5 ms·

War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished. Victors don't have war crimes leveled against

by mhurron 13y ago

War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished. Victors don't have war crimes leveled against them.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished. That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia. That's actually rather the point of international war crimes tribunals not exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the International Criminal Court. Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice is a development of the last couple of decades.
- acqq 13y ago
  You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" read for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[40]" and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012." Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li... "There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida." Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals. If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are "terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the picture of ICTY work? In short, I'm with the skeptical view of mhurron.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" No, I'm not. > Croatia had military support from US: And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY. > and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012." Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only Croats indicted by the ICTY.) > Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks. You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY also prosecuted, and in some cases convicted, Kosovo Albanians. And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...
    - acqq 13y ago
      If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything? It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is. Now that you also mention Albanians at the same court, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_... "The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins." I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are only 9 of them.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > If you believe such courts aren't biased I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased. That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.
PeterisP 13y ago
You have a point that often victors don't have war crimes leveled against them. But they should.

by mhurron 13y ago

War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished. Victors don't have war crimes leveled against them.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished. That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia. That's actually rather the point of international war crimes tribunals not exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the International Criminal Court. Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice is a development of the last couple of decades.

acqq 13y ago
You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" read for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[40]" and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012." Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li... "There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida." Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals. If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are "terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the picture of ICTY work? In short, I'm with the skeptical view of mhurron.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" No, I'm not. > Croatia had military support from US: And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY. > and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012." Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only Croats indicted by the ICTY.) > Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks. You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY also prosecuted, and in some cases convicted, Kosovo Albanians. And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...
  - acqq 13y ago
    If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything? It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is. Now that you also mention Albanians at the same court, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_... "The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins." I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are only 9 of them.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If you believe such courts aren't biased I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased. That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.

PeterisP 13y ago

You have a point that often victors don't have war crimes leveled against them. But they should.