Capitol Hill Blue
'
More than 30 Top U.S. Officials Guilty of War Crimes

Quote:
More than 30 top U.S. officials, including presidents G.W. Bush and Obama, are guilty of war crimes or crimes against peace and humanity "legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany," the distinguished American international law authority Francis Boyle charges.
"In international legal terms, the U.S. government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international law," Besides the presidents, Boyle identified as war criminals Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Joseph Biden; Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta; Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton; National Security Advisors Stephen Hadley, James Jones, and Thomas Donilon; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and James Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) Directors George Tenet, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.
In the Pentagon, war criminals include the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff....
The serial aggressions of the U.S. violate such basic documents of international law as the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, Boyle said. As well, they violate the Pentagon's own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Boyle said the so-called "targeted killing" of human beings in a non-battlefield situation is "pure murder" under basic principles of Anglo-American common law and international criminal law. And in this case, where these murders are both widespread and systematic, these murders constitute a Crime against Humanity under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court.
emphases added
Quote:
More than 30 Top U.S. Officials Guilty of War Crimes


Oh well, I can think of a lot more than thirty still in the land of the living. wink
Quote:
Boyle said the so-called "targeted killing" of human beings in a non-battlefield situation is "pure murder" under basic principles of Anglo-American common law and international criminal law.


That just demonstrates that those laws are antiquated: They do not take into account a war that can occur without soldiers, cavalry, and cannons on a battlefield. They were obsolete back in the 1950s, when America and the Soviets built arsenals of nuclear tipped ICBMs. They continue to be obsolete now that we have asymmetric warfare in which a few individuals can wreak havoc and mass casualties upon the civilian populations of their enemies.

According to their logic, we just need to convince Al Queda to meet us on a Field of Honor, so we can settle this with a dual of our champions!
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
According to their logic, we just need to convince Al Queda to meet us on a Field of Honor, so we can settle this with a dual of our champions!


Actually, better yet would be - as W.C. Fields suggested - the leaders of both countries should meet in an arena with socks filled with horse manure and beat each other over the head. Whoever is left standing is the winner. grin
Quote:
the leaders of both countries should meet in an arena with socks filled with horse manure and beat each other over the head. Whoever is left standing is the winner.


I prefer the Marxist* approach: Cream Pies at two paces.

* As in Groucho, Harpo, etc.

Seriously, though, "leaders of both countries" may not apply since an army may not have a particular country. Are Al Queda troops attacking an Afghan Army base soldiers or civilians? Since they have no uniforms, does that interfere with their soldier/civilian status? Are Blackwater "consultants" actually soldiers or civilians when they are reporting and taking orders (suggestions?) from a US officer?

Is the Commander-In_Chief of the US Armed Forces a soldier or a civilian? Does he even have a military uniform? If so, did he design it himself (like Chief Justice Roberts) with some extra bling to signify his special role? Hmm
We're all soldiers, armed or not...

Quote:
Does he even have a military uniform?


Good question. I suppose he could use George Washington's uniform - wig, wooden teeth and all. grin
Wouldn't need alteration: both are approximately the same height and weight wink
'
Quote:
Boyle said the so-called "targeted killing" of human beings in a non-battlefield situation is "pure murder" under basic principles of Anglo-American common law and international criminal law.
Originally Posted By: pondering it all
That just demonstrates that those laws are antiquated: They do not take into account a war that can occur without soldiers, cavalry, and cannons on a battlefield....They continue to be obsolete now that we have asymmetric warfare in which a few individuals can wreak havoc and mass casualties upon the civilian populations of their enemies.

I am sure that Hitler would have approved of your elastic sense of morality.

How nice to know that American soldiers need fear no interference when they behave worse than maurauding Huns in countries that have never done the USA any harm.
'
Obdurate Washington

Quote:
...Washington has such a large number of torture deaths from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo to the secret CIA torture centers to endless drone attacks on kids' soccer games, weddings, funerals, medical clinics, schools, farm houses and aid workers.
The evidence is completely clear that Washington has tortured a number of individuals to death and into false confessions and blown to pieces thousands of innocents known as "collateral damage." No one but Washington and its servants denies this....
The holier-than-thou presence that Washington presents to the world is so phony and shopworn that Washington is becoming not only despised but a laughing stock. People cease to fear the "superpower" when they laugh at its folly, hypocrisy and utter stupidity....
Washington is like the drunk in a bar who picks a fight with a bruiser. Washington is full of itself, but Russia and China are not going to put up with a financially busted and militarily overstretched popinjay.
Quote:
The holier-than-thou presence that Washington presents to the world is so phony and shopworn that Washington is becoming not only despised but a laughing stock.


American arrogance apparently knows no bounds.
Quote:
I am sure that Hitler would have approved of your elastic sense of morality.

How nice to know that American soldiers need fear no interference when they behave worse than maurauding Huns in countries that have never done the USA any harm.


I happen to think that invading Iraq WAS a war crime, and that many in the Bush Administration should have been tried in the ICC for that. I also think that everyone connected with torture should be right there in the docket with them.

But in the case of the military conflict between Al Queda and the US, everything the US has done is justified: Al Queda declared war on us, and their 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an illegal attack on a non-military target. (I think their attack on the Pentagon was NOT a war crime, since it is a proper military target. Their unsuccessful attack on the White House would also have been legitimate.)

So what are the Al Queda equivalents of the Pentagon? It is simply wherever their top leaders happens to be based, as they direct their troops. US drone attacks (or any other type of attacks) are not being directed at random groups of civilians. They are being made on locations where US intel leads us to believe (strongly) that Al Queda troops and/or leadership are present.

In summary: Intentional attacks on civilian populations are war crimes. Accidental civilian casualties in the course of attacks on military targets are not, but they should be minimized to the greatest extent possible simply because that is the right thing to do. There is no moral elasticity involved, just the rules of war in the real world.
Quote:
US drone attacks (or any other type of attacks) are not being directed at random groups of civilians.



