13 ms·
Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leader
by blunte 5y ago
Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again.
Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this.
But… this will never happen because almost no leader wants to be held accountable, and thus they will never vote against their peers.
- croes 5y agoThe US even sanctions investigators of the International Criminal Court if they try to investigate US war crimes. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-internation... *Correction ICC not ICJ
- dragonwriter 5y agoThe International Criminal Court; the ICJ is a different court with jurisdiction over nations, not individuals.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kodah 5y agoUS troops are held accountable for "war crimes" if that's what you're wondering. https://www.rt.com/usa/180692-marine-taliban-urinating-video/ https://www.rt.com/usa/180692-marine-taliban-urinating-video... In that specific incident, such a degree of accountability was desired to be held that the Commandant of the Marine Corps is said to have attempted an influencing campaign around their trial: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2017/11/09/marine-who-urinated-on-dead-taliban-wins-in-court/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2017... I'm sure there are things the military does that go untracked, however, deploying troops are heavily trained on the Law of Land and Warfare, the Geneva Convention (which only applies to how they treat citizens of a nation and the terrorists they're fighting, not to how they will be treated.), and various others. So, what war crimes are you wanting them to investigate that their own governing bodies have not chased?
- michael1999 5y agoThe USA ran torture sites around the world, and famously deleted the tapes. That would be a nice start.
- kodah 5y agoI guess I defaulted to understanding this in terms of US troops. What three letter agencies do is beyond me.
- michael1999 5y agoYou were careful with your claims, and I can understand your desire to defend the reputation of the regular uniforms. But you can imagine how unsatisfying that kind of lawyerly response is to someone on the outside who watches the USA do whatever they damn well please, much less someone kin to the kidnap/torture victims.
- kodah 5y agoI think in my most recent memory "war crimes" is a trigger word for an event where a bunch of "activists" harassed active duty service members live on Twitch about war crimes. I shouldn't conflate the two, but they're easily conflatable given how hyperbolic issues are at this point.
- michael1999 5y agoPeople are people. But don’t forget - many people consider the second invasion of Iraq an aggressive war of choice. And that makes every single participant a war criminal. From Bush on down to your friends.
- croes 5y agoBy US justice or international justice?
- 5y ago
- docdeek 5y ago> Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. The US is not exempt from laws relating to war crimes. While it is not a member of the ICC, it is bound to the laws of war as is any other state.
- trasz 5y agoThat’s an obvious lie. US is extremely loyal to its war criminals - good example is how people responsible for downing Iran Air Flight 655 not only never got punished, but were actually decorated. Even Russia handles this kind of situations better.
- lostlogin 5y agoIt’s not much further back you hit My Lai. However there are more recent examples. The events Eddie Gallagher was involved in are grim. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)
- rl3 5y ago>Even Russia handles this kind of situations better. Yeah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#British_ISC_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Br...
- trasz 5y agoRussia didn’t proudly decorate people responsible for downing an airliner. The US did.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoThe US went to war against the entire UN vote and suffered no consequence whatsoever, who is going to hold them responsible for breaking the rules of engagement ?
- trasz 5y ago
- trasz 5y agoVery few countries are active war mongers, so it might actually be possible to assemble a bloc to try making US accountable. It probably wouldn’t be possible to go after prime perpetrators, but it might be possible to at least start extracting low key figures and put them on trial in a way that US cannot interfere with.
- La1n 5y ago>and put them on trial in a way that US cannot interfere with. I think that would be near impossible when looking at US laws like the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- trasz 5y agoHow would this matter if they were tried by counties which are not US allies?
- La1n 5y agoMost countries, even non-allies would not want to be invaded by the US.
- trasz 5y agoThanks to US we already know how to handle this - there is a plenty of secret locations in various different countries where the perpetrators can be safely tried and then handled according to the sentence.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoI doubt the US would take their citizens suddenly disappearing in a country very well either, and keeping it hidden would be difficult. Maybe you could secretly convict a soldier who desecrated corpses or something, but people like Gina Haspel would be nearly impossible without ramifications.
