Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Want to know what ARE war crimes that the US has committed?

I know perfectly well what war crimes the United States has committed; more importantly, I know what war crimes the United States hasn't committed.

1) George Bush Jr. engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression on Iraq. That is the war crime of aggression. Boom. Illegal under international law.

Not if there is a formal declaration of war first. It was stupid and brutal, but it was technically not a war crime.

2) George Bush Jr. and co. legitimizing torture. ALSO a war crime...

I agree. Even if the use of torture against partisans is not outlawed by the Geneva conventions, the use of torture for any purpose should be illegal. What's more, it is an ineffective way of obtaining information. I agree that George W. Bush should stand before an international tribunal.

Violations of international law

3) The US/CIA factually fueled coups to overthrow democracies and install dictators. THAT Is most definitely a violation of international law.

Too bad that is an allegation, not a proven fact. Also, the word "democracy" is being used loosely here.

4) Funding/arming civil wars

Another allegation... and not a war crime!

5) Assassinations

Agreed; the drone assassination program is illegal under United States law, counterproductive but not, technically a war crime.

All of that is completely off topic. The OP claims that the latest DoD legal manual violates the Geneva conventions. Not one person has shown where it does, even though I have provided links to all the relevant documents. This thread belongs in Laughable Online Lies; it is sheer black propaganda. (Do you consider disseminating this sort of intentional disinformation a criminal act?)

I agree with Purplemer on this one.

Everything is a War Crime these days, and if it's not it should be.

Genetically Laboratory Altered Food Chain - Bad
Man made Laboratory Drugs that kill your Liver and other organs - Bad

War on Generations of Children who haven't been born yet due to the after effects of idiots who think DU is Organic way to attack other Countries simply because a bunch of wreckless rulers think it's fine and dandy and haven't classified it as a War Crime.

Up is Down.
Right is Left.
Evil is Good.
War is Organic? I think not.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: NavyDoc

Secondly, for something to be a "war crime" it has to be intentional. Nothing has demonstrated any intentional attempt to cause birth defects in Iraq.

If you use a wepon with known side effects then its use is intentional. Would you give DU to your pregnant wife..?

But there are no "known side effects." The radiation exposure working in a tank with DU for a year is the equivalent exposure to a single cross country flight.

That isn't the issue. The issue is consuming or inhaling "hot particles" in the environment. Those DO have a very serious side effect.

Things such as leukemia have skyrocketed in Iraq since the Gulf Wars.

They have? Based on what data?

How does one connect that to DU, especially given the myriad of other chemical contaminants?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Want to know what ARE war crimes that the US has committed?

I know perfectly well what war crimes the United States has committed; more importantly, I know what war crimes the United States hasn't committed.

1) George Bush Jr. engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression on Iraq. That is the war crime of aggression. Boom. Illegal under international law.

Not if there is a formal declaration of war first. It was stupid and brutal, but it was technically not a war crime.

2) George Bush Jr. and co. legitimizing torture. ALSO a war crime...

I agree. Even if the use of torture against partisans is not outlawed by the Geneva conventions, the use of torture for any purpose should be illegal. What's more, it is an ineffective way of obtaining information. I agree that George W. Bush should stand before an international tribunal.

Violations of international law

3) The US/CIA factually fueled coups to overthrow democracies and install dictators. THAT Is most definitely a violation of international law.

Too bad that is an allegation, not a proven fact. Also, the word "democracy" is being used loosely here.

4) Funding/arming civil wars

Another allegation... and not a war crime!

5) Assassinations

Agreed; the drone assassination program is illegal under United States law, counterproductive but not, technically a war crime.

All of that is completely off topic. The OP claims that the latest DoD legal manual violates the Geneva conventions. Not one person has shown where it does, even though I have provided links to all the relevant documents. This thread belongs in Laughable Online Lies; it is sheer black propaganda. (Do you consider disseminating this sort of intentional disinformation a criminal act?)

Thank you for the response.

I disagree on your first point.

Under international law and the UN Charter, an unprovoked preemptive attack IS a war crime and violation of international law.

A country CANNOT simply declare war and then magically transcend international law. If this were the case then virtually all countries could simply declare whatever they want and then act.

Moreover, Congress never officially declared war on Iraq if I am correct, so your point is mute.

Third, there are no "allegations" regarding the coups. It's literally mainstream history, not even conspiracy. Foolery. Simply look up Guatemala 1950's. The history of Latin America is replete with similar examples. Deny ignorance. It is a history most Americans don't know and a history that would shake most Americans to their core if they did know.

However, I will concede your point that it all might be off topic if the op's original point is incorrect. I am willing to learn on your points.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thank you for the response.

You're welcome.

I disagree on your first point.

Under international law and the UN Charter, an unprovoked preemptive attack IS a war crime and violation of international law.

