Falluja

Sand

Regarding all the arguments over definitions, www.dictionary.com tbh.

Clearly not. You seem to enjoy indulging in it as well...or is your namecalling more adult in nature

Well, I do try for plausible or failing that implausible deniability when letting people know what I think of them. :ninja:

Memnoch

quote:

---

On Wednesday, Christine Hauser of The New York Times covered the carnage in Fallujah, but from a hospital in Baghdad, where some of the victims had been taken. Writing from Fallujah, her colleague Jeffrey Gettleman noted that the Marines in that city "have orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1000487569

---

again...

you can call it "imposing a curfew" or whatever. But it does not change the simple fact, that they are invading the country, laying siege to a city (in defiance of the geneva convention) and blatent murder of civillians. as proven above.
They are shooting with intent to kill
against people who they have no proof are combatants
who aren't holding a weapon


one last thing I will say about it... please stop spouting BS about how there have been no "legal" challenges to the US. Because it really makes my blood boil.

what happens when a country tries to challenge America's war crimes????

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,936827,00.html

The sad truth is that prosecution has always been a function of power. No one seriously believes that Bush and Blair will be indicted. International law works only against weaker states. Big powers have an unmerited, but unassailable, immunity. Even if anyone were brave or rash enough to try to indict coalition leaders, the US has refused to ratify the statute establishing the international criminal court, which came into force on July 2 2002.

this is why....

here's what happened when Belgium tried to challenge the US... strong arm tactics employed as usual....

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0613-ICC.html

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, warned Belgium at a Nato meeting to drop its controversial war crimes law or face a boycott of Nato's Brussels HQ.

this was in responce to..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm

Reason being... ALL it proves is that the you can get away with whatever you want to do as long as your powerful enough...

honestly I never thought I would have to EXPLAIN why the US hasn't been "challenged" legally. It would seem obvious... its a selfish world, most countries have little to gain by a "legal" challenge. Why risk their economic ties etc. over what is essentially a done deal?
no one is going to directly challenge the US because,
firstly any UN resolution would simply be veto'd anyways..
economic sanctions...

what is "legal" and "illegal" seems to be defined by those in power... unforunately the only kinds of war crimes tribunals that would try the US would be citizen's tribunal's of which there are many out there, but I wont bother pointing them out since people will just dismiss them as invalid.

So really stop spouting rubbish about how the US has not committed any crimes because they haven't been "charged"


more on the US avoiding war crimes it commits.....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=420256
A report published by Amnesty International shows that most of the 43 states that have already signed bilateral immunity treaties are heavily indebted to the United States.--Robert Verkaik, "US forces nations to help its citizens avoid international court," Independent, June 30, 2003

The United States on Tuesday suspended military assistance to nearly 50 countries, including Colombia and six nations seeking NATO membership, because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.--"U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries," Reuters, July 1, 2003]

so really, when anyone tries to prosecute the US for war crimes, aid is withdrawn, NATO memberships are threatened etc etc........

anytime someone says the US has not committed any war crimes because it hasn't been charged... it makes me sick

Memnoch

irish documentary about US war crimes....

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1023894901416B265&set_id=1

and yes i know the next link will be dismissed but i'll post it anyways...

collection of photographs and video's documenting several US warcrimes in Iraq...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3451.htm

a video of an eye witness report about an attack on an Ambulance by US tanks...


oh and last but not least... a document that provides detailed and convincing evidence of US war crimes in Iraq..

it quotes specifically from the Geneva convention, and declassified US military documents...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/SAandUSWC.html

vorbis

most of those links are about as reliable as Fox News memnoch. Also memnoch imposing a curfew is hardly a war crime. Considering the current security situation in Iraq, some might say its wise. Intriguingly if people like you believe that the Americans are shooting all military age males on sight, why is it also claimed that the majority of casualties are women and children? Theres a contradiction in terms there surely.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
most of those links are about as reliable as Fox News memnoch.

really?
most of the links in my first post are links to articles in MAJOR newspapers, including the Guardian, the Independent and bbc.co.uk... please tell me how these are as unreliable as Fox News....
don't run away from this post like you have done from other vorbis where I have proven you wrong. Now that you claim that most of these links are unreliable, lets see you provide some proof....

Lets see you contradict the evidence posted there. Fox news has been proven unreliable on many occasions with its blatent mis representation and lies...

are you saying the same is true of the guardian, the Independent and the BBC ?

