War Criminals Come To N.i

SkepticOne

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you are in favour of this war. If you are not, then even if only 10 Iraqi civilians died it would be 10 too many.

If you are in favour of the war, then you will regard the civilians who died as unfortunate casualties that will occur in any war. You will also add that the numbers would be far greater if precision bombing was not used and that the number falls far short of that killed by Saddam and his regime.

Sparks

dahamsta,
What a bizarre response.
Not really. The Ottowa treaty was meant to ban all landmines. Cluster bombs disperse bomblets, of which roughly 5-10% do not explode on impact, and act as defacto landmines. But because they're not designed specifically as anti-personnel landmines, it's argued that they aren't covered by the treaty, to the loud protests of every human rights organisation on the planet.
So it's a loophole, and one that is being worked on but for now it's open

skeptic,
You will also add that the numbers would be far greater if precision bombing was not used and that the number falls far short of that killed by Saddam and his regime.
But this doesn't hold up. It's like congradulating the gardai on the Feb 15 protest because they resisted the urge to drop the numbers and lay into the crowd.

And if we're going to be looking at the numbers killed by Saddam, don't forget the US has killed more people with chemical weapons than he has.

What we're talking about here, is whether or not we should support Stalin in a war against Hitler when we know the human rights record of each and what the war will do to civilians caught in the crossfire.

Originally posted by Sparks
[BNow that was blase. [/B]

whats Blasé about saying there will be innocents injured in a war?

Ok so four journalists, were mistaken for spies,this is a war, whether you agree with it or not.
what embedded reporters say is subject to restriction for good reason-in that Sadam's militia watches and listens obviously.

Man, if I issued a thinly veiled insult, you'd never notice...

Assuming you are not God, how do you reach that conclusion?
mm

BattleBoar

Originally posted by simon_partridge
I have to disagree with the spirit of that argument (though in legal terms you are no doubt correct). Say you have a fox in your area that is making off with some of your prize chickens - your solution to this problem might be to go all over the neighbourhood firing a machine gun indiscriminately in the hope of getting the fox, never mind if you hit bystanders or not. Can you really say that's any better or less criminal than putting a bullet through someone's head just because that wasn't the primary intention?

.

It depends, is the fox firing an RPG at you?

Sparks

Oddly enough battleboar, under Irish law if I injure a third party while defending myself from someone, I am liable for those injuries, unless there was nothing I could have done to prevent them.

Since you have to actively choose to drop a cluster bomb, that defence doesn't apply here...

Man,
It's blase that you would assume that you have the right to chalk people off as acceptable losses.

And those four weren't the only ones.

Originally posted by bonkey
So, what you're saying is that Milosovic is guilty even though not found so by trial, cause its pretty obvious that he's guilty, even though we are not done with his trial sentencing.

The US, on the other hand, are not guilty, because regardless of how clear it may be that they have gone against paltry agreements like the UN charter, they havent been actually tried and sentenced?

jc

No, thats not my position at all.
just a small excerpt from, the UN case file:
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm

This regime included the extermination, wilful killing or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, the deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians and the arrest and unlawful confinement or imprisonment under inhumane conditions of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians. As a result, virtually the whole of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population were forcibly removed, deported or killed in the "Serbian Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" regions.

At the very least, I am saying,there are a lot of withness's stacked up against him and I wouldn't fancy the job of defending him sucessfully.
Put it to you this way, if I was a no foal no fee lawyer, I wouldn't take on the case.
Thats not to say that he doesn't deserve a fair trial, he'll get that.

With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet.
The legal position is at best unclear
But those countries that wish to do so are free to persue the case, I await that with interest.
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
It's blase that you would assume that you have the right to chalk people off as acceptable losses.

I am a realist, thats all,warfare will cost civilian lives, and in this case, the likely end result is more lives , in the longer term will be saved, with the down fall of Sadam's henchmen.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet.
The legal position is at best unclear
But those countries that wish to do so are free to persue the case, I await that with interest.

