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:
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
-
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
Err, because much of the rest of the workd has become politically neutral because we learbt the cost of having an Empire. Something the US is just starting to learn now. Welcome to the club guys, having an Empire is a fucking pain in the arse, and expensive. Look at the Swiss. They never got involved in Empire building, they just sat back and counted the cash the clever bastards. Nunc est bibendum
-
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.
-
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...
-
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|
-
Noble, but not without issues. 4, 7, 10, 16, 27 & 28 seem rather vague. Too much room for debate. 12, 13, 14, 15 are a bit odd. Couldn't they be combined into one "human right"? 22, 24, 25, 29 are too "socialist" in part or in whole for my tastes. ...but other than that it looks good. Now lets run it by the remaining 6 billion people on the globe and see if we can reach a concensus. :rolleyes: "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Now lets run it by the remaining 6 billion people on the globe and see if we can reach a concensus.
Well they are all adopted into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'officially' implemented by two thirds of those people, and recognised for the rest.
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 -
Bollocks. You invaded Kosovo, part of Serbia, that had democratically ellected Milosevic. You realy do talk shit you know. You are so fucking blinkered. Nunc est bibendum
Actually that was the UN.
-
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