americans involved in 'war crimes'

adnans

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

according to an irish film maker, who shown his documentary Massacre At Mazar on wednesday in the Reichstag (the german parliament building in Berlin). the 20 minute documentary is evidence of serious war crimes having been committed by american soldiers in afghanistan.

if this evidence is enough to prove that american soldiers have indeed commited war crimes during their action in afghanistan, they will either be tried by their own millitary courts or even the International Criminal Court. if the case happens to be tried in the ICC, America may invade Netherlands in order to save US citizens from the courts.

from: http://www.expatica.com/index.asp?pad=2,18,&item_id=23081

The Dutch parliament was shocked by a US legislative proposal giving an official green light to a US invasion of the Netherlands should it be deemed necessary to free US citizens from the International Criminal Court in The Hague

quite a scary thought. is Holland the new member of the axis of evil? im interested to see if anyone will show this documentary first before making up my mind.

adnans

Zaphod B

Heh... tbh can't see anyone showing it... certainly not in USA where from what I can see no one in the media is ready to challenge or question the government on this issue if they like their jobs, and not in UK when the government is doing its best to disappear up George Bush's rectum. Ireland being neutral it'll be interesting to see what happens.

JarJar blinks

That's not New.

The US Military Gave Saddam all his weapons of mass destruction
The CIA trained the mujaheddin and Taliban in terrorism against the Soviets.
South American Dicatators and countries owned by drug-warlords like El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru were on the pay roll of the United States Gov.
USA supplied Iran with all its Tanks and Bombs see Irangate.....
.....
..

The War crimes go on and on. Why did Bertie sell Ireland's Neutrality,... For THIS???

Chaos-Engine

Channel 4 might show it. But I would see it on an unsociable hour like 1am...

As for that crazy new US legislation. I was on IrC talking to a Dutch friend of mine. He said the topic of conversation there is how Holland will have to leave NATO once this new law is passed by Dubya Bush.

In the constitution of the Netherlands it says that they can't be in an alliance with anyone that can invade them.
Anyway. These US rescue mission. Where would they be launched from? NATO bases in Holland?

Its all mad.. I can see the beginning of the end of NATO if this legislation in the US is passed. US law allowing invasion of an ally???

(secretly hoping NATO will implode and then an Eurasian alliance of respect will form)

Sand

Be interesting to see how the Court could have the American servicemen as prisoners (A prequisite for trying them) without having arrested them, something they would have to use force to do seeing as theyre (the servicemen in question) not likely to surrender to the court and the US wouldnt turn them over- preferring to try them in the US.

Thus it would seem likely that were the US to invade the Netherlands to rescue these people (*extremely* unlikely, the law is a threat/bluff to dissuade anyone who attempts to take american servicemen prisoner by force, much like the responsibility of the U.N. to prevent genocide in Rwanda/Former Yugoslavia) it would be doing so to rescue American servicemen who were taken by force in the first place.

Heh... tbh can't see anyone showing it... certainly not in USA where from what I can see no one in the media is ready to challenge or question the government on this issue if they like their jobs, and not in UK when the government is doing its best to disappear up George Bush's rectum. Ireland being neutral it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Id be interested in seeing it. Is it a tape recording of eye witness accounts or an actual tape recording of the atrocities being carried out? Its not made very clear in the article but Id assume seeing as the reaction was kinda hum-ha lets have an investigation it was probably the former.

BKtje

erm wouldn't this put the EU in the situation.
i was under the impression that the EU also was a large defance alliance and work as one to repel invaders?

tbh i dont see the US invading as it would seriously strain relations between the EU and US.

Seeing as the US's largest allies the UK are in the EU it would kinda be a weird decesion?

The Gopher

Are you sure that expatica isnt the dutch version of the onion?If this is true its very bizarre.The US would have a fit if Serb special ops raided the Hague prison to get Milosevic.But its all fine when its your own guys aint it?Really hypocritical.Another thing-today Bush authorised the CIA to,if needed,kill Saddam Hussein in self defence.But in a legal perspective Saddam,as bad as he is,is being kidnapped and therefore under even american law,which can take an extremely tolerant view to householders who kill intruders and so forth,he has the right to defend himself with whatever force is needed.Not that i support saddam,but its what his lawyers would certainly bring up;)

JustHalf

Originally posted by JarJar blinks
The CIA trained the mujaheddin and Taliban in terrorism against the Soviets.

The Taliban didn't exist in Afghanistan until around 1996, so you're clearly mistaken.

photty

Bush authorised the CIA to,if needed,kill Saddam Hussein in self defence

when was saddam last seen in public or on live tv. i remember hearing a funny rumour once that he's been dead for quite a while...

bonkey

The Dutch parliament was shocked by a US legislative proposal giving an official green light to a US invasion of the Netherlands should it be deemed necessary to free US citizens from the International Criminal Court in The Hague

Do we, yet again, need to point out the vast gap between "proposed legislation" and "legislation"?

