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.

 

US soldiers exempt from international law?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
i was just reading some threads about US forces killing
unarmed people

and wanted to know if they can be taken to the
International Criminal Court
as the exemption expired 30th june

or was the US able to renew this?
despite strong criticism


news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 18-11-2004 by bodrul]




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
no one is allowed to be exempt if its a war crime it should be dealt with just as you would with a person like sadam.
zero tolerance.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Good or bad, right or wrong, like it or hate it, you will not see one US soldier tried in any court outside the US. Period.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Good or bad, right or wrong, like it or hate it, you will not see one US soldier tried in any court outside the US. Period.

yeah thank you very much USA!



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Ok. But if the US doesnt try the war criminals or gives them a dishonorable discharge or something ridiculous, i think the UN should intervene.

Human rights abuses cannot go unpunished !



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It seems to me that International Law is an abstraction, it may be spelled ocasionally in an attempt to give credibility to a particular action against a weak faction.

An Hypothesis:

could Poland prosecute Germany for a breach of International Law during WW2 ?

If China, India, Russia, US, Europe broke "International Law", what would be the meaning of such Law?

(about Law)
A Country where the Legal System makes a certain decree, and 99,5% of the population refuse to accept it. What is the meaning of such law? Does it even make sense? Obviously such Law has no backing.


In this world there is no Law, except the Law of the mighty, Justice of the Mighty and for the Mighty.


In practical terms International Law does not exist, and it is unlikely that it will exist in the future.


A Scenario:

Lets pretend we are in 1650 AD, and Dutch East India company owns a private fleet of 500 armed ships. The Dutch Navy owns 10 armed ships.
A Dutch court in Europe, order the Dutch East India Company to surrender its fleet because it is in violation of International Law. What is the power of such Law , or the possibility of it being enforced, given the facts?

Ancient Chinese used to say , the less Laws we have the better.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I think any soldier that needs to be tried will be tried. Its just that it will be a US controlled hearing. Whatever people think about the US, we arent afraid to prosecute our own. If you recall some severe sentences have been handed down regarding the Abu Ghraib prison scandal (and more coming). Most will spend a decent part of thier lives in prison as well as dishonorable discharges.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The soldier can just fire into a crowd or something and just saying he was defending his base or something like that can't he?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Ok. But if the US doesnt try the war criminals or gives them a dishonorable discharge or something ridiculous, i think the UN should intervene.

Human rights abuses cannot go unpunished !


The UN has no legal jurisdiction in and upon this matter. You call them. You'd probably be better served by calling the GhostBusters.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


The UN has no legal jurisdiction in and upon this matter. You call them. You'd probably be better served by calling the GhostBusters.
seekerof

so umm the UN invasion force of 1991 in operation desert storm went in because the iraqi's wanted them to invade?
also that law of the mighty was worth something when we where still tradeing salves for silver.
now adays atleast i hope we have evolved and atleast we can sit and talk things out. but if Mr GWB has taught me anything , there are no rules. hell lets all kill some one!



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   


could Poland prosecute Germany for a breach of International Law during WW2 ?

Yes they could.
But they won't. Half of their country used to be Germany and if the sued us on A, we could sue them on B(or do it the Bismarck Way and liberate Eastern Germany with Tanks). This was an issue only recently.(Edit: The sueing, not the tanks
)
Of course this only applies to times where international law has actually existed. You could not sue the USA/Brits or Spain for Genocide on the Indigenous Population of North/South America for example


My Problem with the US Decision is this: When US Citizens enforce International Law but can not be made responsible for their actions under the same law, would'nt this be pretty strange?
You believe in International Law as much as you enforce it but then don't want it to be applied to you?
If you don't, where is the point in having international law at all?

No doubt that the US will punish War Criminals but would'nt it make them more credible if they let an international court decide?

[edit on 18/11/04 by tsuribito]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tartessian
It seems to me that International Law is an abstraction, it may be spelled ocasionally in an attempt to give credibility to a particular action against a weak faction.


You have a point there. But since 99% of nations on earth adhere to that international law, i'd say it's valid for everyone, even if one country (the US) decides otherwise.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I didn't wrote my thought clearly enough, here's what i meant.

(Poland prosecuting Germany) during WW2. When there were German soldiers and tanks in Poland.

Here's another example, a Political Prisioner in the Gulag , wanting to prosecute his guards, during his stay.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

so umm the UN invasion force of 1991 in operation desert storm went in because the iraqi's wanted them to invade?



Apples and oranges...?
What are we talking here devilwasp? What the Marine did or what the US did 1991? Maybe I didn't spell it out enough: In the matter dealing with the Marine, the defunct and ineffective UN has no legal bearing in or upon the Marine and if or how he will be brought to justice. The US has stipulated and stated that the UN will have no such authority when it comes to judging alledged "war crimes" by US forces/troops.
Clear enough?