- sofixa 5y ago> Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this I don't see this happening any time soon, without a popular movement that drastically alters the American political landscape. Whichever party a president and legislators are from, they have war criminals among their ranks, so they couldn't accept their friends, colleagues, "bosses", etc. being sued and going to jail for war crimes. Not to mention the American fetishisation of the military, a politician could hardly campaign on sending "our heroes" on trial. Heck, Trump pardoned a notorious war criminal and it was celebrated by some. So, baring a switch to proportional representation which would allow more parties and variety, or a popular movement that swipes away the current two parties, i absolutely can't imagine that happening.
- Chris2048 5y ago> Heck, Trump pardoned a notorious war criminal Eddie Gallagher? I've yet to see conclusive evidence of that either way.
- mtgx 5y agoThe US needs an independent (read: NOT "bi-partisan") institution formed of prosecutors that can go after government officials and apply the full extent of the law.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoThis happens with a lot of things in politics, the compromise is usually to just set a future date when you start doing the right thing and give amnesty to people before that. Some kind of gradual change is often buily in as well. I agree that proportional representation and greater democracy can fix a lot of current problems, but we don't need to put off everything until that arrives and indeed that will need to be achieved within the current system and might need similar compromises to be achieved.
- the-dude 5y agoHague (NL) Invasion Act : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- koheripbal 5y agoGiven that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this is now 20 years later. Such as on Sept 10th, an assassination attack was launched against the Northern Alliance because they knew that the US would retaliate for the attacks coming the next day. There were also a number of Taliban leadership that directly aided in the planning and execution of 9/11. IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. Punishing the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks, not entrenching an ideological split.
- the-dude 5y agoSince you are bringing up NATO, I will just spell out the Hague Invasion Act ELI5 : US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). Disclaimer : I am Dutch.
- blunte 5y agoPerhaps the first line of defense against such an invasion would be to agitate the farmers, causing them to drive all their tractors back into town. It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoYou'll certainly slow down the calvary units with tactics like those.
- tgv 5y ago> Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Isn't that a bit of a one-sided, vindictive point of view? I don't know who are still being detained in Guantánamo, but if there are terrorists among them, shouldn't these key figures then also be rewarded? I don't have the answer neither, but IMO the way the responsible people should be treated depends on their intentions, willingness to accept suffering of innocents, external limitations on their powers, and the net effect of their actions, not only on a seemingly simple case of wrongdoing.
- hyperman1 5y agoNo. That's what due process is for. If you can't reasonably prove someone is a criminal, they don't belong in jail. Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. Clearly, you've also imprisoned every terrorist of your country. Should you be rewarded for that? The Guantanamo situation is comparable: The US picked random people from the street based on gossip at best, or because they looked funny at a soldier at worst, and threw them in jail and tortured them. No process, no nothing. Nobody should be rewarded for that.
- mdp2021 5y ago> Compare High ranking officers (I am thinking of Sir David Omand) reported a switch in the past two decades in the practiced decision making parameters, which accept more false positives to avoid false negatives in alarms. As if one calibrated a spam filter to discard messages from the Embassy and stationery supplier to be sure as little Viagra and inheriting princes come through. "More security, too bad for the few innocents."
- tgv 5y ago> Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. That's not a comparison to the situation in Guantanamo. 780 people were detained there, out of a potential 400 million (depending on where you draw the borders). > Nobody should be rewarded for that. One strike, you're out? Is that the rule you judge by?
- 5y ago
- AmericanChopper 5y agoThe concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. Among those who go along with it, they tend to stop once it creates an issue for them. The ICC primarily prosecutes the war crimes of war losers. They’ve convicted some Nazis, some Serbs, and a few African war lords here and there. But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation that exists with even a modicum of national security. You won’t see George Bush, or any other US official before The Hague for the same reason you won’t see Xi Jinping, or Putin, or Netanyahu, or Tony Blair, or Ali Khamenei, or Rodrigo Duterte… there.
- bildung 5y ago> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed and ratified) by all industrialized countries except the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
- AmericanChopper 5y agoThis is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations. Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that thinks it has jurisdiction over half the world. Every NATO country has been accused of war crimes, and they’ve probably all committed them. None of them have been prosecuted, allies won’t call on other allies to be prosecuted, even Angela Merkel defends Israel’s on this topic, and Israel barely even pretends that they don’t commit war crimes. It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut).
- bildung 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoWhich war crimes were committed? Be specific.
