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.
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 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.
-
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 -
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
A "serbian" judgement?
Fixed. Sorry for the typo. At a close look, no one is normal.
Caetano VelosoDiego 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.
-
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. I don't accept this argument.
Yet they take people and deny them human rights. The tigress is here :-D
-
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
Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.
-
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.
-
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
Diego is wrong. So are you.
-
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.
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...
-
Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.
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 -
Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.
The right not to be driven to a mental breakdown by sleep dperivation is one. The tigress is here :-D
-
The right not to be driven to a mental breakdown by sleep dperivation is one. The tigress is here :-D
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"
-
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"
Shifts. The tigress is here :-D
-
Type a list of "human rights". I want to know what you think they are.
- 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
