TOP 50 US War Criminals, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 15-2-2010 @ 12:40 PM by December_Rain
This is a small collage of the TOP 50 US War Criminals. These are men and women who helped to launch wars of aggression or who have been complicit in lesser war crimes. These are not the lowest-ranking employees or troops who managed to stray from official criminal policies. These are the makers of those policies.

The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the United States target civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, use antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, use white phosphorous as a weapon, use depleted uranium weapons, employ a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs, engage in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations -- including by blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing down orchards -- detain people without charge or legal process without the rights of prisoners of war, imprison children, torture, and murder.

The list below does not include those responsible for war crimes prior to 2001. Nor does it include those currently in power who are making themselves complicit by failing to prosecute or cease commission of these crimes. The list could be greatly expanded. It could also be narrowed. I would argue, however, that it presents a more reasonable starting place than Holder's reported proposal to investigate only CIA employees who failed to comply with criminal torture policies, of whom there are no doubt more than 50.

Source:
www.afterdowningstreet.org...



Edited to correct title caps.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by December_Rain]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:34 PM by budski
reply to post by adifferentbreed



It's not about bashing a country - it's more about the FACT that these people ALWAYS take the moral high ground whilst simultaneously doing the same things they condemn others for.

Put it another way - if you are the self proclaimed worlds police, you probably shouldn't be going around mugging other countries, and then passing it off as being "for their own good" or "for democracy"

Since when was armed robbery for the good of the victim?



reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:47 PM by budski
reply to post by adifferentbreed



Fine, if that's your take on it, but this isn't about the poster, it's about what is posted.

Let's be honest here, if other countries did some of the things that the US and UK have done and still do, then our leaders would be calling them war criminals.

Just because the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't mean some actions suddenly become OK.

There's nothing wrong with patriotism - blind patriotism on the other hand is extremely dangerous...


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:59 PM by adifferentbreed
reply to post by budski



edited...............not gonna get baited into a banning, however the post removed was on topic. I guess some things don't change......funny for a site that romotes denying ignorance, freedom of speech only applies to a few.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by adifferentbreed]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:12 PM by budski
reply to post by adifferentbreed



Sorry mate, but I don't see how anyone is "baiting" you.

I think this is an interesting topic for discussion, simply because there are double standards when it comes to this.

The Butcher Of Grozny has in turns been lauded and abhorred by our respective governments depending on the "realpolitik" of any given moment.

Does this mean he is NOT a war criminal?

Does this make his actions/orders any less vile?

If we are going to apply standards to others, then those standards should apply equally to our own leaders.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that as the alleged "champions of democracy" our leaders should be held to a higher standard.

After all, if as a world leader, you are going to position yourself on the moral high ground, then more exacting standards and scrutiny should be met.



reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:16 PM by December_Rain
reply to post by budski



Actually if you read the article he has provided several references and reasons of what crimes have they committed. for eg. I will just take one the first person listed.

1. John Yoo: Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California, with [removed address available in article] (but a lawyer with the Pennsylvania bar from which he should be disbarred and would be if enough people demanded it) counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, wrote this memo promoting presidential power to launch aggressive war, and claimed the power to decree that the federal statutes against torture, assault, maiming, and stalking do not apply to the military in the conduct of the war, and to announce a new definition of torture limiting it to acts causing intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result. Yoo claimed in 2005 that a president has the right to enhance an interrogation by crushing the te##icles of someone's child. Yoo has been confronted in his classroom: video, and defended by the Washington Post, and again confronted in the classroom. 8 hearts.


There are several others listed in the article who helped created these policies and assisting how to evade torture crime law.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by December_Rain]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:20 PM by budski
reply to post by December_Rain



I've been aware of John Yoo for quite some time, and I vehemently oppose what he did - which was find (or try and fail) legal justifications for torture and other acts banned by international law.

Some interesting reading here:
www.propublica.org...


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:26 PM by December_Rain
reply to post by budski



Thanks for the link. I was looking for the new memos wasn't aware they were already released. 'll havea read on them later.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:28 PM by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by December_Rain



The charming fluffy already did this thread based on this same press release.

I wish they really were war criminals...I wish their nails were caked with blood and the flesh of infants dripped from their nostrils...that would be a less-lame world than this one, where they are what they are and you find room to puff yourself up with moral indignation comparing yourself to them... but, to each his own...



reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:32 PM by December_Rain
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel



Woops didn't noticed that. Thanx for the link
Mods can close this thread if it's needed as already a thread is running or let this one continue running. Whatever suits

[edit on 15-2-2010 by December_Rain]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:41 PM by December_Rain
Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to
post by December_Rain


I wish they really were war criminals...I wish their nails were caked with blood and the flesh of infants dripped from their nostrils...that would be a less-lame world than this one, where they are what they are and you find room to puff yourself up with moral indignation comparing yourself to them... but, to each his own...


Does that mean when war criminals are prosecuted only to "puff" the morals of society? I thought war criminals are prosecuted for the crimes they commit. There is no denying these people have committed acts which are illegal and considered war crimes. So why should these people escape justice?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by December_Rain]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 03:12 PM by December_Rain
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel



I just went back and read your response in that thread so now I can understand your point of view clearly. I appreciate your viewpoint. But I disagree that war criminals are prosecuted only to "puff" the morals of society or any such sentiment. I view people in global terms, how their action has resulted. Perhaps here our views differ.

I believe criminals are and should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit. This does not mean whatsoever that these 50 people are only the ones who committed crimes or they are in fact guilty. It's the duty of a Court to determine that. The evidence so far is against them on basis of which they should be at least tried in Court (International) fairly.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 2 days ago with 9 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 3 days ago with 6 member flags
Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 11 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 6 hours ago, 51 replies