Also - unless you have seen the details of this legislation, I would be very careful about making assumptions.

After all - I could quite honestly state that "state sacntions killing of youths in America". Of course, it would be misleading of me not to point out that this would be actually state-imposed death-sentences on youths who coimitted serious crimes and who the court deems should be tried as adults.

So - does the proposed US legislation say "war with Europe if they ever try putting an American through this system", or does it say "when all else fails, and the case is deemed serious enough to merit the reprecussions......", or something even more restrictive.

jc

Zaphod B

Good point Bonkey... if certain people had got their way on proposed legislation in recent years you could be executed for bringing an eighth into the USA

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by photty

when was saddam last seen in public or on live tv. i remember hearing a funny rumour once that he's been dead for quite a while...

He was seen at the Mayday Republican Guard Parade.Taking the salute by firing a big elephant gun into the air one handed.
George Galloway the British MP flew out to see him around october 2001.

DadaKopf

And don't forget the US invasion of Panama in 1990, right before the the Gulf War. It's one thing for the US to have financed and trained the Mujahadeen and sold arms to Iran, thereby being indirectly involved in wars, pursuing their strategy of rollback but Panama was an out and out massacre, a mass slaughter which the Bush administration perpretrated for purely selfish, domestic political manoevering.

In the space of about one day, the US murdered 2,000 innocent civilians in the poorest district in Panama city, a district that demanded no military attention. They used it as an excuse to deploy, for the first time, the Apache gunship and the Stealth bomber - there are even eyewitness reports of people being burnt to death with high intensity lasers.

Despite the fact that US soldiers tried to conceal the death toll by burying the thousands of bodies, mass graves were uncovered shortly afterwards. But the American public didn't care because they weren't told - the mass media colluded with Washington to cover up the war crime. And who was a central player in this atrocity? Colin Powell. Oh, and Dick Cheney and George Bush (of course).

There's an excellent article here if anyone wants to read more about the Panama invasion and its aftermath.

BJJ

Originally posted by JustHalf
The Taliban didn't exist in Afghanistan until around 1996, so you're clearly mistaken.

Hey I refer you to Jenny Harburys 40 day food protest outside the Whitehouse where the CIA paid war criminals to kidnapp and torture American citizens that supported socialsim, more equality, Marxism...Only to be secretly murdered this was 1997

What makes you think the CIA were not in Taliban land in 1996.

?

JustHalf

Mmh. Me thinks you should read what I said and start up the old noggin.

TetsuoHashimoto

OK there are a few ideas going on here.

The US military supported the Taliban in the past, while the Russians supported a more peaceful northen alliance.

Americans have done terrible things to the people in Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan for what to fight communism, Marxist governments??

The USA may SAY they not have supported the taliban but they supported Pashtune Rebels, Islamic Jihad,.... so that these guys could kill Russians.

The CIA and US military is covert and secret so they will deny all wrong doing anyway.

When the Northen Allinace beat the Taliban instead of American ground forces doing the fighting.
Most of the Taliban hid, by throwing down their guns and hiding in villages,
Running to the mountains,
or defecting to the other side.

Bush Powell and Rumsfeild may convince you people with some of those lies but they don't fool me!

TetsuoHashimoto

mujaheddin , Taliban, pashtune rebels, Islamic Jihad ...

All the same thing.

The CIA supported Terrorism and the USA sold weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq and Pakistan

bonkey

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
mujaheddin , Taliban, pashtune rebels, Islamic Jihad ...

All the same thing.

This would also mean that there is no difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban then, yes?

jc

Clintons Cat

The US military supported the Taliban in the past, while the Russians supported a more peaceful northen alliance.

The record of attrocities carried out by the Leaders of the Northern Alliance during their period of Governance and in opposition to the Taliban is well doccumented.To call them "more Peaceful" is a big joke.Try doing some research troll boy before spouting such total crap

you understand

yes

??

klong

And don't forget the US invasion of Panama in 1990, right before the the Gulf War.

Invasion of Panama took place just after christmas 1989

GerK

Originally posted by klong


Invasion of Panama took place just after christmas 1989

Wow can you say pedantic?

GerK

Originally posted by JustHalf
The Taliban didn't exist in Afghanistan until around 1996, so you're clearly mistaken.

Actually the Taliban have been major figures in the political landscape in Afghanistan since 1992, they only seized Kabul and most of the rest of the country in 1996 that is true. However the roots of the Taliban extend back to the Mujahideen which was very much US funded and trained.

One of the problems, I think, is the intentional blending, by the media, of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They are NOT the same thing although there are strong and undeniable links between the two.