The links in my 2nd post speak for themselves, and the evidence provided there is compelling and refrenced to the Geneva convention as well as DECLASSIFIED US Department of Defence documents... so really if you claim that the information therein is false, lets see some evidence to back your claims. Because right now you're just dismissing them as you don't seem to have any evidence against them.

Also memnoch imposing a curfew is hardly a war crime. Considering the current security situation in Iraq, some might say its wise.

You can call it IMPOSING a curfew. You can call it dancing in the moonlight. You can call it ANYTHING you want...
However...
specifically targetting civillians
with the intnet of shooting to kill
and killing them...
amounts to murder and IS a war crime.

The US has no right to "impose" this curfew. Other than its right of force, just as it had no right to invade Iraq. Also ACTs of agression are labelled as war crimes under the new ICC statute FYI.

Intriguingly if people like you believe that the Americans are shooting all military age males on sight

this is not what people like me believe vorbis. This has been reported by a NEW YORK TIMES journalist from Iraq. That these are the orders of the US troops. So don't try and make it sound like "speculation" on my part. This arguement is right up there with your "The Guardian, Independent and BBC are about as reliable as Fox news". comments.

why is it also claimed that the majority of casualties are women and children? Theres a contradiction in terms there surely.

actually there is no contradiction here.... my belief is that the US are shooting indiscriminately in Fallujah... women, children, men. However there is proof atleast of them specifically targetting, with intent to kill Men of military age(who are CIVILLIANS). This does NOT rule out, the US's killing of women and children in Fallujah. And while it is evident that the US have killed several women and children, all the evidence pointing to this is eye-witness reports by (thousands of) iraqi's. Off course the western world in its blatent bias can dismiss these. I wonder, if thousand's of Irish people witnessed an incident, would their testominies be shrugged of this easily?

Also the US army claimed that almost all the people they killed in Fallujah were "insurgents" this claim has long since been rebuffed as blatent lies, because news agencies have reported and shown the deaths of many women and children that could not have been combatents. Not to mention Al Jazeera showing LIVE footage of US helicopter missles targetting fleeing women and children.
Which the US commanders couldn't contradict when questioned about it.

Memnoch

More US and British warcrimes?
Cluster bombs...
the US and British claim they are legal... but this is not so...

"As we know from Afghanistan, Kosovo and the last Gulf war, these weapons cannot be used in a way that discriminates between civilian and military targets and that is illegal under military and humanitarian international law."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2912617.stm

US blatently lied about cluster bombs, then later used semantics to pretend like they hadn't lied at all...

AMERICA has used more than 10,000 cluster bombs in Iraq - seven times the number it admitted at the end of the war.
In April, General Richard Myers said US troops had fired off 1,500 of the deadly weapons, injuring just one civilian.

But figures from the US Central Command yesterday reveal that 10,782 were fired by US soldiers and 2,200 by the British.

Human Rights Watch said 1,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by the bombs - made up of two million munitions, often unexploded bomblets. Eight US soldiers also died.

The US said yesterday the discrepancy was because General Myers was only referring to the number of cluster bombs dropped by US planes.

Original Link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13717175_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DBOMBS%2DOUTRAGE-name_page.html

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
More US and British warcrimes?
Cluster bombs...
the US and British claim they are legal... but this is not so...

You do realise that the quote you provide - regardless of the fact that it was reported in the BBC - is nothing but an allegation by the director of Landmine Action that the action is illegal.

There's no shortage of respectable media who will also have reported the US response - on the occasions when they've made it - that cluster munitions are not landmines, and are not in contravention of any law.

So - if a respectable media included one of those quotes, would you also argue that it shows that they are legal???

Or what about those unsupported statments which were reported from that Iraqi crazy who was saying about the US being defeated during teh invasion? They were reported by respectable media as well - did that make them true?

If not, then you're still just cherry-picking who to believe - you're not proving a thing. Indeed, by not offering reasons why we should accept one vested-interest-and-informed person's word over another vested-interest-and-informed person's, you're not only failing to make a strong case, you're undermining any claim to objectivity you might have. And once you no longer have a reasonable claim to objectivity, its hard to claim that you're being fair and honest in your evaluations.

You have a reported statement from an individual who - like yourself - believes them to be illegal. In the article, he offers no reason, no justification, no nothing. He just states it as a given fact.

You are now repeating this, and using the notion that his utterances carry some extra weight because his completly unsupported statement was reported by the BBC.


jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
You do realise that the quote you provide - regardless of the fact that it was reported in the BBC - is nothing but an allegation by the director of Landmine Action that the action is illegal.........
jc

actually the reason I didn't offer explanations to back up the quote's assertion, is because the quote in my view was explanation enough...