No it's not. The United Nations urges the peaceful settlement of disputes, it does not outlaw the use of force. In fact, it uses force itself when necessary:

www.un.org...

A country CANNOT simply declare war and then magically transcend international law. If this were the case then virtually all countries could simply declare whatever they want and then act.

Please re-read what you wrote. Virtually every country has declared war at some point. You are confusing the pacifist ideal of war as an immoral and illegal endeavor with the actual extant international legal framework. War is hell, but it is a legal hell.

Moreover, Congress never officially declared war on Iraq if I am correct, so your point is mute.

The United States issued Iraq a series of ultimatums at the UN, and Congress authorized the use of force. It would have been nice if Bush sent Saddam a handwritten note saying "We officially declare war on you," but that isn't really necessary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Third, there are no "allegations" regarding the coups. It's literally mainstream history, not even conspiracy. Foolery. Simply look up Guatemala 1950's. The history of Latin America is replete with similar examples. Deny ignorance. It is a history most Americans don't know and a history that would shake most Americans to their core if they did know.

I stand by my point; nations frequently intervene in the affairs of other nations, both overtly and covertly. There is noi formally established international law that prevents that.

However, I will concede your point that it all might be off topic if the op's original point is incorrect. I am willing to learn on your points.

Thank you for being open minded. The OP is a blatant lie, hence the diversionary tactics about depleted uranium, etc. Why am I being so precise? Because words have meaning. If George W. Bush is a war criminal for sending American troops into Iraq, then Vladimir Putin is a war criminal for sending Russian troops into Crimea. If the United States committed a war crime by supporting partisans in, say, El Salvador, then Russia is committing a war crime by supporting partisans in Ukraine. Get it? Don't let propagandists use sloppy thinking to prey on your emotions.

originally posted by: intrptr
War is a crime. Those that wage aggressive war on hapless nations for no just cause are criminals.

Yeah, but who on Earth is going to bring the criminals to justice...especially when the gullible idiots are too busy waving flags and showing teeth every time 'one of our brave boys and girls' is shown on TV giving a wide smile and a thumbs up?

Nobody, that's who...if there's no accounting, there's nothing to hold them back.

Savages and little beasties aren't we.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: intrptr
War is a crime. Those that wage aggressive war on hapless nations for no just cause are criminals.

Yeah, but who on Earth is going to bring the criminals to justice...especially when the gullible idiots are too busy waving flags and showing teeth every time 'one of our brave boys and girls' is shown on TV giving a wide smile and a thumbs up?

Nobody, that's who...if there's no accounting, there's nothing to hold them back.

War is not a crime. It is evil, immoral and pointless, but it is perfectly legal. Over the centuries, people have come to create a series of rules of conduct that establish how war might be prosecuted "legally." It is violating these arbitrary rules that constitutes a war crime, not waging war itself.

a reply to: DJW001

It is violating these arbitrary rules that constitutes a war crime, not waging war itself.

Spoken like a true criminal.

a reply to: MysterX

Yeah, but who on Earth is going to bring the criminals to justice…

Criminals, like drug addicts ,usually wind up doing themselves in. They become more and more addicted to power and greed, bite off more than they can chew, extend themselves too far, leave too many enemies in their wake.

No empire has succeeded in conquering the whole world. Doesn't stop these idiots from trying.

Eventually the world rises up as one and overthrows the over throwers. Not if, but when.

Look how close the house of cards is to collapsing today. EU nations and the US (NATO) are saddled with unpayable debt, rulers are corrupt, police states are forming, people are living beyond their means, armies are spread too thin, resistance is growing in occupied but un conquered regions of the world, weapons of war are distributed far and wide in enormous quantities. Only a matter of time before the empire implodes.

If it didn't happen it would be the first time in history.

Isn't military aggression considered to be a war crime?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thank you for the response.

You're welcome.

I disagree on your first point.

Under international law and the UN Charter, an unprovoked preemptive attack IS a war crime and violation of international law.

No it's not. The United Nations urges the peaceful settlement of disputes, it does not outlaw the use of force. In fact, it uses force itself when necessary:

www.un.org...

A country CANNOT simply declare war and then magically transcend international law. If this were the case then virtually all countries could simply declare whatever they want and then act.

Please re-read what you wrote. Virtually every country has declared war at some point. You are confusing the pacifist ideal of war as an immoral and illegal endeavor with the actual extant international legal framework. War is hell, but it is a legal hell.

Moreover, Congress never officially declared war on Iraq if I am correct, so your point is mute.

