War crimes charges filed against General Franks

[Vympel]

NATO may have to be moved

[The Duchess of Zeon]

NATO may have to be moved

There is a point at which a military alliance becomes utterly useless, and NATO will have reached it if France and Belgium remain in it for very much longer.

[Vympel]

Personally I think NATO should be scrapped. The US doesn't lose anything by dropping the quite weak European militaries, and could still acquire basing rights if there was ever a pressing need.

The Europeans can form their own military alliance and have incentive to be able to damn well spend money on their own militaries. The pathetic contribution quality of NATO members to the last NATO war, Kosovo (that Clinton ill-conceived cluster fuck of an operation where a superpower acted as air support for narco-terrorist thugs) in comparison to the US only bears this out more. Only Britain is capable of offering up a meaningful fraction of NATO force. Oh, and France, if they can be bothered.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Personally I think NATO should be scrapped. The US doesn't lose anything by dropping the quite weak European militaries, and could still acquire basing rights if there was ever a pressing need.

The Europeans can form their own military alliance and have incentive to be able to damn well spend money on their own militaries. The pathetic contribution quality of NATO members to the last NATO war, Kosovo (that Clinton ill-conceived cluster fuck of an operation where a superpower acted as air support for narco-terrorist thugs) in comparison to the US only bears this out more. Only Britain is capable of offering up a meaningful fraction of NATO force. Oh, and France, if they can be bothered.

I'd preferably re-orient NATO around eastern Europe and leave out the western European countries that - in truth - don't want to be in it for anything more than individual or EU gain. Many of the former Soviet bloc states have been quite cooperative in reorienting their militaries towards NATO needs, something that even countries like Germany and France have had trouble doing (well, NATO needs of the 21st century - Germany is only now planning to end the draft and go to a professional army, after all).

[Colonel Olrik]

NATO may have to be moved

There is a point at which a military alliance becomes utterly useless, and NATO will have reached it if France and Belgium remain in it for very much longer.

Humm, France is not part of NATO. As for Belgium, just ignore them. That's what everybody do. That assinine law of theirs brings nothing but trouble and it will end up scrapped, anyway.

[Dahak]

Personally I think NATO should be scrapped. The US doesn't lose anything by dropping the quite weak European militaries, and could still acquire basing rights if there was ever a pressing need.

The Europeans can form their own military alliance and have incentive to be able to damn well spend money on their own militaries. The pathetic contribution quality of NATO members to the last NATO war, Kosovo (that Clinton ill-conceived cluster fuck of an operation where a superpower acted as air support for narco-terrorist thugs) in comparison to the US only bears this out more. Only Britain is capable of offering up a meaningful fraction of NATO force. Oh, and France, if they can be bothered.

I'd preferably re-orient NATO around eastern Europe and leave out the western European countries that - in truth - don't want to be in it for anything more than individual or EU gain. Many of the former Soviet bloc states have been quite cooperative in reorienting their militaries towards NATO needs, something that even countries like Germany and France have had trouble doing (well, NATO needs of the 21st century - Germany is only now planning to end the draft and go to a professional army, after all).

I don't know where you heard that part about ending drafts here in Germany. That may be in the discussion for decades, but it won't happen in the forseeable future.

[NapoleonGH]

well as far as re-orienting nato to eastern europe, you must remember that many eastern european countries are trying their hardest to join the EU ASAP, and the EU's new soon to be made constitution if adopted will probably include universal unified foreign policy

[Sea Skimmer]

Humm, France is not part of NATO. As for Belgium, just ignore them. That's what everybody do. That assinine law of theirs brings nothing but trouble and it will end up scrapped, anyway.

France is part of NATO, they only withdrew from the military command structure not the treaty. Belgium holds the NATO command center in case you didn't know. Thisi s not somthing that can just be ignored when US offices must often be on there soil.

[Colonel Olrik]

France is part of NATO, they only withdrew from the military command structure not the treaty. Belgium holds the NATO command center in case you didn't know. Thisi s not somthing that can just be ignored when US offices must often be on there soil.

You're right about France, sorry.

I'd like to see a Belgium leader ordering the arrest of an active U.S army officer
It's just an impossibility. That's why there's a movement to remove that idiotic law. As it is, any fucktard can begin an impossible process against any person around the world (like it's happening now). A waste of time and money when applied to political leaders (not viable to charge) or military personnel, from the U.S no less.