BTW....since your a Brit, does the UN have jurisdiction to put on trial a British soldier they may have committed a "war crime"?




seekerof



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof



Apples and oranges...?
What are we talking here devilwasp? What the Marine did or what the US did 1991? Maybe I didn't spell it out enough: In the matter dealing with the Marine, the defunct and ineffective UN has no legal bearing in or upon the Marine and if or how he will be brought to justice. The US has stipulated and stated that the UN will have no such authority when it comes to judging alledged "war crimes" by US forces/troops.
Clear enough?

so the US is free to bomb civilains (like always) and get away with it?
if this is so...
then the US does not want cooperation when it is offered.
the US does not want a free world when it is offered.
the US is free to mame and murder even though the US wanted to help build this organisation.


BTW....since your a Brit, does the UN have jurisdiction to put on trial a British soldier they may have committed a "war crime"?
seekerof

no they are not but i also belive that my own country should be allowed to have its soldiers put under trial IF the person commited a crime.
there should be zero tollerance for war crimes.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The USA is one of only a handful of countries (and the only Western democracy) to refuse to sign up for the International Criminal Court, claiming that any ruling against a US soldier would be unfair.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate.

Clinton SIGNED the US up for the ICC, Bush UNSIGNED y'all.

usinfo.org...


Nice and fair, huh?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Devilwasp.....apparently you are failing to understand what I am addressing, which is the Marine incident and the placing of US forces under the authority of the UN for persecution of alledged "war crimes". Its simply not going to happen, and for the reason I gave. Get over it.
You then comment:


so the US is free to bomb civilains (like always) and get away with it?


More apples and oranges? Is the US freely and actively targeting civilian's? Despite civilian casualty numbers, the US is not actively targeting civilians.



if this is so...
then the US does not want cooperation when it is offered.


Further explain or give example please....I'm missing your point.



the US does not want a free world when it is offered.


Implying what? Free world is a relative term. Were the Iraqis as free under Saddam as they are now? Again, perhaps a bit more explanation of your line of thinking and questioning might help?



the US is free to mame and murder even though the US wanted to help build this organisation.


Dude, British troops and others are over there as well. Let me answer your question with a question: Are British troops free to "mame and murder" even though they took part in creating the United Nations? Duh?!

Again, the UN has no legal jurisdiction over this Marine, nor any other US forces/troops. The US will "judge and jury" its own, simple as that, despite the moanings and groanings. Whats the favorite saying of many here: the US broke it and now they own it, well if thats the case, why are so many here wrapped up at having the UN place this Marine, or any other US forces/troops up for "war crimes"? Again, the US will judge our own.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   

as mentioned by devilwasp
there should be zero tollerance for war crimes.


If thats the case, and rightly so, where are you and others at on screaming for "war crimes" to be placed on those "insurgents"? That they should be brought before the UN for committing "war crimes," etc., eh? Whats the excuse to that?



seekerof

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   


More apples and oranges? Is the US freely and actively targeting civilian's? Despite civilian casualty numbers, the US is not actively targeting civilians.


who am i to say i just go by the information avaliable to me .if they are imune from this law that means they can. hey if the troops cant be punished by an unbaised source then how can they be enforced?



Implying what? Free world is a relative term. Were the Iraqis as free under Saddam as they are now? Again, perhaps a bit more explanation of your line of thinking and questioning might help?

im implying that the US takes away freedom in the name of freedom.
they where free to move around thier town with out getting shot. now they cant even have that. they where free to go to church and not get shot, now they are lucky if they can do that with out being bombed.
the point i am makeing is the US is a totaly uncontrollable force wich reports to no one looks after its own intrests and cares not for what damage it causes.


Dude, British troops and others are over there as well. Let me answer your question with a question: Are British troops free to "mame and murder" even though they took part in creating the United Nations? Duh?!

no we've tried that. doesnt work.


Again, the UN has no legal jurisdiction over this Marine, nor any other US forces/troops. The US will "judge and jury" its own, simple as that, despite the moanings and groanings. Whats the favorite saying of many here: the US broke it and now they own it, well if thats the case, why are so many here wrapped up at having the UN place this Marine, or any other US forces/troops up for "war crimes"? Again, the US will judge our own.

yeah and who judges the US? the US is free to let any soldier off not just this one no matter the crime. i mean who cares right? the laws are there to be broken.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Devilwasp.....apparently you are failing to understand what I am addressing, which is the Marine incident and the placing of US forces under the authority of the UN for persecution of alledged "war crimes". Its simply not going to happen, and for the reason I gave. Get over it.


yet it is ok for the US to put others on trial for "alleged" war crimes.



Further explain or give example please....I'm missing your point.
seekerof

firstly you break UN law by invadeing iraq wich you justify by using your constitution.
i mean come on your leader thinks the UN is an evil organisation because its not of the same religion. IMOO anyway.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join