It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bush Administration Sells out Military

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The fallout of the Abu Graib prison abuse scandal is proving to be very costly for the United States. The pictures of the abuse have prompted the Bush administration to withdraw its request that American troops have immunity from international war crime tribunals.

The immunity from prosecution of war crimes US troops have enjoyed while on UN peacekeeping missions is now a thing of the past. Despite unhappiness from UN Security Council members the resolution was expected to pass until pictures of the Abu Graib prison scandal were released.

Even UN Secretary, General Kofi Annan spoke out publicly to the security council saying it sent an unfortunate signal any time, but particllarly now.

The Bush administration has given up the sovereignty of its military to the UN.


JOHN SHOVELAN: Two years ago the Bush administration has threatened to withdraw from UN peacekeeping unless US troops taking part were granted immunity from prosecution. The administration today didn't today utter the same threat, although didn't rule it out.

RICHARD BOUCHER: I'm not able to say blanket one way or the other, what the implications would be for our participation in peacekeeping. We'd have to look at each of these that we have now, and as per your earlier question, each of them as they come along will examine the impact on our ability to participate and we'll have to take that into account.

JOHN SHOVELAN: But at a time when the United States is seeking international help in Iraq it seems unlikely that the threat would be repeated, at least in the foreseeable future.


www.abc.net.au..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source


[edit on 24-6-2004 by BlackJackal]




posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The headline on this is misleading and a subjective opinion of this event. Also, it has been covered in at least one other (and I believe two other) ATSNN article. I am about to move this to a discussion thread.

[edit on 6-24-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Sorry Val,

I called myself doing a search and not finding anyting but I guess I didn't look hard enough.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The pictures of the abuse have prompted the Bush administration to withdraw its request that American troops have immunity from international war crime tribunals.


Is it a "War" Crimes Tribunal we're talking about here or is it the so called International Criminal Court issue thats been kicking around for a few years?

Maybe what actually "is" a war crime needs to be re-redefined, I've always thought of them as Millions of Jews getting gassed, Lithuanians being mowed down by machine gun fire before the trenches, Chinese prisoners being used as chemical and biological warfare test subjects, Massacre of hundreds of thousands in Shanghai and Nanking, Thousands of polish officers killed in the woods of Katyn by the Russians (case never prosecuted) A majority of the Cambodian population eliminated by its victorious rebels, Rawandans butchered while the UN stood idle.

Underwear on the head just doesn't make me think war crime like the above examples do. The current justice system in the US army is robust enough to handle stupidity like the Abu Gharaib prison issue like it has/is currently doing.

It would seem to me the proper reason to have the ICC try a case would be one where the national authority of a country fails to address an atrocity or local laws do not define an atrocity as such - to me a great example of this would be North Koreas starving of its peasants while spending huge amounts on an offensive military machine.

The UN needs to get its priorities straight.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   


Maybe what actually "is" a war crime needs to be re-redefined, I've always thought of them as Millions of Jews getting gassed, Lithuanians being mowed down by machine gun fire before the trenches, Chinese prisoners being used as chemical and biological warfare test subjects, Massacre of hundreds of thousands in Shanghai and Nanking, Thousands of polish officers killed in the woods of Katyn by the Russians (case never prosecuted) A majority of the Cambodian population eliminated by its victorious rebels, Rawandans butchered while the UN stood idle.


i think what you are describing are "crimes against humanity," not war crimes. as someone already mentioned, the topic heading is very subjective. in my opinion, *not* accepting the jurisdiction of the hague over war crimes for US troops demeans them and sends the wrong message to the world.

www.crimesofwar.org...

koji K.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Well said Phoenix


This is yet another example of "everyone hates America, so let's hold them to a higher standerd."

Methinks it's time to say Fah-Q! to the UN.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix


Underwear on the head just doesn't make me think war crime like the above examples do.


There was murder, anal rape, all kinds of crimes. There was a lot more going on than the pictures. There was one account of the guards with dogs had a contest, who could make a prisoner unrinate on themselves. Don't forget this gem:



"The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "
Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. Washington Post



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join