You know as well as I do that no nation is ever going to be able to pursue the case. The US will refuse to answer the allegations, dismissing them as irrelevant or farcical, and there is no body which will or can compel them to do so.

Any nation wishing to walk down that path had better already be resigned to being struck off Dubya's Christmas Card list, too, cause we've all seen how rational and reasonable the US has been about anyone who has dared to voice any sort of opposition.

Every potential war criminal can trot out legal arguments and/or expertise to claim that its clearly not their fault.

You say that there's plenty of evidence about the atrocities of Milosevic that we can be reasonably certain about his guilt, and yet I'm sure that you'd argue that there's "reasonable doubt" about similar evidence about the US...for no other reason than that the US have never formally admitted or commented on it.

See allegations about Agent Orange, for example - the US refuse to comment on whether or not they knew it was lethally dangerous when they used it, and so the "legal position" is "unclear".

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
Oddly enough battleboar, under Irish law if I injure a third party while defending myself from someone, I am liable for those injuries, unless there was nothing I could have done to prevent them.

This is perfectly understandable in civil or criminal law. Obviously in war, things are different and civilians do get killed. I don't blame the soldiers that are there trying to do the right thing, I blame politicians that sent them there while filling people up with unrealistic expectations that it was possible to fight an "antiseptic" war. There never has been such a thing and never will be.

War, simply, is the worst thing men can do to one another. Reminds me of a great quote by George McGovern, former Democratic presidential candidate and WWII bomber pilot, when asked is he regretted bombing beautiful cities like Vienna, Salzburg, and Innsbruck:

"Well, nobody thinks that war is a lovely affair. It is humanity at its worst, it's a breakdown of normal communication, and it is a very savage enterprise.

"But on the other hand, there are issues that sometimes must be decided by warfare after all else fails. I thought Adolf Hitler was a madman who had to be stopped. So my answer to your question is no, I don't regret bombing strategic targets in Austria. I do regret the damage that was done to innocent people...."

You cannot blame the troops for defending themselves, the soldiers for trying to win the war as quickly as possible. Being shot at does amazing things for emotional clarity. Cluster bombs are an amazingly effective weapons system against troops in the open and lightly armored vehicles and to not use them in many cases would not make tactical sense, even if you allow for the fact that some civilians may perish. It is a cruel science. But, once the decision is made to go to war, the leaders must accept that civilians WILL DIE.

That is why I don't believe, personally, in the concept of a "war of liberation". It is estimated that in bombing in the leadup to D-Day, over 12,000 French civilians...women and children, died. On the day of the invasion, further bombing took another estimated 5,000 (in part thanks to poor navigation leading to bombs dropping over towns). So, would we have been justified in storming normandy if the sole purpose was to "liberate the French" at the cost of nearly 20,000 civilians? Interesting thought to ponder.

Civilians have died and always will die in war. True, it used to be worse. True, precision munitions may improve this, but they will never eliminate it. To me, this means the threshold for military action must be very high. The question, as always, is to detemine where the threshold for action has been crossed. My personal opinion is that in this case, that threshold was not met. Nevertheless, now that it has started, I strongly hope that the war ends as quickly as possible with as as little casualties as possible on both sides. Let us hope that the Iraqis will soon see a brighter future. I have my doubts. I hope I am wrong.

I am a realist, thats all,warfare will cost civilian lives, and in this case, the likely end result is more lives , in the longer term will be saved, with the down fall of Sadam's henchmen.

Man, are you so sure of that? Why are you so certain that the coalition will be the perfect answer to Iraqs problems? Because Iraq has always had its problems even before Saddam took control. Although then again, the coalition will have an easier time than saddam, since i suppose the sanctions will finally be lifted...

With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet

There will be none. There are no nations out there willing to challenge the worlds largest superpower, and its closest ally. Nobody wants to "rock the boat", especially since the US could just decide to ignore the rest of the world. God knows they've done it in the past.