[The Albino Raven]

I don't see why we need NATO anyways either. On top of the numerous other reasons listed in previous posts, NATO, the treaty designed to defend against a communist invasion of Western Europe, is now obselete. Unless the goal is to keep it around as a policeman/dominatrix for Europe/Balkans, there is no reason it should stay.

[NapoleonGH]

The bigger question is, why is the us trying to avoid the prosecution rather than actually defend itself for its war crimes in a court of law? We moved out of the world court specifically because we wanted to be free to committ war crimes whenever we felt like, perhaps rather than avoiding the prosecution of anti-war crime laws, we should, I dont know, NOT COMMIT WAR CRIMES?

[Striderteen]

No, we withdrew from the World Court because we didn't want to yield jurisdiction to an international body.

[Joe]

We moved out of the world court specifically because we wanted to be free to committ war crimes whenever we felt like, perhaps rather than avoiding the prosecution of anti-war crime laws, we should, I dont know, NOT COMMIT WAR CRIMES?

Actually, I think we moved out of the World Court so that opportunistic Belgian lawyers like this one wouldn't be able to try us for using "energy weapons" on civilians. When they're not defending Communist mass murderers like Castro, of course.

[The Albino Raven]

Actually, I think we moved out of the World Court so that opportunistic Belgian lawyers like this one wouldn't be able to try us for using "energy weapons" on civilians.

If other countries aren't allowed to bring their grievances against us, why should be be able to put Slobodan Milosovic or Saddam Hussein on trial. We are a just as much a part of the world as any other country, I don't see why America should expect immunity. In this case the charges are odd, but other cases against the US actually have grounds, and people should have the right to bring the charges against us.

When they're not defending Communist mass murderers like Castro, of course.

I don't see how a belgian lawyer attempting to try US leaders for war crimes is defending someone like Castro. If the United States wanted to be a member of the international community, they could do to Castro what the Belgian lawyer is doing to Franks.

[Tsyroc]

I doubt Belgium expected that they could be opening up their legal system to oodles of law suits in the style of the US legal system.

[Andrew J.]

Let's countersue Belgium and take all their waffles!

[Joe]

I don't see how a belgian lawyer attempting to try US leaders for war crimes is defending someone like Castro. If the United States wanted to be a member of the international community, they could do to Castro what the Belgian lawyer is doing to Franks.

This particular one has been hired by Castro to defend him.

[Tsyroc]

The bigger question is, why is the us trying to avoid the prosecution rather than actually defend itself for its war crimes in a court of law? We moved out of the world court specifically because we wanted to be free to committ war crimes whenever we felt like, perhaps rather than avoiding the prosecution of anti-war crime laws, we should, I dont know, NOT COMMIT WAR CRIMES?

Not commit war crimes? What, are you on crack? That's the sole reason the US goes to war is to commit war crimes. By the way, what war crimes did the US commit anyway?

Seriously, if the US starts legitimizing suits like this it opens up a whole can of worms for it's military and government personel to be constantly under legal attack (more so than usual anyway).

That doesn't mean that I don't think war crimes should be taken seriously but they should be real war crimes and not someone looking to make a buck, a political point or just to strike back however they can.

If there were instances of rape, torture, murder, intentional mass killings etc... then I can see bringing charges but charging the officer in command of the operation seems to be solely the target of oportunity.

[Axis Kast]

Actually, I think we moved out of the World Court so that opportunistic Belgian lawyers like this one wouldn't be able to try us for using "energy weapons" on civilians. When they're not defending Communist mass murderers like Castro, of course.

Indeed. In fact, it was the reasoning behind our refusal to sign. The notion was that if we were to turn over judicial authority to the World Court, people like Saddam Hussein would press for war crimes charges against our own generals. It would be a massive blow to public moral. Not to mention that because most of the rest of the world is already critical of the United States – and its military in particular -, we couldn’t exactly expect a fair trial every time.

If other countries aren't allowed to bring their grievances against us, why should be be able to put Slobodan Milosovic or Saddam Hussein on trial. We are a just as much a part of the world as any other country, I don't see why America should expect immunity. In this case the charges are odd, but other cases against the US actually have grounds, and people should have the right to bring the charges against us.