- shapefrog 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You cant be too shocked about stuff that has an actual wikipedia article ...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago>Panjwai massacre,[1] occurred in the early hours of 11 March 2012, when United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales murdered sixteen civilians and wounded six others in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan He was sentenced to life without parole. >The Maywand District murders were the murders of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers from June 2009 to June 2010 Five of the Army soldiers faced murder charges while seven others were charged with participating in a coverup. War is waged by people. War crimes are inevitable but it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. How should the "US" be held accountable?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago>it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. That's easy to claim when you're the one doing the investigation. By refusing to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, the US has signalled it will not be held responsible for war crimes unless it's convenient for it. That decision is not great for the US's optics. I say that as someone whose ancestors were invaded by both US and Soviet forces, and I happen to think US forces really are less likely to commit war crimes - but that seems more a result of rugged individuals holding themselves to a higher standard, "The US" seems to have acted as badly as any other large, unaccountable institution would.
- shapefrog 5y agoSo we have gone from 'there were none' to 'we punished those' where next? 'Well that guy over there did worse' 'It was only 100 civilians' 'There could have been a bad guy amongst them' 'Oops I did it again' That list was wikipedia, so pretty limited in scope and skewed to cases that have been charged and prosecuted.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoI'd really like a huge investigation of the entire conflict. What progress were we seeing to justify being there for 20 years? What were we told? What did we know? It's not totally lost if we learn from this and get better. Gitmo also needs to be emptied, at least of everyone detained from this conflict.
- enumjorge 5y agoWhat you’re suggesting is that we need data to improve. But we’ve had data. We knew long ago that many of the decisions around the war on terror were bad ones and/or justified with bad information. Even many veterans who served will tell you we had no business deploying people to some of those areas. Actionable data isn’t worth very much if you don’t act on it. What we need is accountability. I don’t know how you hold the decision makers behind the war accountable though.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoI'm hazy on what accountability means though. Sure- I am 100% pro-accountability. If crimes are committed people should be charged. What do you do if something is not a crime though? Vote them out? We already do that.
- trasz 5y agoNot necessarily - look at how early Mossad prosecuted the guilty sheltering in countries that were not willing to cooperate. Sure, they had to break some eggs - letter bombs are not necessarily precise - but the collateral damage was minimal and the whole scheme worried just fine.
- rayiner 5y agoThere is already an accountability mechanism: impeachment, voting out of office, etc. What you’re demanding is that non-Americans be able to depose American elected officials, which is absurd. It’s world government accountable to no one.
- enumjorge 5y agoAsking for better accountability doesn’t imply non-Americans getting involved.
- matttproud 5y agoThere was zero — functionally zero — accountability for anyone: 1. Bush Administration (and subsequent cowards) 2. Project for the New American Century and related organizations 3. cheerleaders and thoughtleaders in the media 4. executors of the orders and plans 5. and finally the American people for being so hungry for bloodlust (remember those "Liberate Iraq - Support our Troops" yard signs and bumper stickers?) … and folks wonder why there is a crisis in trust and epistemology. Awfully enough, a lot of these people are being rehabilitated (politically) because the subsequent ones are so bad that the old are cast in a more positive light. But let's not forget the flagrant impunity and lies, and the stench of recrimination and smear campaign against those who called out against the jingoism rationally (e.g., Valerie Plame Affair with Iraq)! I'll never forgive nor forget these folks' bad decisions. Bankrupted our country and my generation's future (and that of the subsequent ones). The opportunity cost of these bad decisions is incalculable.
- lukifer 5y agoI would add to the list Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, who took "off the table" impeachment in 2006, and prosecution in 2009, respectively. A lesser crime, to be clear, but they are morally culpable nonetheless. On the one hand, I can understand the hesitancy to set a precedent of prosecuting the political opposition; while I think the evidence is clear that Iraq was a war crime, and not a well-intentioned "mistake", it's not hard to imagine counter-factuals in which genuine policy mistakes are spun the other direction. Nonetheless, it should give us pause that our Constitutional mechanisms for holding power accountable for flagrant abuse don't seem to have any teeth in practice; not from a lack of legal mechanisms, but from the factionalism of the two-party system, and that leaders are incentivized not to spend scarce "political will" that would distract from their own agendas, if not come to bite them as well when power changes hands.