Just to give you one or two links in regards to WW2, in relation to treatment of German POWS in Europe. oddly enough the allies were never brought to bear for their actions here either...

http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/warcrimetrials.htm
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/SoldiersKilled.html

Originally posted by bonkey
You say that there's plenty of evidence about the atrocities of Milosevic that we can be reasonably certain about his guilt, and yet I'm sure that you'd argue that there's "reasonable doubt" about similar evidence about the US...for no other reason than that the US have never formally admitted or commented on it.

jc

Well, I'll openly admit to liking america, that doesn't mean I would stand up for her, no matter what she does, that would be very unprincipled of me.
Like most things in life, I approach situations on a case by case basis.
In form with that I reserved judgement on this war,more especially going along with a little faith in Tony Blairs obvious conviction on the road he was going down,I admire the man, I'd be much more sceptical of Bush.
As of now, it is looking like, this war is not, turning out to be the total devil it was dressed up as by many, in that the tv screens at least show, locals welcoming the troops.
If I don't see, aid flying into Baghdad airport in the weeks and months after the war, I will be more than a little despondent.

Originally posted by klaz
Why are you so certain that the coalition will be the perfect answer to Iraqs problems?

I don't expect the coalition is the perfect answer to Iraq's problems. But at least when they elect their own government,they will be making their own choices, like for the most part we do here.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man

As of now, it is looking like, this war is not, turning out to be the total devil it was dressed up as by many, in that the tv screens at least show, locals welcoming the troops.
If I don't see, aid flying into Baghdad airport in the weeks and months after the war, I will be more than a little despondent.

Perfectly true and perfectly reasonable. I'd even agree with this.

What my objection to is people (not just your, or necessarily you at all) holding up the "better then it could have been...so far" as a fair accompli , saying that all the worries were for nothing, and shouldnt the anti-war protesters all be eating humble pie right now because this has been such a success.

I object to people making assumptions about what will happen as an argument for either side. We dont know what will happen, only what might, and the more we lose track of that the more likely it is that someone is going to screw something up big-time.

Ultimately, I guess what I have a problem with is what i see as "the wrong logic" being applied to this war - people trying to deflect criticism from one side or the other on grounds of "you cant technically say that", whilst using the exact same verbal license when making their own case.

Example : the US are acting in contravention of the UN charter with this war, but thats not "illegal". They killed thousands in Vietnam with Agent Orange and have left a devestating legacy that they refuse to even accept responsibility for, but thats not "illegal".


On the other hand, Saddam is in violation of some UN resolutions, and by gassing his own people has broken an accord that his nation is signed up to and both of these are "illegal".

People are getting sidetracked arguing over the different applications of the same term to different situations, simply because they dont want their chosen side being painted in "that" light....thats only for the other guy.

I'll readily admit that the UK troops appear to be doing a sterling job in Basra, and while they're teetering on the edge of a humanitarian disaster I believe they will pull the city back from the brink.

I have almost as much faith in the ability of the American soldiers to perform the same wins in the cities they get involved in, as long as the US administration doesnt get stupidly impatient with wanting to take Baghdad.

Generally, I would say that this war has progressed out "better" than I feared it would.

I am still opposed to it for a number of reasons. There is no contradiction here.

Your Side - whichever it is for each of you - does not have a monopoly on "good", nor on "right". The Opposition, whichever way you look at it, are not the only ones in the wrong.

I would have thought this much was obvious, that we are discussing shades of grey, but so many people seem to need to insist that its still black and white, and it just bugs the crap outta me.

Maybe thats why I play Devils Advocate so much.....

jc

bertiebowl

But at least when they elect their own government,they will be making their own choices, like for the most part we do here.

And when do you think that will be?

Remember Afghanistan still has the US appointed Hamid Kharzi in charge....

Do you really think the Americans after fighting a war would let the Iraqis elect someone whose policy was to eject the "coalition troops" as soon as possible???