Hmm

Quote:
Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.


Link
Quote:
It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers.


But let me give you some...

In and of itself, war is a crime. Anyone who engages in it is a criminal. If they want the drone attacks to stop, all they need to do is cease aggression.

If the civilians don't want drone attacks they should shoot the terrorists themselves.

The US is looking for an excuse to get the hell out of there.
Give us one and we'll go. There are a dozen other places we could be waging war.
'
You are, of course, assuming that there are terrorists and that they are not a hoax by government and the Military-Industrial Complex to justify wasteful spending.

Remember the huge statue of Lord Buddha which once stood in this alcove? Carved from living stone 500 years before Christ was born? Is the pile of rubble where it once stood a hoax?
Quote:
KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — Tens of thousands rallied in Pakistan's largest city Sunday in support of a 14-year-old girl who was shot and critically wounded by the Taliban for promoting girls' education and criticizing the militant group.


A hoax?
Quote:
KABUL — Taliban insurgents beheaded 17 Afghan civilians in a rebel-controlled area of southern Afghanistan, officials said Monday, and two NATO troops were killed by an Afghan soldier in the eastern part of the country. The civilians, two of them women, were killed Sunday night in the Kajaki area of Helmand province, apparently because they were attending a party that featured music and mixed-gender dancing, provincial
officials said.

A hoax?

I submit that the real war criminals are not the Americans.
'
Originally Posted By: Greger
A hoax?

I submit that the real war criminals are not the Americans.

Yeah ? And who kills and tortures more people ?
I don't have any real figures on that. But in Afghanistan I expect the Taliban are responsible for far more atrocities, deaths, dismemberments, and beheadings. You apparently believe the Taliban should be able to carry out their murderous extremism with no interference. The women of Afghanistan are treated as subhumans, gays are killed outright. Priceless art destroyed in the name of religion. Brutality runs rampant.

Yet in the name of humanity you would have all aggression against these monsters cease because some of the peoples subjugated by them are injured in the attempt to end their despotic control.

The Taliban are not a hoax as you have suggested.


Perhaps you'd like to browse these photos of life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule...

RAWA Photo Gallery
Good luck, Mr. Boyle, in making a citizens arrest.
'
Originally Posted By: Greger

I don't have any real figures on that.

Why am I not surprised ?

Quote:
Priceless art destroyed in the name of religion. Brutality runs rampant.

Far more priceless art was destroyed or looted when the savage Americans invaded Iraq -- a country half-way around the world where they had no right to be. Ditto brutality. Ditto Afghanistan.

Quote:

The Taliban are not a hoax as you have suggested.

The American Establishment has been working tirelessly for a quarter of a century to create an enemy they can pretend is as great a supposed threat as the old Soviet Union, in order that the Military-Industrial Complex can continue to loot America.

By murdering, rampaging, destroying and torturing for years and years in many countries, the respected leaders of America have had some success in achieving their goal.
It is apparent that what we have here is a myopic view of U.S. involvement in world affairs.

Question: If China were to invade the U.S. because they claim we are violating the rights of our citizens
(which we do on a daily basis, Manning being only the most recent and public case in point) what would your reaction be?
Would you be waving a Chinese flag in the streets?

The Taliban are an organization fighting in their own country. The U.S. are the aggressors, period.
If they commit atrocities against their own people then those people will wage war against them.
Egypt, Libya, indeed the entire Arab Spring, are all examples of what happens when the people rise up against a government they don't want.

As for U.S. war crimes and indiscriminate destruction: the list is too long to not warrant an encyclopedic volume. However, below are just some instances easily found in WikiPedia.
A very incomplete list, since, if one were to include the U.S. sponsored coups that killed untold thousands in
Iran, Chile, Brazil, etc. one would need an entire library.

Start with the obvious:
The quasi-genocide of Native Americans.

Philippine–American War

World War II
Air raids on civilian population
Bombing of Dresden in World War II

During the Second World War, both Axis and Allied aerial forces conducted air raids on civilian populations in Europe and over Japan.

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The "Canicattì massacre" involved the killing of Italian civilians by Lieutenant Colonel McCaffrey.

The "Dachau massacre" involved the killing of German prisoners of war and surrendering SS soldiers at the Dachau concentration camp.

In the "Biscari massacre", which consisted of two instances of mass murders, U.S. troops of the 45th Infantry Division killed roughly 75 prisoners of war, mostly Italian.

"Operation Teardrop" involved eight surviving captured crewmen from the sunken German submarine U-546 are tortured by US military personnel.

In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre a written order from Headquarters of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, dated 21 December 1944, stated:
"No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight."


Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers.

Historian Peter Lieb has found that many US and Canadian units were ordered to not take prisoners during the D-Day landings in Normandy.

According to an article in Der Spiegel by Klaus Wiegrefe, many personal memoirs of Allied soldiers have been willfully
ignored by historians until now because they were at odds with the "Greatest Generation" mythology surrounding World War II.


American soldiers in the Pacific sometimes deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered, according to Richard Aldrich (Professor of History at Nottingham University).

U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. prisoner of war compounds to two important factors, namely (1) a Japanese reluctance to surrender,
and (2) a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were 'animals' or 'subhuman' and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to prisoners of war.
The latter reason is supported by Ferguson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians — as Untermenschen" (i.e. "subhuman").


Rape

It has been claimed that some U.S. soldiers raped Okinawan women during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.

Based on several years of research, Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes:
Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time,
there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war.
Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation,
they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight, and women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.


There were also 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture after the Japanese surrender.

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England,
between 1942 and 1945.
A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.
It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed
that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.