The United States issued Iraq a series of ultimatums at the UN, and Congress authorized the use of force. It would have been nice if Bush sent Saddam a handwritten note saying "We officially declare war on you," but that isn't really necessary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Third, there are no "allegations" regarding the coups. It's literally mainstream history, not even conspiracy. Foolery. Simply look up Guatemala 1950's. The history of Latin America is replete with similar examples. Deny ignorance. It is a history most Americans don't know and a history that would shake most Americans to their core if they did know.

I stand by my point; nations frequently intervene in the affairs of other nations, both overtly and covertly. There is noi formally established international law that prevents that.

However, I will concede your point that it all might be off topic if the op's original point is incorrect. I am willing to learn on your points.

Thank you for being open minded. The OP is a blatant lie, hence the diversionary tactics about depleted uranium, etc. Why am I being so precise? Because words have meaning. If George W. Bush is a war criminal for sending American troops into Iraq, then Vladimir Putin is a war criminal for sending Russian troops into Crimea. If the United States committed a war crime by supporting partisans in, say, El Salvador, then Russia is committing a war crime by supporting partisans in Ukraine. Get it? Don't let propagandists use sloppy thinking to prey on your emotions.

You are incorrect. I've studied with UN Security Council officials.. I also worked at the UN. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits any preemptive attacks, and use of force without a UN Chapter VII resolution authorizing it, EXCEPT in the case of non-preemptive self-defense. That is the ONLY use of unilateral force allowed without a resolution.

There are plenty of international laws prohibiting the violation of national sovereignty. Invading/attacking/couping/arming civil wars in a country preemptively all violate the national sovereignty of other countries, and are hence illegal. The UN Charter and international law do NOT allow other countries to do so unilaterally. This is the entire point of the UN Security Council, to address violations or threats to international peace, which mostly means countries doing EXACTLY what you are claiming countries have the right to do.

Trust me, I've studied this thoroughly and formally, with relevant leaders.

Now on to your final point.

Yes, there are war criminals and violators of human rights and international law ALL around the world, including Russia and the US. Many more too.

The thing that people like you seem to not get, with all due respect, is that the American rhetoric is that only these other agents violate international law and human rights, and that the US and West are lovey dovey democracy freedom fighters and have the right to intervene in others' affairs. The facts and history demonstrate conclusively that this narrative is false, one-sided, and convenient for global empire.

I and others are NOT suggesting that the US or West is unique. We are simply demanding that it be held responsible for its actions and face justice when it does violate international law and human rights. I say the same for all countries.

The thing is, we already DO hold tin pot dictators responsible. What we aren't doing is holding the big powers responsible, such as US, Britain, China, Russia, etc. THAT, is an injustice. Would you agree?

Now, before you think I'm saying that the UN SC works well, I'm not. With the permanent members and the big power vetoing any resolution that may affect their interests or allies, the system isn't equal nor just.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I will look in to the UN charter more closely, and the events surrounding the invasion of Iraq and reply soon.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I will look in to the UN charter more closely, and the events surrounding the invasion of Iraq and reply soon.

No problem. Thank you for the nice response. Sorry if I got preachy. It's something I have to work on.

You could probably just google "international law and unilateral aggression" or UN Charter and "threats to international peace," etc. Basically, as I said a Chapter VII resolution is required for a country or countries to take serious military action, or interfere in the internal affairs of another country, excepting only true self-defense.

The UN, under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, can pass a resolution allowing a coalition to enter a country if the government is failing to protect its people. The foundational idea here is that because a government is responsible for safeguarding the well being of the people, if it cannot or is severely abusing the population itself then it may have already violated its own sovereignty, and hence the sovereignty of the people must be restored.

This is meant to address such things as genocide (Rwanda, Sudan, etc), or things like Syria's Assad. In fact, it developed as a principle directly out of those genocides, when the UN had its hands tied and couldn't interfere in the ongoing genocides.

HOWEVER, it was never meant to be a vehicle for global empire, nor a vehicle for regime change. Regime change is rarely allowed by UN Charter and International Law, especially in the aims of a country's geo-political interests.

So, R2P was invoked during the recent Libya conflict. A Chapter VII resolution WAS passed allowing no fly zones and so on and so forth.

Coalition members, including the League of Arab States and African Union, specifically signed on under the conditions that weapons would not be provided to the rebels AND that regime change would not occur.

Both conditions were violated.

This, is one of the main reasons that non-Western aligned countries will not sign on to a Chapter VII resolution and military intervention in Syria. People's trust was broken. R2P was abused by Nato to execute regime change and arm rebels.

a reply to: Salander

Nope

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thank you again for sharing an informed opinion, you have clearly studied the issue in greater depth than I have. That said, the UN Charter was deliberately worded in an ambiguous way because it was written by the very powers vying for control of the world. It contains phrases like "the Security Council may issue...." It never uses words like "must" or "compel," but rather
'urge" or "condemn." Cooperation with the United Nations has always been voluntary.