From the Carter Administration onward there were plans in place to use Islam; by funding, training and organizing Islamic regimes and terrorist groups; not only to rout the Soviets from Afghanistan but also to destabilize the Soviet Union from within.

I don't believe the US directly sponsored the Taliban or Al Qaeda as they are anti-US groups, however they created the environment and laid the foundations that allowed these organizations to flourish. The most blatant example of this being that Osama Bin Laden himself was CIA trained.

JustHalf

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
The US military supported the Taliban in the past, while the Russians supported a more peaceful northen alliance.

Thanks for filling us in on more made up stuff.

bonkey

Originally posted by GerK
I don't believe the US directly sponsored the Taliban or Al Qaeda as they are anti-US groups, however they created the environment and laid the foundations that allowed these organizations to flourish.

The US cut off its relations with the Taliban in 1997, and ceased to recognise them as legitimate rulers of Afghanistan at that stage. Before this, it is believed that their continued relationship was to help keep American oil interests in the region alive - although we had massive amounts of denial to that here the last time it was suggested.

It should be also pointed out that the US donated 43 million dollars to the Taliban in early 2001, despite not acknowledging them as the rulers of Afghanistan. There is an article here originally from the LA Times which contains quite an amount of interesting information.

jc

GerK

I don't see reference to this anywhere in the thread so far but its definitely relevant, it seems the US are not prepared to participate in any UN peacekeeping operations if their troops might be held accountable to the ICC (International Criminal Court ) for any war crimes they might commit!

See the link to everyone's favorite Tabloid News channel:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-12019171,00.html

I have to say I am not surprised at yet another refusal by the US to recognize international law (or indeed abide by it) , this follows on from the refusal to ratify the ICC treaty earlier this year:

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/US/05/05/international.criminal.court/index.html

bonkey

Originally posted by GerK
I don't see reference to this anywhere in the thread so far but its definitely relevant, it seems the US are not prepared to participate in any UN peacekeeping operations if their troops might be held accountable to the ICC (International Criminal Court ) for any war crimes they might commit!

More correctly, the US are vetoing all peacekeeping missions until their troops are granted immunity. So not only are the US refusing to allow their troops into Bosnia, they are preventing the UN from sending any troops into the region until their demands are met.

Talk about a shower of khunts. Blocking a peace-keeping mission as a form of blackmail to have your demands met.

jc

Lemming

Talk about double standards.

One for the US, one for the rest. THey're perfectly willing to use the ICC to convict their enemies, yet wont let it be used against themselves. :rolleyes:

Shinji

Ah yes, the "Invade the Hague" clause... Probably the single biggest strain in EU-US relationships in a very long time. It's been passed now, by the way.

Effectively this boils down to an absolute refusal by the US to recognise that the ICC applies to their people as well as to everyone else. Everyone else gets tried by an international court, but if the criminal is American, he gets a nice behind closed doors trial in the good old U S of A.

Of course, apart from Bush administration bloody-mindedness, there's a very good reason for this. Most American war criminals aren't soldiers who go nuts with an M16 in a packed marketplace or whatever; they're people acting on direct orders from above. It wouldn't do to have high-ranking generals named and shamed in the Hague, now would it!

Unfortunately, Britain has rather scuppered all efforts by the EU to reverse the Invade the Hague clause. Tony's desperate attempts to make the UK into the 51st state continue unchecked... The UK did a deal with the Afghan government promising that no British personnel over there would be tried for any crime, or handed over to any international body for trial (the ICC in other words). So, er, basically they've also refused to recognise the ICC applying to their armed forces. Naturally the Washington Post used this as proof of massive hypocrisy on the part of the EU. You can see their point.

Brussels, understandably, is furious with Britain... Almost as furious as they are over the failure of the country to get rid of an anti-Euro advertisement featuring Rik Mayall dressed as Hitler shouting "Ein Reich, Ein Vaterland, Ein Euro!" at cinema audiences.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
THey're perfectly willing to use the ICC to convict their enemies, yet wont let it be used against themselves. :rolleyes:

Actually the courts currently trying ppl for war crimes are ad hoc affairs and have nothing to do with the ICC.

JustHalf

Originally posted by GerK
I have to say I am not surprised at yet another refusal by the US to recognize international law (or indeed abide by it)

Sorry, how is this breaking the law? They are acting selfishly, but I haven't come across any law they're breaking.

Lemming

Originally posted by Shinji

Most American war criminals aren't soldiers who go nuts with an M16 in a packed marketplace or whatever; they're people acting on direct orders from above.

My-Lai, Vietnam. They went f*cking nuts and slaughtered an entire village. The powers that be white-washed it however.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Actually the courts currently trying ppl for war crimes are ad hoc affairs and have nothing to do with the ICC.

I stand pedanitcally corrected