7 ms·

And we'll continue to absolve any American president of war crimes, even though it's become patently obvious that there were war crimes. We'll hand out punishm

And we'll continue to absolve any American president of war crimes, even though it's become patently obvious that there were war crimes. We'll hand out punishments to enlisted personnel operating under the aegis of their superior officers, while superior officers avoid serious punishment. We forgive and forget the lawyers who authored the decisions that allowed this horror in the first place. And they call us the good guys. More like "the didn't-get-found-out-by-decent-people" guys. I'll admit to my own days of wanting glass parking lots in war zones or delivering godlike wrath on foreign opposition, but I don't actually have the power to make that happen. I also generally keep it to myself, because hey, coffee solves a lot of problems. But nobody's even trying to prosecute our officials for their involvement in war crimes.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
Prosecution for "war crimes" is something that only happens if you lose a war. That's not a cynical statement; it falls out of trying to reconcile the concept of "war crimes" with our concept of a world of sovereign nations. Sovereign nations aren't bound by any higher sovereignty that can set rules and subject violators to legal process. The only context in which a nation, or its leaders, can be punished for "war crimes" is when it loses a war and is temporarily inferior to the victors, who can impose prosecution as punishment for conduct during the war.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  This is simply not true. Prosecutions for war crimes have happened both for winners and losers of wars. The truth, to be more exact, is that the losers are overwhelmingly more prosecuted than the winners (by the winners), but the winners now have the option to be brought before the ICC in the Hague. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court Of course the chances of countries being signatory to (and having ratified) that particular treaty are roughly proportional to the inverse of their activities regarding such crimes in the recent past.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    You ever heard of the "Hague Invasion Act"? "U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution." http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-bec...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - rayiner 12y ago
        The U.S. opposes the ICC on principle, and there are Constitutional issues as well. The ICC is an anti-democratic institution, and participating in the ICC necessitates ceding part of your sovereignty to a bunch of people that don't necessarily share your interests and values. It also undermines Constitutional principles: that there be no court superior to the U.S. Supreme Court, and no law superior to the laws of Congress except the Constitution itself. Here's a paper with the conservative perspective of why the ICC is unconstitutional: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=facultyworkingpapers; http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent... and for the sake of "teaching the controversy" here's the opposite viewpoint: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7300&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
        _delirium 12y ago
        I agree there are some Constitutional issues, but I think not fatal ones. It would certainly not be possible to agree to an arrangement where e.g. a U.S. Supreme Court case could be appealed to the ICJ. But it would probably be possible to agree to an extradition agreement, by which an American court, following procedures passed by Congress, could extradite someone under its jurisdiction to the ICJ (there are already many extradition agreements with specific sovereign countries, which might be a constitutionally-significant difference, but might not). The case you link (Medellin) didn't hold that anything was unconstitutional: it simply held that the treaty the U.S. had signed in that case hadn't been implemented by Congress yet, so had no force of domestic law, and couldn't acquire such force of its own accord. They didn't hold that Congress couldn't pass implementing legislation, just that it hadn't.
- dalke 12y ago
  Mirko Norac "is a former general of the Croatian Army. He was the first Croatian Army general to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_Norac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_Norac ) The Gospić massacre took place in Croatia, and "[t]he trial was seen by a BBC News analysis as indicating a willingness on the part of the Croatian government to deal with war crimes committed by its nationals, following a long period of inactivity described by Rijeka County Court judge Ika Šarić as a "conspiracy of silence"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre ) Isn't that a counter-example? Ahh, you said "a nation, or its leaders", but not other citizens of the nation. So what about Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala? Quoting Reuters, "He is the first former head of state to be convicted on genocide charges in his own country", and genocide is a war crime. Isn't that a counter-example? While it was a civil war, you said war crime only makes sense when a sovereign nation loses a war and is 'temporarily inferior' to another nation, which is not the case in Guatemala. To be certain, the judgement was overturned, but your statement was limited to prosecution, and Rios Montt was definitely prosecuted for war crimes.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I read the OP's "we'll continue to absolve any American president of war crimes" as referring to an external prosecution, but on second thought it could very well mean domestic prosecution. In which case you're right, of course, that countries can punish their own leaders for whatever they want, war crimes or otherwise. I was thinking more about external punishment ala the International Criminal Court, the Nuremberg trials, etc.
    - dalke 12y ago
      I took the "we" to be "we as US citizens", but even without that, a Spanish court under the principle of universal jurisdiction famously indicted Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. Pinochet was then arrested in the UK. That's lead to worries "that Spain's judicial system was being hijacked by activist judges pursuing a political agenda. " http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-jurisdiction http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-juris... (Kissinger, of course, doesn't like this idea one bit.) In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it. Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

