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • L Lost User

                                        The right not to be driven to a mental breakdown by sleep dperivation is one. The tigress is here :-D

                                        K Offline
                                        K Offline
                                        kgaddy
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #41

                                        Under US rules, when a person is integrating a terrorist, the same interrogator must stay up if the goal is to deprive the terrorist of sleep. In other words, the guy asking the questions is awake the same amount of time as the terrorist. He cannot pass the duties to another. http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html Boo-hoo. Terrorist losing sleep. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"

                                        L 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • K kgaddy

                                          Under US rules, when a person is integrating a terrorist, the same interrogator must stay up if the goal is to deprive the terrorist of sleep. In other words, the guy asking the questions is awake the same amount of time as the terrorist. He cannot pass the duties to another. http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html Boo-hoo. Terrorist losing sleep. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"

                                          L Offline
                                          L Offline
                                          Lost User
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #42

                                          Shifts. The tigress is here :-D

                                          K 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups