Frago 242 - order condoning war crimes

[Thanas]

Frago 242 was issued in 'June 2004'. Sovereignty was returned to the Iraqis on 28th June, 2004 (with a UN resolution endorsing this handover). Again, I suspect this is an issue of jurisdiction and simply waving your hands at UN resolutions and Nuremberg isn't really a convincing counter-argument; the appeals to the JNA or Axis militia in WW2 would founder, I suspect, on the fact those were irregular units whereas by definition the ISF are not. There's also still the question of how this can be considered a 'war crime' when it's committed by Iraqis on Iraqis within a sovereign Iraq.

This is legalistic quibbling to the extreme, but even if we assume that your interpretation is correct - which I very much doubt because Axis "militia" were still regular units like the # 3. kroatische Heimatschutz-Gebirgs-Brigade - helping committ torture in such a direct way is still a crime against humanity as this is universal law.

Also, the sovereignty of Iraq was pretty much a sham and most likely would not hold up in a real court seeing as the USA was calling the shots and Iraq was pretty much a puppet state.

[Broomstick]

There's also still the question of how this can be considered a 'war crime' when it's committed by Iraqis on Iraqis within a sovereign Iraq.

Oh, please - "war crimes" can be committed in civil wars or putting down rebellions, and "crimes against humanity" can occur in either war or peace. Saying that X nationality can't be guilty because they were only doing this against their fellow X is horseshit.

[thejester]

Frago 242 was issued in 'June 2004'. Sovereignty was returned to the Iraqis on 28th June, 2004 (with a UN resolution endorsing this handover). Again, I suspect this is an issue of jurisdiction and simply waving your hands at UN resolutions and Nuremberg isn't really a convincing counter-argument; the appeals to the JNA or Axis militia in WW2 would founder, I suspect, on the fact those were irregular units whereas by definition the ISF are not. There's also still the question of how this can be considered a 'war crime' when it's committed by Iraqis on Iraqis within a sovereign Iraq.

This is legalistic quibbling to the extreme, but even if we assume that your interpretation is correct - which I very much doubt because Axis "militia" were still regular units like the # 3. kroatische Heimatschutz-Gebirgs-Brigade - helping committ torture in such a direct way is still a crime against humanity as this is universal law.

Sorry, it's 'legalistic quibbling' to determine whether or not the US actually had any responsibility here when that is the entire basis of the complaint? The case you cite of the Croat brigades and the issue of sovereignty it raises was specifically pondered by the tribuanl (here). There's certainly strong parallels but the nub of the Tribunal's rejection of this defence was that Croatia was an illegitimate state that was illegally created, maintained entirely by the Germans and used exclusively as their proxies. I doubt any of those things could be maintained to be true about Iraq in the last eight years, certainly not to the same degree, and you would ultimately have to prove that the US chain of command was deliberately using ISF to torture suspects. Frankly, the Guardian article doesn't support this last claim and in many ways contradicts it.

By the way, I love it that your original assertion of 'turning a blind eye' or even 'we do not give a damn' has turned into 'helping commit torture', when the article you cited clearly cites US advisors stopping the practice whenever they came upon it.

Also, the sovereignty of Iraq was pretty much a sham and most likely would not hold up in a real court seeing as the USA was calling the shots and Iraq was pretty much a puppet state.

Once again you've resorted to handwaving away anything that stands in the way. In your last post the UN's blessing made the US responsible, now the UN's approval of the restoration of sovereignty is a 'sham'?

Oh, please - "war crimes" can be committed in civil wars or putting down rebellions, and "crimes against humanity" can occur in either war or peace. Saying that X nationality can't be guilty because they were only doing this against their fellow X is horseshit.

You fucking reckon? Did it occur to you that I was suggesting that the term 'war crimes' was inapplicable here, not actually contesting the criminal nature of the action themselves?

[xt828]

Thanas, would the post-WW2 handover of "former Russians" to the Soviets be considered a war crime or criminal act now, given that those involved clearly knew what was going to happen to them?

Have any non-US troops come forward with commentary on torture and abuse in Iraq? I'm sure I remember something about British soldiers acting improperly not too long ago, and I think that there are currently Australian soldiers looking at a trial for shooting the wrong people in Afghanistan.

[Broomstick]

Oh, please - "war crimes" can be committed in civil wars or putting down rebellions, and "crimes against humanity" can occur in either war or peace. Saying that X nationality can't be guilty because they were only doing this against their fellow X is horseshit.

You fucking reckon? Did it occur to you that I was suggesting that the term 'war crimes' was inapplicable here, not actually contesting the criminal nature of the action themselves?

What you said was:

There's also still the question of how this can be considered a 'war crime' when it's committed by Iraqis on Iraqis within a sovereign Iraq.

The answer is: Iraqis committing war crimes on Iraqis within a sovereign Iraq is entirely possible. So yes, it could be applicable.

[K. A. Pital]

There's certainly strong parallels but the nub of the Tribunal's rejection of this defence was that Croatia was an illegitimate state that was illegally created, maintained entirely by the Germans and used exclusively as their proxies. I doubt any of those things could be maintained to be true about Iraq in the last eight years, certainly not to the same degree, and you would ultimately have to prove that the US chain of command was deliberately using ISF to torture suspects.

Um... why would one have to prove the US chain of command was "using" the ISF rather than just allowing torture? Besides, there are questions raised about the legitimacy of the current Iraq government, and it sure as hell wasn't legitimate back in 2004. It was just a puppet state created by an occupying army, and its armed forces were used as a US proxy.

[thejester]

There's certainly strong parallels but the nub of the Tribunal's rejection of this defence was that Croatia was an illegitimate state that was illegally created, maintained entirely by the Germans and used exclusively as their proxies. I doubt any of those things could be maintained to be true about Iraq in the last eight years, certainly not to the same degree, and you would ultimately have to prove that the US chain of command was deliberately using ISF to torture suspects.

Um... why would one have to prove the US chain of command was "using" the ISF rather than just allowing torture?

This is essentially what the Nuremberg tribunal did when it convicted German commanders of the crimes committed by Croat units under their command - that Croatian sovereignty was invalid in part because the units had so obviously been used as a proxy for German aims; not only operational aims but also stuff like deporting men to the Reich for forced labor etc. So German commanders were doing considerably more than looking the other way and Thanas' suggestion that the precedent had already been set seems a bit shaky.

Besides, there are questions raised about the legitimacy of the current Iraq government, and it sure as hell wasn't legitimate back in 2004. It was just a puppet state created by an occupying army, and its armed forces were used as a US proxy.

Questions from who? People are welcome to show otherwise but as far as I can tell the sovereignty handover was considered legally legitimate, which is enough no matter how much you think the day-to-day reality might have been different. Their use as a 'proxy' is open to interpretation - they were never used outside Iraq under US operational command, as Croat units definitely were, for example.