Prosecution for "war crimes" is something that only happens if you lose a war. That's not a cynical statement; it falls out of trying to reconcile the concept of "war crimes" with our concept of a world of sovereign nations. Sovereign nations aren't bound by any higher sovereignty that can set rules and subject violators to legal process. The only context in which a nation, or its leaders, can be punished for "war crimes" is when it loses a war and is temporarily inferior to the victors, who can impose prosecution as punishment for conduct during the war.

jacquesm 12y ago
This is simply not true. Prosecutions for war crimes have happened both for winners and losers of wars. The truth, to be more exact, is that the losers are overwhelmingly more prosecuted than the winners (by the winners), but the winners now have the option to be brought before the ICC in the Hague. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court Of course the chances of countries being signatory to (and having ratified) that particular treaty are roughly proportional to the inverse of their activities regarding such crimes in the recent past.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  You ever heard of the "Hague Invasion Act"? "U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution." http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-bec...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - rayiner 12y ago
      The U.S. opposes the ICC on principle, and there are Constitutional issues as well. The ICC is an anti-democratic institution, and participating in the ICC necessitates ceding part of your sovereignty to a bunch of people that don't necessarily share your interests and values. It also undermines Constitutional principles: that there be no court superior to the U.S. Supreme Court, and no law superior to the laws of Congress except the Constitution itself. Here's a paper with the conservative perspective of why the ICC is unconstitutional: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=facultyworkingpapers; http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent... and for the sake of "teaching the controversy" here's the opposite viewpoint: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7300&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
      - _delirium 12y ago
        I agree there are some Constitutional issues, but I think not fatal ones. It would certainly not be possible to agree to an arrangement where e.g. a U.S. Supreme Court case could be appealed to the ICJ. But it would probably be possible to agree to an extradition agreement, by which an American court, following procedures passed by Congress, could extradite someone under its jurisdiction to the ICJ (there are already many extradition agreements with specific sovereign countries, which might be a constitutionally-significant difference, but might not). The case you link (Medellin) didn't hold that anything was unconstitutional: it simply held that the treaty the U.S. had signed in that case hadn't been implemented by Congress yet, so had no force of domestic law, and couldn't acquire such force of its own accord. They didn't hold that Congress couldn't pass implementing legislation, just that it hadn't.
dalke 12y ago
Mirko Norac "is a former general of the Croatian Army. He was the first Croatian Army general to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_Norac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_Norac ) The Gospić massacre took place in Croatia, and "[t]he trial was seen by a BBC News analysis as indicating a willingness on the part of the Croatian government to deal with war crimes committed by its nationals, following a long period of inactivity described by Rijeka County Court judge Ika Šarić as a "conspiracy of silence"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre ) Isn't that a counter-example? Ahh, you said "a nation, or its leaders", but not other citizens of the nation. So what about Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala? Quoting Reuters, "He is the first former head of state to be convicted on genocide charges in his own country", and genocide is a war crime. Isn't that a counter-example? While it was a civil war, you said war crime only makes sense when a sovereign nation loses a war and is 'temporarily inferior' to another nation, which is not the case in Guatemala. To be certain, the judgement was overturned, but your statement was limited to prosecution, and Rios Montt was definitely prosecuted for war crimes.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I read the OP's "we'll continue to absolve any American president of war crimes" as referring to an external prosecution, but on second thought it could very well mean domestic prosecution. In which case you're right, of course, that countries can punish their own leaders for whatever they want, war crimes or otherwise. I was thinking more about external punishment ala the International Criminal Court, the Nuremberg trials, etc.
  - dalke 12y ago
    I took the "we" to be "we as US citizens", but even without that, a Spanish court under the principle of universal jurisdiction famously indicted Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. Pinochet was then arrested in the UK. That's lead to worries "that Spain's judicial system was being hijacked by activist judges pursuing a political agenda. " http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-jurisdiction http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-juris... (Kissinger, of course, doesn't like this idea one bit.) In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it. Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.