"As we know from Afghanistan, Kosovo and the last Gulf war, these weapons cannot be used in a way that discriminates between civilian and military targets and that is illegal under military and humanitarian international law."

but since you demand an explanation let me point of the relevent bits from the quote...

1) Its been seen in Afghanistan, Kosovo and the last gulf war, that cluster bombs, cannot be used in a way that disciminates between civilian and military targets.
2) According to international military and humanitarian law, use of weapons that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets is illegal.
3) Therefore the use of cluster bombs is illegal.

Despite claims by US and British forces to the contrary.

Allied use of cluster bombs illegal, minister admits
By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor
30 May 2003


The Government admitted during the war on Iraq that the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets would "not be legal", a letter obtained by The Independent has revealed.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0530illegalbombs.htm

i'd link to the article in the independent directly but you need a "portfollio account" to view it.

here is a link to an article that examines the "illegality" of cluster bombs in detail.. including references to the hague convention, the geneva convention and the nuremberg charter

i. use of weapons or tactics which cause unnecessary or aggravated devastation or suffering;

ii. use of weapons or tactics which cause indiscriminate harm, i.e., to noncombatants;

iii. use of weapons or tactics which violate the neutral jurisdiction of nonparticipating states;

iv. use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gas, and all analogous substances including bacteriological methods of war;

v. use of weapons which or tactics which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.

The use of cluster bombs are prohibited acts if war under i and ii above, while the use of Depleted Uranium weapons are prohibited acts of war under all five categories.
The use of Cluster Bombs and Depleted Uranium weapons are also a violation of Protocol 1 Additional To The Geneva Conventions (1977). Part IV of Protocol 1 Additional is designed to protect the civilian population and civilian objects.

Article 48. Basic Rule states:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operation only against military objectives.
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/11_weapn.htm

yes i know its a link to iacenter... however if you read the article, and the quote above you can see that the arguement is true.


the fact of the matter is that cluster bombs spread over a large area. Even if they target an enemy "tank" in a city, there are a lot of civillian casualties associated with the use of cluster bombs....
here is a link to an article published in the Independent by Robert Fisk..

again the only reason i'm not directly linking to the article is because you need a paid subsciprtion to view it afaik.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-06.htm


lastly, i'm wonder what you're response is bonkey to the rest of my "links" and posts. Or if this is the only one that you can find "fault" with?

vorbis

don't run away from this post like you have done from other vorbis

This quite frankly puzzles me. run away??

Also I didn't realise you had posted twice in a row and was only talking about the links mentioned in the post directly above mine. I wasn't referring to the BBC atc. links at all.
The links I have reservations over were information clearing house and ratical.
The video in Information Clearing House is ambiguous. That guy's wounds and the bullet holes in the ambulance could just as easily be from insurgents. Hardly conclusive. The ratical site does have some factual base but reaches unsupported conclusions imo such as placing primary blame on the US for Iraq's poor water supply.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis

Also I didn't realise you had posted twice in a row and was only talking about the links mentioned in the post directly above mine. I wasn't referring to the BBC atc. links at all.

so what is your responce to the articles by BBC, Independent and the guardian?

The links I have reservations over were information clearing house and ratical.
The video in Information Clearing House is ambiguous. That guy's wounds and the bullet holes in the ambulance could just as easily be from insurgents.
Hardly conclusive.

it is conclusive, both he and the doctor say they were shot by US tanks.. what more evidence do you want? do you actually expect the US military to ADMIT that they did this? come on....

The ratical site does have some factual base but reaches unsupported conclusions imo such as placing primary blame on the US for Iraq's poor water supply.

how are they unsupported? Did you read the document?
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CynthiaMcKinney/news/pr010606.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html

what part does not have factual basis then?


Did you check the links provided used to back up the claims?

vorbis

so what is your responce to the articles by BBC, Independent and the guardian?

They're all reputable organisations. A lot of the accusations in those articles though seem to me to be based on unsupported opinion. Bonkey already covered the cluster bomb issue. The article about looting the universities is also very speculative. There's not even a name put to the person making the allegations (the actual comment was "some eyewitnesses allege"). The article about the poorest countries not sending Americans to the international court seems mainlt be America looking after its own self interest. What does it have to do with the current argument?

Regarding the ambulance, some proof that the bullets were of American origin would be useful. After all not too many marines use AKs. Also if both were shot at by tanks, then I'd imagine that they wouldn't still be around.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
They're all reputable organisations. A lot of the accusations in those articles though seem to me to be based on unsupported opinion. Bonkey already covered the cluster bomb issue.

and I already pointed out and clarified the cluster bomb issue in my posts AFTER bonkey's posts...
A Uk minister ACCEPTED that dropping cluster bomb's in civillian areas is illegal

I also provided a link to an article by Robert Fisk of the independent that PROVES that the coalition dropped cluster bombs on civillian targets.

but its convenient of you to ignore my post in that regard.

The article about looting the universities is also very speculative. There's not even a name put to the person making the allegations (the actual comment was "some eyewitnesses allege"). The article about the poorest countries not sending Americans to the international court seems mainlt be America looking after its own self interest. What does it have to do with the current argument?

actually the articles...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,936827,00.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0613-ICC.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm

the first two articles show the US's strong arm manipulation tactics in order to evade war crimes it commits... the 3rd article is merely for information regarding the circumstances under which Belgium tried to indict the US for war crimes. If the allegations were false and untrue why did the US go to such lengths to supress the Belgians?

The articles about the US manipulating other countries FURTHER shows, (please PLEASE stop making me point out the OBVIOUS to you) the lengths the US goes to prevent being prosecuted for war crimes.. in this example forcing countries to agree to bilaterally ignore the international criminal court with regard to US citizens.

which all cumulate to prove that just because the US hasn't been "legally convicted" of war crimes doesn't mean it hasn't committed any... all it proves is that the US gets away with its crimes through use of power, and manipulation as proven above.

Regarding the ambulance, some proof that the bullets were of American origin would be useful. After all not too many marines use AKs. Also if both were shot at by tanks, then I'd imagine that they wouldn't still be around.

Ah yes, provide the bullets, so easy to do, to provide bullets that are fired from tank's machine gun's. Watch the video again.... look at the damage to the ambulance.... you can see the exit marks of the bullets. At the time they were shot, I don't think these guys were concerned with trying to find and preserve the bullets that hit the ambulance, I think they were more concerned with trying to save their lives. Once again you demand "evidence" that you know is impractical to produce. Under the circumstances, eye witness accounts, + evidence of the damage done is pretty rock solid.

also intersting how you didn't re-iterate your objections to the destruction of Iraq's water supply... since my last post


also... quote from the BBC's article...

Yet unlike many of the incidents of post-war pillaging, this one was easily preventable, says the institute's acting dean, Dr Khalid Majeed.

When the college called on the patrolling US forces to help, not only did they refuse, some eyewitnesses allege the troops even encouraged the looters to storm the campus.

The US has not denied the incident took place, but says protecting colleges was not its responsibility.

The US didn't deny the incident took place?
The US goes out of its way to prevent a Belgium War Crimes tribunal...

if this didn't happen, and the evidence is as flimsy as you claim...

more from the article

Rasool Abdul-Husayn , an unemployed school teacher, says he saw one American signalling the crowd to move in, with a repeated wave of the arm. Another eyewitness, Kareem Khattar, who works in a bread shop across the road from the college, saw the same thing.
"I saw with my own eyes the Americans signal the people to move in and the looters started clapping," says Mr Khattar.
"The Americans waved bye-bye and the looters were clapping. They started looting quickly and when one man came out with an air conditioner an American said to him 'Good, very good'."

this is not "some unnamed eyewitness" as you mentioned. Off course what you did was not read the entire article. You only read the first couple of paragraphs where it said...

some eyewitnesses allege the troops even encouraged the looters to storm the campus.

aha, you thought to yourself, i can show that the article doesn't actually point to actual witnesses... and proceeded hastily to post. Had you actually READ the entire article, you would see later that specific eye witnesses are mentioned... have I caught you out? yes i have.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
lastly, i'm wonder what you're response is bonkey to the rest of my "links" and posts.
Or if this is the only one that you can find "fault" with?

There's no need to put fault in quotes - it was a faulty argument. It presented no evidence, no argument, no objectivity. It was presented as a link to respectable media in order to give it credibility, but amounted to little more than said respectable media repeating verbatim a quote from someone else. And it presented this as some sort of weight to back up an assertion of "this is the truth"....when all it was, was another person asserting that "this is the truth".

As for the rest of them....why do people constantly assume that when you point out a flaw in an argument its because you disagree with the conclusion????

I have consistently maintained on this thread that the best way to sink your own case is to mix the good arguments with the bad. Regardless of whether or not I agree with a stance, I will always be inclined to point out clearly flawed arguments.....which is what I was doing.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
There's no need to put fault in quotes - it was a faulty argument. It presented no evidence, no argument, no objectivity. It was presented as a link to respectable media in order to give it credibility, but amounted to little more than said respectable media repeating verbatim a quote from someone else. And it presented this as some sort of weight to back up an assertion of "this is the truth"....when all it was, was another person asserting that "this is the truth".

As for the rest of them....why do people constantly assume that when you point out a flaw in an argument its because you disagree with the conclusion????

I have consistently maintained on this thread that the best way to sink your own case is to mix the good arguments with the bad. Regardless of whether or not I agree with a stance, I will always be inclined to point out clearly flawed arguments.....which is what I was doing.

jc

and now that I have clarified the arguement for you?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
But seeing as you're clearly the legal expert Victor

I thought that was Sceptre's job

Originally posted by bonkey
...could you clear up whether or not eye-witness accounts are indeed "proof enough" as was alleged. I'm guessing that the answer is not an unequivocal "yes".....which would further undermine the argument even leaving semantics aside.

Multiple, concurring, recorded, contemporaneous, eyewitness accounts are typically considered proof.

Otherwise, how would the dispossessed ever be able to prove anything?

Vorbis, regarding tanks firing at something, read this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154045

Memnoch

Originally posted by Victor
Multiple, concurring, recorded, comtemporaneous, eye-witness accounts are typically considered proof.

Otherwise, how would the disposessed ever be able to prove anything?

Vorbis, regarding tanks firing at something, read this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154045

exactly.

also i don't think vorbis will reply to this thread after being caught out like that...

vorbis

I'll admit I didn't read that article fully. I read the start and scanned most of the rest of it as it just seemed to deal with the damage caused to the university. (air conditioners taken or something). If the Americans did indeed encourage the looting, then that was a pretty wrong thing to do. I wonder though were the troops there in any position to stop it though.

Also victor, in your post(I read it a while back), I believe that they never actually hit a target. They tracked one guy holding a rpg but were unable to fire at him in time. I'd imagine though if they had opend up fire in time that he woulddn't be leaving the scene alive. Also just getting shot in the leg would suggest small arms fire rather than a tank opening fire on them.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
Also just getting shot in the leg would suggest small arms fire rather than a tank opening fire on them.

All it suggests is he was hit once. In the other thread, they fired quite a few rounds and missed. If there is two tonnes of ambulance between you and the machinegun 500m away, not every bullet will hit you.

Sand

you can call it "imposing a curfew" or whatever. But it does not change the simple fact, that they are invading the country, laying siege to a city (in defiance of the geneva convention) and blatent murder of civillians. as proven above.

It is imposing a curfew. Yes they invaded a country, this is not by definition illegal or immoral. Laying seige to a city is not a war crime ( if anything the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states in Atrticle 28 that the presence of protected persons does not mean an area is immune to military operations ). Blatant murder of civillians? Only to non-racists who dont need proof to make a conviction.

one last thing I will say about it... please stop spouting BS about how there have been no "legal" challenges to the US. Because it really makes my blood boil.

Tough - Youre claiming Bush and Blair are war crinimals when theyve never been convicted or even had to defend themselves in a courtroom. This is clearly an error on your part, or dare i say the L word? Sure you could get away with it where its clear that whilst theyve not been convicted the evidence is so overwhelming that a trial could have only one result. But youve not been able to provide overwhelming evidence that Bush and Blair have participated in or ordered war crimes. Im not surprised because there isnt overwhelming evidence.

what is "legal" and "illegal" seems to be defined by those in power... unforunately the only kinds of war crimes tribunals that would try the US would be citizen's tribunal's of which there are many out there, but I wont bother pointing them out since people will just dismiss them as invalid.

If they apply your standards then I couldnt see why, theyd be up there with Stalins purges as examples of the fairness of politically motivated trials.

So really stop spouting rubbish about how the US has not committed any crimes because they haven't been "charged"

Oh I didnt say they hadnt, I said in the absence of conclusive evidence or an actual conviction then you were wrong to call Bush and Blair war crinimals. The same goes for the legality of invading Iraq which is seemingly legit under existing UN resolutions. I dont honestly care if it was or not, because liberating Iraq was the just thing to do but it again demonstrates theres no conclusive proof that it was a war crime.

anytime someone says the US has not committed any war crimes because it hasn't been charged... it makes me sick

Good to know.

The US has no right to "impose" this curfew. Other than its right of force, just as it had no right to invade Iraq.

The coalition is the occupying power in Iraq. They have every right, and indeed a responsibility to maintain law and order and security. You after all are criticising them for not doing so in the immediate aftermath of the liberation. They can impose new laws as they see fit under the 4th GC that assist them in this. As such they can impose and enforce curfews.

Not to mention Al Jazeera showing LIVE footage of US helicopter missles targetting fleeing women and children.

Please provide a link to this live footage. Second time Ive asked.

it is conclusive, both he and the doctor say they were shot by US tanks.. what more evidence do you want? do you actually expect the US military to ADMIT that they did this? come on....

And the Paras said they were shot at by the Civil Rights protestors. It took a lot of racists to actually say "Wheres the proof?" and then the truth emerges. As vorbis said those bullet holes could have come from anywhere....They look a bit small for a tank mounted machine gun, but I dont claim to be an expert.

Ah yes, provide the bullets, so easy to do, to provide bullets that are fired from tank's machine gun's. Watch the video again.... look at the damage to the ambulance.... you can see the exit marks of the bullets. At the time they were shot, I don't think these guys were concerned with trying to find and preserve the bullets that hit the ambulance, I think they were more concerned with trying to save their lives. Once again you demand "evidence" that you know is impractical to produce. Under the circumstances, eye witness accounts, + evidence of the damage done is pretty rock solid.

Those bullets didnt dissapear into thin air. Theyre lodged in a wall behind and to the left of where the ambulance was when it was shot if their story is true. They went to the bother of getting a camera crew out but couldnt be arsed finding physical evidence that it was US troops? Bull**** tbh.

The US goes out of its way to prevent a Belgium War Crimes tribunal...

Theyre probably worried about their servicemen ending up in a politically motivated court. With well balanced, fair and unbiased people around Im sure their fears are groundless.

Multiple, concurring, recorded, comtemporaneous, eye-witness accounts are typically considered proof.

The Paras are practically in lockstep with their accounts of what happened on Bloody sunday. The marchers are too, but with a wholly different account.

Which is the truth? Well, well have to go beyond multiple, concurring, recorded, comtemporaneous,eye witness accounts wont we?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Theyre probably worried about their servicemen ending up in a politically motivated court.

Are you suggesting Belgian courts can't be impartial?

Of course Americans would never have politicaly based judicial persecution, e.g. Clinton.

Originally posted by Sand
The Paras are practically in lockstep with their accounts of what happened on Bloody sunday. The marchers are too, but with a wholly different account. Which is the truth? Well, well have to go beyond multiple, concurring, recorded, comtemporaneous,eye witness accounts wont we?

The difference being that quite a few soldiers report being told to change their testimony. Hence the contemporaneous test fails.

Sand

Are you suggesting Belgian courts can't be impartial?

Im suggesting that when you utilise foreign courts you introduce foreign politics which is an added distraction to the actual purpose of achieving justice by the imperfect means of the law. Unless youre claiming an independant and well established judiciary cant be impartial when trying servicemen of its own nation for war crimes then why run the added risk that a judges decision may be influenced by international politics? Its bad enough they may be influenced by domestic politics. The only niche I can see for the ICC is where the crimes are committed in a country where the judiciary is neither independant or well established.

The difference being that quite a few soldiers report being told to change their testimony. Hence the contemporaneous test fails.

But isnt that true of just about any testimony where witnesses arent given any time to discuss what happened with each other? It just confirms that eye witness testimony cannot be accepted without physical evidence to back it up or serious travesties of justice occur. Perhaps thats my view as a layman, but it seems to me to be backed up by the past.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
But isnt that true of just about any testimony where witnesses arent given any time to discuss what happened with each other?

Are you suggsting witnesses should get together to agree what happened? Witnesses should be interviewed separately to ensure one dominant and / or biased person can't taint the evidence.

Sand

Are you suggsting witnesses should get together to agree what happened? Witnesses should be interviewed separately to ensure one dominant and / or biased person can't taint the evidence.

Sorry that was a typo on my part, I of course meant to say *are* given any time, where I said *arent* given any time.

The eyewitness Mem seems to believe makes and open and shut case are probably as airtight as the Paras testimony, in that theyve been given how much time to confer on their stories?

monument

Originally posted by vorbis
i think theres a deliberate attempt at mis representation in that article. The article presents a situation where US troops are responsible for the vast majority of shootings. The reality is probably a little different.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/guardianunlimited/story/0,12004,824307,00.html

Press Complaints Commission... http://www.pcc.org.uk/feedback/index.html