Korean War
No Gun Ri Massacre

The No Gun Ri Massacre refers to an incident of mass killing of undetermined numbers of South Korean refugees conducted by U.S. Army forces of the 7th Cavalry Regiment
(and in a U.S. air attack) between 26 July and 29 July 1950 at a railroad bridge near the village of No Gun Ri, 100 miles (160 km) southeast of Seoul.
In 2005, the South Korean government certified the names of 163 dead or missing (mostly women, children and old men) and 55 wounded.
It said many other victims' names were not reported. Over the years survivors' estimates of the dead have ranged from 300 to 500.
This episode early in the Korean War gained widespread attention when the Associated Press (AP) published a series of articles in 1999 that subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.


Vietnam War
The Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files is a collection of (formerly secret) documents compiled by Pentagon investigators in the early 1970s,
confirming that atrocities by U.S. forces during the Vietnam War were more extensive than had been officially acknowledged.

The documents are housed by the United States National Archives and Records Administration, and detail 320 alleged incidents that
were substantiated by United States Army investigators (not including the 1968 My Lai Massacre).
My Lai Massacre

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968.
Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of My Lai and My Khe of Son My village during the Vietnam War.

Agent Orange

A panel of legal and political activists calling themselves the International Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange
formed in France have claimed that the use of Agent Orange during Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War was a violation of laws regarding the use of
chemical weapons in the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1927 Geneva Convention, and the 1949 Geneva Convention.
In 2005 a suit filed against the United States and several companies who produced Agent Orange was rejected by a United States District Court in Brooklyn.
The court found that "No treaty or agreement, express or implied, of the United States, operated to make use of herbicides in Vietnam a violation of the laws of war
or any other form of international law until at the earliest April of 1975."
In 2007 the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Court in Brooklyn saying that "Agent Orange and similar U.S. herbicides cannot be
considered poisons banned under international rules of war" and that the lack of large-scale research made it impossible to show what caused illnesses.

Yugoslavia

Amnesty International has condemned the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which they confirm killed 400 civilians (some sources place this figure at over 1,000 or as high as 5,000)
in what it claims were violations of international law and war crimes, due to deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate attacks, with lack of precautionary measures taken to prevent civilian casualties.
Human Rights Watch documented approximately 500 civilian deaths as a result of the NATO bombing campaign.


War on Terror


As a reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks the U.S. Government adopted several controversial measures
(e.g., invading Iraq, applying "unlawful combatant" status to prisoners, conducting "extraordinary renditions", and "enhanced interrogation methods").

Human Rights Watch had claimed in 2005 that the principle of "command responsibility" could make high-ranking
officials within the Bush administration guilty of war crimes allegedly committed during the War on Terror, either with their knowledge or by persons under their control.

A presidential memorandum of September 7, 2002 authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners
basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School,
"necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes." Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel
carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on the prisoners,[61] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention,
and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.

Alberto Gonzales and others argued that detainees should be considered "unlawful combatants" and as such not be protected by the Geneva Conventions
in multiple memoranda regarding these perceived legal gray areas.

Gonzales' statement that denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"
suggests, to some authors, an awareness by those involved in crafting policies in this area that US officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes.

On April 14, 2006, Human Rights Watch said that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be criminally liable for his alleged involvement
in the abuse of Mohammad al-Qahtani.
On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany – for their alleged involvement of prisoner abuse –
against Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, George Tenet and others.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen by some as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting
the War Crimes Act and by abolishing habeas corpus, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo has told the Sunday Telegraph he is willing to start an inquiry by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and possibly a trial,
for war crimes committed in Iraq involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair and American President George W. Bush.
Though under the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction over Bush, since the USA is not a State Party to the relevant treaty—unless
Bush were accused of crimes inside a State Party, or the UN Security Council (where the USA has a veto) requested an investigation.
However Blair does fall under ICC jurisdiction as Britain is a State Party.

Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First
and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", might be used as evidence of
American war crimes if there was a Nuremberg-like trial regarding the War on Terror.

Shortly before the end of President Bush's second term, newsmedia in countries other than the U.S. began publishing the views of those who
believe that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture the US is obligated to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law.
One proponent of this view was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Professor Manfred Nowak) who,
on January 20, 2009, remarked on German television that former president George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the U.S. would
now be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture.
Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Nowak's comments by saying that under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as interrogation tool.

Michael Ignatieff, then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and former director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy said
that the threat of terrorism requires serious and possibly permanent abridgement of civil liberties. He stated that governments are justified in
combating terrorism with "lesser evils", ranging from suspension of civil liberties, through secret uses of executive power, to torture of suspects, as well as targeted killing,
right up to pre-emptive war to destroy terrorist bases and also to prevent the development or deployment of weapons which may be used by terrorists or states that support terrorist aims.
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
the leaders of both countries should meet in an arena with socks filled with horse manure and beat each other over the head. Whoever is left standing is the winner.


I prefer the Marxist* approach: Cream Pies at two paces.

* As in Groucho, Harpo, etc.

Seriously, though, "leaders of both countries" may not apply since an army may not have a particular country. Are Al Queda troops attacking an Afghan Army base soldiers or civilians? Since they have no uniforms, does that interfere with their soldier/civilian status? Are Blackwater "consultants" actually soldiers or civilians when they are reporting and taking orders (suggestions?) from a US officer?

Is the Commander-In_Chief of the US Armed Forces a soldier or a civilian? Does he even have a military uniform? If so, did he design it himself (like Chief Justice Roberts) with some extra bling to signify his special role? Hmm
The lack of uniforms exception was used by Yoo and Gonzalez to allow the taking of 'enemy combatants' -- defined as anyone over 16, male, and relatively able bodied, and then removing them to various legitimate and not so, prisons, for torture, questioning, or unlimited and unending imprisonment, because they 'might be' fighting the military that invaded their country.

The exception was also adopted by the rest of the Bush group, and many of them are now not traveling in Europe for fear of arrest for war crimes indictments that have been voted and are legitimate charges that do not have a statute of limitations, due to the underlying murder counts within them.

Now, the unilateral choices involving drones and death may bring many more than 30 to face charges for war crimes.

It sort of makes one wonder about the Peace Prize in prior years, and even the selection of the EU for this year's award.
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
It is apparent that what we have here is a myopic view of U.S. involvement in world affairs.


Slave trade.
Originally Posted By: keysersoze
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
It is apparent that what we have here is a myopic view of U.S. involvement in world affairs.


Slave trade.


I thought of that too! But I didn't think it could be characterized as a war - on second thought, maybe it was!!
I'll take all that gobbledegook to mean you completely support the actions of the Taliban.
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'll take all that gobbledegook to mean you completely support the actions of the Taliban.
ROTFMOL ROTFMOL



Quote:
Come, Mr. Tally Mon, tally me banana
(Daylight come and he wan' go home)
Come, Mr. Tally Mon, tally me banana
(Daylight come and he wan' go home)
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
In summary: Intentional attacks on civilian populations are war crimes. Accidental civilian casualties in the course of attacks on military targets are not, but they should be minimized to the greatest extent possible simply because that is the right thing to do. There is no moral elasticity involved, just the rules of war in the real world.
There are your primary errors, Pondering, as any reference to the "rules of war" or "the real world" will lose the argument. Those standards are not applicable to this discussion. wink
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
In summary: Intentional attacks on civilian populations are war crimes. Accidental civilian casualties in the course of attacks on military targets are not, but they should be minimized to the greatest extent possible simply because that is the right thing to do. There is no moral elasticity involved, just the rules of war in the real world.
There are your primary errors, Pondering, as any reference to the "rules of war" or "the real world" will lose the argument. Those standards are not applicable to this discussion. wink


Yup - "the real world" are the millions of non military personnel dead, and "rules of war", a logical fallacy, as can be seen by the post above. While there may be "rules", it seems they are not meant to be followed by most (the U.S. being a major offender). grin
The rules of war do not include the intention rape of civilians, execution of prisoners, wanton destruction of property and the often intentional slaughter of civilians.

I am not naive enough to believe war does not come without a cost but no one is pristine in these situations. I like to think our military is above all that and if that was true Leavenworth would not exist.

I would also like to believe that our use of third parties and client states to do our bidding had a degree of legitimacy but it does not. Zeke managed to leave out - I assume simply because a new server would be needed - our policies in South and Central America starting with the Monroe Doctrine. How the U.S. Managed to get the territory to build the Panama Canal is a great example of our own imperialist expansion.
I am fairly certain, Ezekiel, that your knowledge of the "Law of Armed Conflict"; Geneva Conventions; The Hague Conventions, & etc., is pretty limited, which is why I prefer not to engage in these discussions. Any effort to actually apply the law to the discussion is usually dismissed off hand, because, as I said, it is not applicable - these quickly become a hermetically sealed discussion based upon previously formed opinion and ideological posturing unrelated to actual application to real world circumstances. I appreciate those who are anti-war - am even quite sympathetic - but that does not equate to anyone who engages in warfare being a "war criminal." When we lose the capacity to make distinctions - even fine distinctions - discussion becomes irrelevant. Broad-brush, nonsensical, divorced-from-reality-or-fact assertions such as "the U.S. being a major offender" demonstrate the shallowness of the analysis. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to educate and discuss, but it became too frustrating.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I am fairly certain, Ezekiel, that your knowledge of the "Law of Armed Conflict"; Geneva Conventions; The Hague Conventions, & etc., is pretty limited, which is why I prefer not to engage in these discussions. Any effort to actually apply the law to the discussion is usually dismissed off hand, because, as I said, it is not applicable - these quickly become a hermetically sealed discussion based upon previously formed opinion and ideological posturing unrelated to actual application to real world circumstances. I appreciate those who are anti-war - am even quite sympathetic - but that does not equate to anyone who engages in warfare being a "war criminal." When we lose the capacity to make distinctions - even fine distinctions - discussion becomes irrelevant. Broad-brush, nonsensical, divorced-from-reality-or-fact assertions such as "the U.S. being a major offender" demonstrate the shallowness of the analysis. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to educate and discuss, but it became too frustrating.


Again, NW, your logic is deeply flawed. To discuss actual facts, as those presented, one does not need to engage in legal posturing. The fact that rape is not a military strategy is pretty well established (if it is please present a document saying so).
The fact that killing unarmed civilians (especially non-military women and children) is not a military strategy is also pretty well established.
My assertion of U.S. being a major offender is substantiated in my post, as opposed to your dismissing it based on - hmmmm - what exactly?
I have had military training and am well aware of the so-called rules that no one follows. I have worked with veterans from Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard their testimony. I don't need an armchair view from 30000 feet that indeed has no basis in reality.
Again, you make no case but continue to whine. Not very convincing.
As if one needed more evidence. rolleyes


Quote:
In October, the U.S. launched an airstrike in Afghanistan that killed three children – ages 8, 10, and 12 - while they were gathering firewood (or by some accounts, dung to burn as fuel).






Quote:
In comments which legal experts and campaigners described as "deeply troubling",army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as "military-age males", had been identified as a potential threat because some were being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.




Quote:
Residents of three villages in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province described a terrifying string of attacks in which the soldier, who had walked more than a mile from his base, tried door after door, eventually breaking in to kill within three separate houses. The man gathered 11 bodies, including those of 4 girls younger than 6, and set fire to them, villagers said.
"one does not need to engage in legal posturing." I rest my case - no interest in actually applying any legal standard to the actions. Am I saddened and disgusted that civilians die - of course I am. But to discuss war "crimes" without applying the "law" is like running the Romney campaign. "We won't be dictated to by fact-checkers."
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
"one does not need to engage in legal posturing." I rest my case - no interest in actually applying any legal standard to the actions. Am I saddened and disgusted that civilians die - of course I am. But to discuss war "crimes" without applying the "law" is like running the Romney campaign. "We won't be dictated to by fact-checkers."