It’s hypocritical, yes, but ultimately intelligent. The fact that we can catch these criminals and that the World Court will still try them vindicates our position. The court functions even without permission to try American authorities.

[NapoleonGH]

Ok, im reproducing a post from another forum about the issue of american warcrimes thus far in iraq.

*The UN charter
*The Nuremberg Principles
*The Geneva Conventions.

The start date of this overview will begin in 1991. I can go back further and show how the American Government gave chemicals weapons to Saddam Hussein (the very same ones that he used on the Iranians and Kurds) and the high level talk about the America buying Iraqi oil (both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield were key participants in such talks). If I want to go back even further, I can go to 1967 when the US overthrew the existing government in Iraq and placed the Baath party in power. For time and sanity, i will just limit this discussion from 1991 and present day. Now before you comment on this, Please read this my post in its entirety before you comment. I am speaking to both the anti war and pro war folks. We have enough useless rhetoric flying about.






The first declassified documentation clearly shows that the US Government knew firsthand what the sanctions could do to the Iraqi people. Instead of me writing it all out; I will allow you, my avid readers, to find these gems of truths.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/cgi-bin...qmmow/view.html

Now please pay special attention to the first paragraph (which I will henceforth label as "Par" throughout this document)

Par 1
par 2
par 3
par 4
par 5 (MUST READ)
par 20
par 21
par 22
par 24
par 28

To read more on the side effects of contamination level in Iraq please read this de classified documentation:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/cgi-bin...qmmow/view.html



Now how does this equal to a war crime you may ask. Instead of me telling you my opinions, I will take you directly to the Geneva Convention.

Our tour of the Geneva Convention begins with this website:


http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

I would strongly suggest that you read this in its entirety. It is not long (about a page). Take a look at article 54 subsection 2

Also please look at article 51 subsections 4 and 5.

In all honesty, articles 48 to 54 and article 57. Just during this “war”, America has broken several articles in the Geneva Convection.



I. US violations of International Law under the
United Nations Charter, Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg
Conventions
A. Charges under United Nations Charter:
Chapter 1
Article 2, Section (3) of the Charter states that “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
Article 2, Section (4) of the United Nations Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Under these provisions the US violates:

1. The use of massive military force, as planned for the first two days of the military campaign (“Operation Shock and Awe”) and the military invasion to follow directly endangers peace, security and justice not only in Iraq but also throughout the Middle East Region.
2. Alternative avenues to pursue justice for crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the peace are available through the International Court of Justice. If Saddam Hussein and his regime are guilty of such crimes, the case should be brought to this Court. Charges should also be brought against any government or corporation that aided and abetted Iraq in the commission of said crimes.
3. The use of military force with the objective of carrying out “regime change” of sovereign nation is a violationof this Charter.
4. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons against a country without nuclear weapons is a further violation of the Charter and other international agreements.
5. The Security Council was presented all evidence available to make the case in support of the use of military force to enforce Resolution 1441 and the Security Council did not authorize the use of military force. To use military force under such circumstances shows a reckless disregard for the will of the international community and is in effect, an attack on the United Nations.

B. Charges Under the Geneva Conventions
Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
Chapter II: Civilians and Civilian Population
Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
Section (2) The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats
of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Under this provision, the US violates:

1. The restrictions imposed under the sanctions regime initiated at the conclusion of the Gulf War, specifically, not allowing Iraq to import parts and chemicals needed to restore their water systems and provide potable water to their population, further escalated the devastation and death caused by water-born diseases. The United Nations has estimated that over 750,000 children have died as a result of disease that could have been prevented with proper water treatment.

C. Charges Under The Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunals
Principle VI
The crimes here in after set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances;

Under this provision the US violates :

1. The Security Council was presented all evidence available to make the case in support of the use of military force to enforce Resolution 1441 and the Security Council did not authorize the use of military force. To use military force under such circumstances shows a reckless disregard for the will of the international community and is in effect, an attack on the United Nations.
2. The use of military force with the objective of carrying out “regime change” of a sovereign nation is a violation of this section of the Principles.

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Under this provision, The US violates:

1. Everyone who has consented to or engaged in the planning of the invasion of Iraq has committed a crime against the peace. These include the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, the commanders in the Pentagon, and congressional representatives who voted to give their war powers responsibilities to the President.



http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

Also check these sites out as well

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer200/normand.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/d.../pows-d07.shtml
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm (A must read. It is more detailed then the one that I outlined)

That is just a tingy overview of american war crimes in Iraq during our attack and the 12 years preceeding it.

