4 ms·

Rice is a war criminal who happens to have not been prosecuted. That's a pretty serious claim, and more a matter of opinion. Depending on the situation, one co

Rice is a war criminal who happens to have not been prosecuted. That's a pretty serious claim, and more a matter of opinion. Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined. Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced?

coldtea 13y ago
>Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced? No, not really. After all most war criminals are never tried, especially if they are on the winning side. People can have and state their opinions. It's not like recent history is that obscure for someone not to be able to come to a conclusion.
tripzilch 13y ago
> Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced? The US doesn't recognize or allow jurisdiction by international organisations that try for war crimes, such as the ICC. So if we're going to follow your definition, US politicians would be immune to war criminal status. > Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined. Not really. It's entirely possible to wage war without committing war crimes. In fact that's part of the reason why the term even exists as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes Regardless, the US has committed war crimes in the "War on Terror". The following link lists a couple of situations and events that have factually happened and fall under the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#.22War_on_Terror.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#.22Wa... Then there's Condoleeza Rice's role in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Role_in_author...
a8000 13y ago
Anyone with a shred of conscience would have resigned from the Bush administration sooner than later. The war against Iraq was against international law, since it was not sanctioned by an UN resolution, regardless of the war crimes commited. Unfortunately US officials are above international law, because the US has not ratified the ICC (international criminal court) treaty.

coldtea 13y ago

>Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced? No, not really. After all most war criminals are never tried, especially if they are on the winning side. People can have and state their opinions. It's not like recent history is that obscure for someone not to be able to come to a conclusion.

tripzilch 13y ago

> Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced? The US doesn't recognize or allow jurisdiction by international organisations that try for war crimes, such as the ICC. So if we're going to follow your definition, US politicians would be immune to war criminal status. > Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined. Not really. It's entirely possible to wage war without committing war crimes. In fact that's part of the reason why the term even exists as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes Regardless, the US has committed war crimes in the "War on Terror". The following link lists a couple of situations and events that have factually happened and fall under the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#.22War_on_Terror.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#.22Wa... Then there's Condoleeza Rice's role in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Role_in_author...

a8000 13y ago

Anyone with a shred of conscience would have resigned from the Bush administration sooner than later. The war against Iraq was against international law, since it was not sanctioned by an UN resolution, regardless of the war crimes commited. Unfortunately US officials are above international law, because the US has not ratified the ICC (international criminal court) treaty.