ROTFMOL
Still no argument or facts, heim?
I did say "posturing" - an expression I'm sure someone of your education understands very well.
Taliban take credit for bomb that killed American, Afghans
Quote:
One American was killed and three others were wounded, Panetta said. Two Afghan civilians were killed and 18 others were wounded, said Jawid Faisal, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar province, in the country's violent southern region.
CNN; Taliban massacres outlined for UN Chicago Tribune. October 2001;
Quote:
In 2007, the number of Afghan civilian deaths stood at more than 230.[17] In 2008, there were about 1,000 civilian deaths attributed to the Taliban.[18] In 2011, the number of civilians killed rose 8% from 2010, with over 3,000 civilian deaths. The vast majority of the casualties were due to activities by insurgents.[19]
link; Afghan civilian deaths hit record high in 2011, U.N. report says.

Just a few "facts" that might have been "overlooked."
So say the wise men of Geneva:


Quote:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
If you were truly interested in a discussion, Ezekiel, I'd be happy to engage in one. I have not "postured" at all - I have tried - as you know, on multiple occasions - to bring the actual law into the discussion, but any reference to said law has, as here, been rebuffed as "posturing" or other dismissive terms.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Taliban take credit for bomb that killed American, Afghans
Quote:
One American was killed and three others were wounded, Panetta said. Two Afghan civilians were killed and 18 others were wounded, said Jawid Faisal, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar province, in the country's violent southern region.
CNN; Taliban massacres outlined for UN Chicago Tribune. October 2001;
Quote:
In 2007, the number of Afghan civilian deaths stood at more than 230.[17] In 2008, there were about 1,000 civilian deaths attributed to the Taliban.[18] In 2011, the number of civilians killed rose 8% from 2010, with over 3,000 civilian deaths. The vast majority of the casualties were due to activities by insurgents.[19]
link; Afghan civilian deaths hit record high in 2011, U.N. report says.

Just a few "facts" that might have been "overlooked."


A question fer ya: Is Afghanistan American territory?
Another question fer ya: The fact that someone else commits atrocities justifies you in doing the same?

Please, give me a f**king break!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
If you were truly interested in a discussion, Ezekiel, I'd be happy to engage in one. I have not "postured" at all - I have tried - as you know, on multiple occasions - to bring the actual law into the discussion, but any reference to said law has, as here, been rebuffed as "posturing" or other dismissive terms.


Not true, NW. The law, as it applies to war, has relevance and I never dismissed it. I said it wasn't being followed.
Not the same thing.
Also, what I contest is the idea that civilian casualties, provoked by ANYONE, are justifiable.
Also, I think it is willing blindness when one refuses to see that their own army has committed the same sins as those of the opposing army and tries to justify it by some convoluted legal technical palaver.
The U.S. is not the only offender, but it is major offender if only by force of the number of wars it has engaged in.
Nice recitation, Ezekiel, now... would you care to apply some analysis to some facts? Oh, and by the way, recite the rest of the applicable provisions? For example, "Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." GC IV. It is easy, facile even, to make broad brush attacks when one does not have to apply analysis to one's assertions.

For example, addressing who the targets of the attack were, as opposed to (legitimately) mourning the effects. The principle rule in all laws of warfare is distinction, or did you forget that from your training? American forces make an effort at distinction and do not target non-hostile civilians. Taliban and Al Quaeda forces do not, and indeed, deliberately target civilians and non-hostiles. That is the fundamental point of distinction.
Quote:
American forces make an effort at distinction and do not target non-hostile civilians.


Facts, again, you seem to accuse others who present facts of said acts but you yourself are above them.
Where are the facts that Americans do not commit purposeful acts of wanton violence?
I have presented evidence that they do.

Is there some reason you keep veering from the topic?
Quote:
It is easy, facile even, to make broad brush attacks when one does not have to apply analysis to one's assertions.


You should know. wink



Non Military Personnel

Taliban "Rules of War"...

Quote:
Taliban hang 7-year-old boy accused of being a spy, suicide bomber kills 40 at Afghanistan wedding

Twisted Taliban militants took terror to a new low by accusing a 7-year-old boy of spying - and hanging him high.

That outrage drew immediate condemnation from the Afghan president, who called the execution a "crime against humanity."

"I don't think there's a crime bigger than that, that even the most inhuman forces on earth can commit," Hamid Karzai said Thursday. "A 7-year-old boy cannot be a spy. A 7-year-old boy cannot be anything but a 7-year-old boy

The execution happened Tuesday in the embattled Helmand province, said Dawoud Ahmadi, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

"The innocent boy was not a spy, but he may have informed the police or soldiers about planted explosives," Ahmadi told Central Asia Today.

"If this is true, it is an absolutely horrific crime," added British Prime Minister David Cameron, while on a stop in Kabul. "I think it says more about the Taliban than any book, than any article, than any speech could ever say."

The victim was reportedly the grandson of a tribal elder.

The Taliban has targeted tribal leaders who have supported the Karzai government or took part in U.S. directed reconstruction programs.

Hanging is a favorite Taliban terror method for getting rid of enemies - and sending a message to other would-be opponents.



More non military personnel


Originally Posted By: Ezekial

ROTFMOL ROTFMOL

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
American forces make an effort at distinction and do not target non-hostile civilians. Taliban and Al Quaeda forces do not, and indeed, deliberately target civilians and non-hostiles. That is the fundamental point of distinction.