Indeed. In fact, it was the reasoning behind our refusal to sign. The notion was that if we were to turn over judicial authority to the World Court, people like Saddam Hussein would press for war crimes charges against our own generals. It would be a massive blow to public moral. Not to mention that because most of the rest of the world is already critical of the United States – and its military in particular -, we couldn’t exactly expect a fair trial every time.

So then rather than make a point of insuring that any charges against our generals/soldiers were frivolous and would be thrown out due to their lack of evidence, we instead just dont join the court that would prosecute us. This is really a case of asking yourself "WHYT is the rest of the world critical of the US military" perhaps it is due to our history of complete disrespect for international laws and the treatiest that we have signed? seriously wouldn't the BETTER answer to have been to..i dont know...not act in such a way that any of these charges taht could happen would have any evidence to support them? Wouldnt that really be the more intelligent and just thing to do?

It’s hypocritical, yes, but ultimately intelligent. The fact that we can catch these criminals and that the World Court will still try them vindicates our position. The court functions even without permission to try American authorities.

Yes these other people are war criminals (some) but so are we, and it sure is hypocritical and morally repugnant to hold the rest of the world to a higher standard than the rest of us. For Saddam if we try him the message is that you can get away with crimes if you have a big enough gun to protect you, shouldn't the message that we SHOULD be sending to the world as the lone superpower and thus the people who set the tone of world affairs, be that everyone is accountable for their actions and crimes regardless of how big their guns are? If we wanted to actually act like a superpower and like a civilized country that is the true example of freedom, liberty, justice, and democracy, we should be acting in accordance to the laws that we have agreed to and signed, and should be willing to hand over our criminals to a world court to be prosecuted.

Durran: ok we get it, all comunist leaders are evil mass murdering crazies. Of course you fail to mention Castro's popularity among his people, or perhaps mentioning his predicessor's wonderful human right's history. And can you give us evidence of a planned course of murder by castro, im not talking about famine caused by a bad economic policy, im talking about planned mass killing where the actual intent of the action was to kill a bunch of people?

[Joe]

Of course you fail to mention Castro's popularity among his people,

Argument from popularity. Irrelevant.

or perhaps mentioning his predicessor's wonderful human right's history.

So?

And can you give us evidence of a planned course of murder by castro, im not talking about famine caused by a bad economic policy, im talking about planned mass killing where the actual intent of the action was to kill a bunch of people?

During the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara entered Cuba, rounded up thousands of "war criminals", meaning people who did not approve of his revolution, and killed them.

Then there's the Cuban military force sent to Ethiopia in the mid 70's to assist Ethiopian communists, another wonderful record.

Amnesty International has quite a large list devoted to Cuba's human rights abuses.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index&start=87

[NapoleonGH]

just wondering is the professional revolutionary, Che, castro in disguise?

[Joe]

That is just a tingy overview of american war crimes in Iraq during our attack and the 12 years preceeding it.

That is just a long-winded clusterfuck of a post full of legalistic jargon, broken links, and UN wanking (we know how wonderfully effective the UN is in dealing with mass-murdering dictators, as evidenced by their placement of Libya on the Human Rights commission). The post was not meant to deal with actual American war crimes during the Iraqi war, it was just designed to analyze the legality of the war.

[Joe]

just wondering is the professional revolutionary, Che, castro in disguise?

It was done by Che Guevara, for Fidel Castro's government. The responsibility falls upon both.

[NapoleonGH]

i seem to recall that Che kinda just went around and stirred up trouble without very many of the governments or people who he went around fighting on their side, giving him permission/consent.


SO then Durran, if the whole WAR is a war crime, analysing the whole war's status as one giant war crime, is not dealing with actual war crimes? Right...sure thing there buddy...you just keep thinking that. When the war itself is a warcrime, it is perfectly legitimate to show that that is the truth and to demonstrate that it is a war crime. Annd you say it is a bad tactic to use the PROPER TERMINOLOGY simply because it is "legalistic jargo" ohh great idea there. I agree theUN doesnt have a good record of keeping mass murdering nations out of the human rights commission, just look the US has been on it.