United States Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES

www.globalresearch.ca...


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described
in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the
victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection
(a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of
such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States
or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition. - As used in this section the term ''war crime''
means any conduct -
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to
such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the
Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or
any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a
party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and
contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3
May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol,
willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Am I missing something or did you mean to draw a comaparison/conclusion from the article?


From above link:

"The War Crimes Act of 1996: Bush, Rumsfeld could be indicted under US law"

.

so, again, why is bush threatening to veto funding for the pentagon....(an action that I assume would harm our efforts in afghanistan and iraq) if their NEW law against torture is contained within it?

www.telegraph.co.uk

why have the new law, if they are unable or unwilling to enforce the old law....and, well, why is bush so adament about torturing the prisoners that he'd undermine our troops ability to collect them for him, if he was looking for every way possibly to skirt all of these laws to begin with?

[edit on 29-10-2005 by dawnstar]
mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 29-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

@ shaman 7
Rather than just post a link and a quote, it is in the author's best interest to also provide some commentary. It gives the ATS community something moe to reply to

What the original post means is the Geneva Conventions and other indicated international laws about the conduct of war are made US law by reference.

So arguments that international law is not relevent to current wars the US is fighting are really distractions. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is in violation of US law and the DOJ has an oblication to prosecute.

Is he stating that those involved in the Iraq War should be tried under War Crimes?

Originally posted by Shaman 7
What the original post means is the Geneva Conventions and other indicated international laws about the conduct of war are made US law by reference.

So arguments that international law is not relevent to current wars the US is fighting are really distractions. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is in violation of US law and the DOJ has an oblication to prosecute.

Nope--You are wrong!

The geneva conventions prescribe rules of engagement for the treatment of enemy soldiers: Those who wear a uniform and who represent and/or project the policies of a specific nation or country by military means. Since terrorist/insurgents in general do not act in the name of ANY nation, they are not afforded the protections under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, your assertion is baseless and unfounded.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Shaman 7
What the original post means is the Geneva Conventions and other indicated international laws about the conduct of war are made US law by reference.

So arguments that international law is not relevent to current wars the US is fighting are really distractions. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is in violation of US law and the DOJ has an oblication to prosecute.

Nope--You are wrong!

The geneva conventions prescribe rules of engagement for the treatment of enemy soldiers: Those who wear a uniform and who represent and/or project the policies of a specific nation or country by military means. Since terrorist/insurgents in general do not act in the name of ANY nation, they are not afforded the protections under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, your assertion is baseless and unfounded.

It also states that the prisoners are entitled to basic human rights until a tribunal is held, several prisoners are being beaten and have even been killed without a tribunal.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by arkansasmedic]

It also states that the prisoners are entitled to basic human rights until a tribunal is held, several prisoners are being beaten and have even been killed without a tribunal.

Can you please be more specific? Who is being beaten? Who has been killed?

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Shaman 7
What the original post means is the Geneva Conventions and other indicated international laws about the conduct of war are made US law by reference.

So arguments that international law is not relevent to current wars the US is fighting are really distractions. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is in violation of US law and the DOJ has an oblication to prosecute.

Nope--You are wrong!

The geneva conventions prescribe rules of engagement for the treatment of enemy soldiers: Those who wear a uniform and who represent and/or project the policies of a specific nation or country by military means. Since terrorist/insurgents in general do not act in the name of ANY nation, they are not afforded the protections under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, your assertion is baseless and unfounded.

The fact of the matter here is, they might SAY that, but in all truth "Insurgence" are still covered by the Geneva Convention. C'mon, they might not have A UNIFORM that we recognise but how do we not know that they all have a yellow ribbon tied around their penis to symbolise something? We DONT KNOW, that could be THEIR uniform.

They are all part of different factions, thus each like its own country and they all COME from a country, they should all be given protection under the Geneva Convention.

It looks clear cut to me.

The War Crimes Act of 1996: Bush, Rumsfeld could be Indicted under US Law

Snip~~

The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.


The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.

~~

Here's where it gets interesting. The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy.

~~

The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq.

Continued

[edit on 31/10/2005 by Sauron]

Originally posted by ekul08
C'mon, they might not have A UNIFORM that we recognise but how do we not know that they all have a yellow ribbon tied around their penis to symbolise something? We DONT KNOW, that could be THEIR uniform.

They are all part of different factions, thus each like its own country and they all COME from a country, they should all be given protection under the Geneva Convention.

The point is, ekul; they aren't doing their acts on behalf of any country. They do not receive their "marching orders" from any nation. If they did, for instance, get orders and resources from the Iranian government, I guarantee you that we would be beating the crap out of Iran and any Iranian prisoners would be protected under the Geneva Conventions. These "insurgents" are afforded no protections under Geneva and therefore the US cannot be punished for mistreatment of them. Besides, these cockroaches get ethnic meals (meals sensitive to their religion), and they get their own copies of the Qur'an (at taxpayers expense). They are treated well--in fact better than at most prisons.

Any mistreatment, thus far, has been dealt with severily on an individual basis. Those involved have been punished and the notion that Cheney and Bush were pulling the strings behind the scenes are completely false. In fact, even if the insurgents were protected under Geneva, the Bush administration still woldn't be in trouble simply because these soldiers were acting on their own. They had no approval from their chain of commmand (outside abu Ghraib) to commit these acts. BTW, I'm assuming that we are talking about abu Ghraib. Many of those prisoners at abu Ghraib were Iraqi soldiers and were therefore protected. Gitmo, however, is a different story.

The reference to international law is soley based on using internaional law to define the term 'war crime'. This clearly does not mean that the geneva conventions and international law are made US law.

Originally posted by Sauron
Here's where it gets interesting. The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy.

Sorry;

Democracy Now! is an extreme left-wing organization that will use words as bomb shells without providing the evidence to support their statements. So now the ball is in your court to show the evidence that:
1) This general made those statements (I'll even accept Reuters or AP)
2) proves the alledged involvement of the "administration".

Editted for spelling

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

amazing that no one replied to your question. It goes to show that there are many individuals out there who love to spout their wildest fantasies and wishes, but are finally shown for the charlatans they are when they are asked for proof.