This wouldn't be because they are "savages" and we are not, would it?
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
Where are the facts that Americans do not commit purposeful acts of wanton violence? I have presented evidence that they do.
No, in fact, you haven't.
Quote:

Is there some reason you keep veering from the topic?
The topic, my friend, is war crimes - and in discussing whether a crime exists, application of the law is an implied requirement. I am simply asking that it be part of the discussion, rather than a prop.

Now, I have to go do some things in the real world, so I must desist for the nonce. I may, or may not, be able to be back.
Gerger, I assume there is some point here?
What, pray tell, would it be?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
Where are the facts that Americans do not commit purposeful acts of wanton violence? I have presented evidence that they do.
No, in fact, you haven't.
Quote:

Is there some reason you keep veering from the topic?
The topic, my friend, is war crimes - and in discussing whether a crime exists, application of the law is an implied requirement. I am simply asking that it be part of the discussion, rather than a prop.

Now, I have to go do some things in the real world, so I must desist for the nonce. I may, or may not, be able to be back.


If you would like to continue the discussion I would be pleased to. But please read my post where the evidence has been posted.
To deny said evidence is "bad faith" and that cannot be a part of any discussion.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
Where are the facts that Americans do not commit purposeful acts of wanton violence? I have presented evidence that they do.
No, in fact, you haven't.
Quote:

Is there some reason you keep veering from the topic?
The topic, my friend, is war crimes - and in discussing whether a crime exists, application of the law is an implied requirement. I am simply asking that it be part of the discussion, rather than a prop.

Now, I have to go do some things in the real world, so I must desist for the nonce. I may, or may not, be able to be back.


Yes, it is war crimes, isn't it. Glad we agree, war crimes committed by the U.S.A. - not the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or the Nazis (all of which exist but do not justify anything).
Once again I submit that the real war criminals in this current affair are not the Americans.
Zeke insists that what they do is okay because they are doing it within their own borders. Just, I suppose, as it would be okay if someone were doing it in our borders.

The Taliban is attempting to terrorize the people of Pakistan, to control them through fear, and eventually to take over the government. Pakistan has nuclear armaments.
As soon as US forces leave Afghanistan the Taliban will immediately retake that country. That will be sometime in 2014. President Karzai will flee the country or be executed.
Thousands who had hopes the US might defeat the Taliban will be executed. But that's okay. The use of dangerous drones inflicts injuries on far too many innocents and must be stopped.
History is a wonderful thing, Zeke, you can always find want you want there, be it good or be it bad. Current events are easy to deny; simply label them a government "hoax" and they cease to exist for you.

Al Quaeda lauched its attack against the World Trade Center from Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Label it a hoax and it just goes away.

Bin Laden Killed? Nope, government hoax.
Taliban an enemy worth fighting? Nah, government hoax.

Yes the US is guilty of many crimes. But it is also guilty of doing good things occasionally as well.
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
Gerger, I assume there is some point here?
What, pray tell, would it be?

Ezerkial, if you had something between your ears besides hubris my point would be obvious.
Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: Ezekiel
Gerger, I assume there is some point here?
What, pray tell, would it be?

Ezerkial, if you had something between your ears besides hubris my point would be obvious.


ROTFMOL

You deny facts and I'm the one with hubris?

Your sense of humor never ceases to amaze!
Quote:
Yes the US is guilty of many crimes.


My point exactly! Thank you!

Why you assume that I don't think the U.S. has done good things is beyond me. wink
What I find frustrating is the attempt to artificially create "equivalencies." It is true that drone strikes kill innocent civilians, but it is not true that the United States is engaged in a pattern of wonton destruction as alleged. Nor do anecdotal accounts of tragic events demonstrate anything. AND failing to account for the actions of the counterparty (Taliban/Al Quaeda) is what creates a false narrative. Obviously if someone kills someone is self-defense it is homicide, but legally it is referred to as "justifiable homicide." To ignore the "justification" is to ignore reality in favor of a position.

When I said that no evidence had been presented, I meant exactly that. The allegation is that the United States is engaged in wholesale violation of international law; which has not been proven by any stretch of imagiation. Individual acts which result in unintended (even if foreseeable) consequences does not a pattern of violations demonstrate. Individual acts of homicidal rampages does not demonstrate a policy to commit them. Allegations of rape, torture and murder have been made without support, or any evidence - except certitude - that it is the "policy" of the United States. That is what I am objecting to.

When I engage in a discussion, I like to marshal facts, laws, etc. in support, rather than try to respond to barefaced allegations. The analysis provided at the outset of the discussion is seriously flawed - even if there are kernels of validity contained therein. Rather, the author starts with a premise and ignores any countervailing facts or policies that might undermine his assertions. I found it facile and logically wanting.

If we are to engage in real discussion about war crimes, we have to start with the legal standards. That is not how this discussion has proceeded. Do I think war crimes have been committed? Undoubtedly. Do I think that U.S. policy has been wrong? Frequently. But, I have never been one to ascribe to Either/Or, With me/against me, black/white dichotomous assertions, which usually kill discussions and obviate any rational discussion. To make the assertion that U.S. policy is, in the main, war criminality, is simply not a serious way of engaging the topic. What proceeded from there has been largely hyperbole, fallacious dichotomies, and unreasoned (and unsupported) allegation. That is not the kind of discussion that interests me. There is subtlety and nuance to be had, and agreement to be reached, but not when it is attempted by relying upon positional sophism.

Unfortunately, I will be away from the keyboard for the rest of the day, so I will be unable to engage further until tomorrow.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What I find frustrating is the attempt to artificially create "equivalencies." It is true that drone strikes kill innocent civilians, but it is not true that the United States is engaged in a pattern of wonton destruction as alleged. Nor do anecdotal accounts of tragic events demonstrate anything. AND failing to account for the actions of the counterparty (Taliban/Al Quaeda) is what creates a false narrative. Obviously if someone kills someone is self-defense it is homicide, but legally it is referred to as "justifiable homicide." To ignore the "justification" is to ignore reality in favor of a position.

When I said that no evidence had been presented, I meant exactly that. The allegation is that the United States is engaged in wholesale violation of international law; which has not been proven by any stretch of imagiation. Individual acts which result in unintended (even if foreseeable) consequences does not a pattern of violations demonstrate. Individual acts of homicidal rampages does not demonstrate a policy to commit them. Allegations of rape, torture and murder have been made without support, or any evidence - except certitude - that it is the "policy" of the United States. That is what I am objecting to.

When I engage in a discussion, I like to marshal facts, laws, etc. in support, rather than try to respond to barefaced allegations. The analysis provided at the outset of the discussion is seriously flawed - even if there are kernels of validity contained therein. Rather, the author starts with a premise and ignores any countervailing facts or policies that might undermine his assertions. I found it facile and logically wanting.

If we are to engage in real discussion about war crimes, we have to start with the legal standards. That is not how this discussion has proceeded. Do I think war crimes have been committed? Undoubtedly. Do I think that U.S. policy has been wrong? Frequently. But, I have never been one to ascribe to Either/Or, With me/against me, black/white dichotomous assertions, which usually kill discussions and obviate any rational discussion. To make the assertion that U.S. policy is, in the main, war criminality, is simply not a serious way of engaging the topic. What proceeded from there has been largely hyperbole, fallacious dichotomies, and unreasoned (and unsupported) allegation. That is not the kind of discussion that interests me. There is subtlety and nuance to be had, and agreement to be reached, but not when it is attempted by relying upon positional sophism.

Unfortunately, I will be away from the keyboard for the rest of the day, so I will be unable to engage further until tomorrow.


All the FACTS in my post are documented. Please look at the links here.
Positional sophism is your stock in trade, dear fellow, by allowing your inability to admit that U.S. has committed war crimes that boggle the mind to cloud your objective judgement. These and many other crimes were committed by the many governments of this country and none of this is undocumented.

You are trying to make an argument without fact. And you deny the obvious. It is ludicrous to think that the killing of civilians, the rape of innocent women, the napalming of entire villages are not war crimes.
This idea of policy is absurd and illogical. The fact that torture occurred during the Bush administration is undisputed. That was policy.

The facts belie your argument. It is also clear that you are operating with a jaundiced view, because you think I am "indiscriminately" attacking the U.S., which I am not. If anything, I would like see that things like this never happen anywhere. But they do. And to deny or justify them will never make them change.
If the Jewish people have done anything, since the end of WWII, it has been to NEVER allow the world to forget or rationalize what happened to them. They were not the only victims. Many countries lost millions of people too. And they, IMHO, should do what the Jews have done.
As should we.
It appears that the target has moved so far from the original topic that I can no longer recognize it. This discussion started with an argument that current operations in Afghanistan warrant war crime trials, but instead we are now relitigating WWII, the Spanish American War? Sorry, but that doesn't appear, to me, to offer any support for the original argument. I have never denied that war crimes have been committed at various times in history, including during current hostilities.... go ahead, look for contradictory assertions, I'll wait....

Back? Okay, then...

I have asserted that the "war crime" argument has been, and continues to be, ideologically based, and not based upon current authorized operations or legal analysis of the actual applicable international law - but a knee-jerk reaction to the abhorrence of war. As I have said, I appreciate the sentiment, but it does not an argument make. Have tragic deaths occurred? Again, I acknowledge that they have. But not every civilian death is a war crime. I appreciate the argument that all wars are "criminal" in that innocent lives will inevitably be lost, but that is not the basis for the original thesis, nor the standard of international law. I have iterated and reiterated that isolated war crimes have occurred, and will inevitably occur in any hostile environment, but also that these are not the policy of the United States (at least since the Bush administration left office). The argument that started this discussion was about the present, not the past, and certainly not antique history (which is, quite literally, a change of subject).

What I have objected to, and continue to object to, is the indiscriminate application of labels that that are intended to be offensive. "War crimes" and "war criminals" have actual, defined meanings in international law. If one wants to debate them, one needs to look to the laws to inform that debate. I still have not seen that done here, and I do not intend to spend any more time waiting for or cajoling an adequate response. I have already spent too much time attempting just that. Another time perhaps.
Quote:
I have never denied that war crimes have been committed at various times in history, including during current hostilities....

Then what are you saying? That we do commit war crimes but maybe there is another way to classify them?
Quote:
I have asserted that the "war crime" argument has been, and continues to be, ideologically based...

You have asserted but not demonstrated. All that has been done is to list those things that constitute war crimes, and the reason history was brought up is to demonstrate that these crimes have indeed occurred over time. They should not be ascribed to any single action or any specific government.

Quote:
...but also that these are not the policy of the United States (at least since the Bush administration left office)

The policy, as defined by what is presented to the public, is never the same as what actually occurs (and not by accident) so I fail to see why this is even an issue.
If what you mean is that the U.S. government does not openly favor activities that would be considered criminal I suspect that is true of every criminal organization - the Mafiosi don't tout themselves as criminals but rather as family men.

As I have said before - actions such as those listed are war crimes and all that has been proven is the government's reluctance to acknowledge that that is indeed what they are.
Finding a way to justify them, whether with the benefit of hindsight, or in the light of current action, is to hide one's head in the sand. And if we, any of us, desire to change things, ignoring them is not the correct path.
Facts mentioned by Ezekiel on another thread :

Suharto was one of the most brutal dictators in history. He ruled for 32 years and continued his savage atrocities under the support of 7 US presidents: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton.

President Lyndon Johnson authorised a CIA-organized coup that brought Suharto to power in 1965, and the CIA then supervised while Suharto exterminated three million Indonesian communist party members.

They hacked the alleged subversives to death with machetes. Entire populations of towns and villages were herded to central locations and massacred. Children would be asked to identify communists who would then be executed on the spot.

In addition to the half million people who were killed outright after the coup, another 750,000 were arrested and tortured. Ultimately, one million people died in one of the most savage mass slaughters of modern political history. The US continues to this day to train and arm the Indonesian military with the latest high-tech equipment. The US has also recently opened a new "black" "Peace Medicine" installation in Indonesia that is almost certainly a torture laboratory.
'
More enlightenment from Ezekiel :

With the support of US President Eisenhower, Allen Dulles used the CIA to topple the elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq and install the Shah. With Dulles' encouragement, he forced all people to join his party or go to jail. Thousands were imprisoned or murdered. His agents raided a religious school and hurled hundreds of students to their deaths from the roof.

His secret police agency, SAVAK, was created in 1957 and managed by the CIA at all levels of daily operation, including the choice and organization of personnel, selection and operation of equipment, and the running of agents. Torture methods included:

electric shock
whipping
beating
inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum
tying weights to the testicles
the extraction of teeth and nails.

In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated: "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
'
Also mentioned by Ezekiel :

Starting in 1950, the US CIA funded several decades of academic research into “the relative usefulness of drugs, electroshock, violence, and other coercive techniques” to discover a new method of psychological torture - perhaps the most significant revolution in this cruel science during the past four centuries. Instead of a simple physical brutality, these units practiced a distinctive form of psychological torture with wider implications for the military and its society.

The CIA's thousand-page torture manual, distributed to military regimes in Latin America for over 20 years, taught psychological tactics to break down what the Agency called a victim's “capacity to resist”. Through “persistent manipulation of time,” the interrogator can break a victim's will, driving the victim, in the CIA's words, “deeper and deeper into himself, until he is no longer able to control his responses in an adult fashion.”
'
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

It appears that the target has moved so far from the original topic that I can no longer recognize it. This discussion started with an argument that current operations in Afghanistan warrant war crime trials....

Well, that just is not true, NWP.
The source article was not limited to "current operations" in Afghanistan.

Quote:
Boyle told the Puerto Rican conference that President G.W. Bush had shamelessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy and "set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under "bogus pretexts." These pretexts included fighting a war against "international terrorism" or "Islamic fundamentalism", eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the promotion of democracy, and humanitarian intervention, Boyle said.
The serial aggressions of the U.S. violate such basic documents of international law as the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, Boyle said. As well, they violate the Pentagon's own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
They break their own rules? Well, there is no honour among thieves.
Quote:
U.S. administrations since 9/11 may be charged with "crimes against peace" for their attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria...Boyle said.

The eminent international authority went on to charge that the war crimes included "torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, "shock and awe' (bombings), and (the use of) depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drone strikes," and the like.
emphases added

It is true that posters here have mentioned many, many war crimes by the United States government antedating 9/11, but I think they may be justified, in the legal terminology so dear to your heart, as "establishing a long-standing pattern of behaviour in the criminal defendant."
'
It is "discussions" like this one that convince me that modern brainwashing, on a mass scale, can convince most people of anything.

What could be more obvious that shooting, maiming, terrifying and torturing little children by American military in many countries is just the same as what happened to the kindergarten children in Connecticut -- except that the government-sanctioned psychopaths do it on a mass scale?

I'm still waiting for most Americans to provide me with some evidence that they are sane. · ·
Quote:
I'm still waiting for most Americans to provide me with some evidence that they are sane.


Have a seat, my friend, it will most certainly be a long wait! wink
Originally Posted By: numan
...I'm still waiting for most Americans to provide me with some evidence that they are sane.

But how woodja kno, noomie, how wudja no?

Just sa'ne... Hmm
Quote:
provide me with some evidence

Do you feel it's something they owe you?

Do you imagine that they would think you are sane? What evidence have you provided us? You seem a little OCD and paranoid to me....
Just sa'ne...u_u
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
provide me with some evidence

Do you feel it's something they owe you?

Do you imagine that they would think you are sane? What evidence have you provided us? You seem a little OCD and paranoid to me....
Just sa'ne...u_u


I think it's something YOU owe him ROTFMOL
'
Well, considering all the mental problems people on this site have fessed up to recently (including you, my dear Greger), I have had to face up to the fact that I may be the sanest person here -- which I find to be an absolutely appalling thought as far as the fate of the United States goes.
Recently overheard in one of the Galoorkkian laboratories for interspatial investigations, "Look Thaugustis, one of the humanoid germs colonizing cool orb #3 in the Solubus molecule, subdesignation noomie, is hyperactivating hallucinogenically with sanitivanity syndrome. Do you think we should neutralize it before it inadvertantly causes an infection to the whole colony?"
Quote:
I may be the sanest person here

I'd need more proof of that than I've been shown.
My own sanity has never been a question, I'm not, nor do I particularly want to be. It was actually during a brief period of sanity that I sought psychiatric help and I can assure you that I have been completely cured.
Back to topic though, as much as I abhor war and violence I'm not a raving peacenik. I understand that violence is an inherent part of the human condition just as is politics and the two are intertwined with economics. I simply accept the reality of it.
'
Originally Posted By: Greger

I understand that violence is an inherent part of the human condition, just as is politics, and the two are intertwined with economics. I simply accept the reality of it.

Well, Adolf Hitler would certainly have agreed with you.
Originally Posted By: numan
'
Originally Posted By: Greger

I understand that violence is an inherent part of the human condition, just as is politics, and the two are intertwined with economics. I simply accept the reality of it.

Well, Adolf Hitler would certainly have agreed with you.

OMG! gobsmacked Dijew know Adolf, noomie?
'
I've seen many, many Americans who closely resemble him.
Even more than there are Elvis Presleys in the USA.

In fact, apart from all the Hitlers and all the Elvises, there aren't many people left in the USA -- except the TV-drugged robot-drones -- and as O'Brian said in 1984, they aren't people.
© ReaderRant