Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 28th, 2018, 07:42 AM   #11

artistauthor's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 289

Actually the ICC HAS a case under investigation against the Russian Federation arising from the 2008 Russo-Georgian war( and may be called upon to do so vis a vis Ukraine in the future) Those who argue that these cases have produced NO indictments far less convictions miss the wider point- there is NO statute of limitations for war crimes or crimes against humanity(as Germans are finding out even in 2018).



True, the US may not have signed( or unsigned ) the Rome Statute back in 2002, what is to stop a hypothetical adversary(which has signed and ratified the Rome Statute) in an equally hypothetical war from turning over captured American servicemen to the Court on war crimes charges against their own forces or even civilians?- there is very little that an Administration could do to prevent it(other than huff and puff)?



As for the ASPA(American Servicemembers Protection Act aka "The Hague Invasion Act",)unless a US President( Trump or whoever succeeds him in 2020) is prepared to use DEADLY FORCE against Dutch nationals to free any American citizen( soldier or civilian official) held by the Court(as the Netherlands is likewise a member of NATO), which could to lead to a war between not simply the Netherlands and the USA but between NATO as a whole as the first article of the NATO charter states that "an attack on one member state is to be considered to be an attack on all)- arguments that the US could win such a conflict miss the wider point yet again- such a conflict would effectively destroy NATO as a functioning alliance- and THAT would be far worse than having an American soldier or civilian tried or convicted by the ICC to my mind!


I'm sorry but I simply CANNOT agree with the argument that in effect we should have a two tiered system for the prosecution of war crimes- one for the US and its friends or allies (UK, Israel) and another for the "great unwashed"- African warlords and tyrants!


Terry


PS vis a vis the t matter of Malaysian Flight MH-17 now confirmed to have been shot down by Russian forces, some Malaysian commentators are calling for their country to sign and ratify the ICC's Rome Statute!

Last edited by artistauthor; May 28th, 2018 at 08:00 AM.
artistauthor is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 28th, 2018, 07:43 AM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,392

Please edit that. First, start using proper punctation. Second, use paragraphs.
aggienation is offline  
Old May 28th, 2018, 08:11 AM   #13
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Norway
Posts: 702

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Happens constantly. A war crime isn't just murder or rape. Servicemen are constantly being punished officially using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They recently convicted Robert Bales to life imprisonment for the massacre he performed in Afghanstan. Of the idiots from 82nd who did the Mahmudiyah rape and killings, four were court martialed and received very long sentences, one was already out and federal court got him. On top of that, unit commanders hold various Art 15 non judicial punishment or lower level courts martial for those who get caught stealing, looting, abusing prisoners or detainees etc.

The services could do better, cover ups happen, but the reality is that any close knit organization, be it a military unit, a sports team, members of a fraternity, tend to protect each other, so its hard to collect evidence, which is usually from witnesses willing to testify.
This is weirdly reasuring.
Number24 is offline  
Old May 28th, 2018, 06:31 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Kirkcaldy, Scotland
Posts: 3,312

What happerned to war criminal US Army LT William Calley of My Lai massacre infamy. in 'Nam.?
Some hick radio stations in the USA tried to treat war criminal Calley as a hero. in 1968.
The point about the Soviet Union not being righlly entitled to sit at Nuremburg is phoney baloney-20 million Soviet citizens were killed by Nazi invaders.
No Briiish or American POW was subjected to the horrors that the Nazis inflicted on Soviet POWS ie. the inhuman freezing experiments in Dachau carried out by S.S. Dr Rasch..The Soviet Union lost 20 milion people as a result of the criminal unprovoked invasion of 1941 and the vast majority of ordinary Soviet citizen were not involved in or responsible for Stalin's and his goons crimes so quoting Stalin's crimes is garbage in this context and of no relevance to the Nuremburg war trials whatsoever.
That argument is as dumb as me trying o argue that te September 2001 twin towers atrocity perpetrators should not have been punished because the US govt massacred native Americans at Sand Creek.in 1890.
Given the savage criminal war of enslavement and annihilation the the Nazis pursued against ordinary decent Soviet citizens the Soviets had massively more right to sit in judgement at Nuremburg than the western allies did..
Its time this' Stalin killed x number of Kulaks in nineteen canteen so that justified the Nazis war crimes against the Soviet people' crap should be dumped where it belongs -in the trash can.reserved for bum ideas and thinking.
If it was right for the US govt to seek revenge on the perpetrators of September 2001 in New York(and it was) where the human life loss was below one million it is sure as heck right for the Soviets to sit in judgement at Nurmeburg.having lost 20 million to naked criminal; Fascist aggression.
The babies who starved to death during the 900 day siege by the Nazis at Leningrad 1941-44 have as much right to justice as the folk who perished in those airplanes which crashed into the twin towers.in Sept 2001.
Pendennis is offline  
Old May 28th, 2018, 09:55 PM   #15

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 6,243

If the US agreed to its personnel coming under ICC jurisdiction you can bet that there would immediately be a line of nations and individuals with miles long lists of charges to be investigated/tried, most of very dubious validity.
Rather than have the ICC used as a stick for anyone with an anti-American grudge to beat is personnel, the US has wisely refused to allow this court to have jurisdiction.
Belgarion is offline  
Old May 28th, 2018, 10:53 PM   #16

artistauthor's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 289

At the time of writing there is at least one allegation of war crimes/crimes against humanity against the US(by drone strike victims) at the ICC so the argument that this would lead to ( quote the George W.Bush Administration) "frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits against American officials or servicemen"( PRECISELY what constitutes "frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits" has NEVER been expressly defined by either the then Administration or the Wall Street Journal, despite repeated enquiries by me to the latter; the only politically motivated moves against US officials I can think of are the attempted impeachment of Presidents Andrew Johnson and 130 years later, Bill Clinton, which of course have nothing to do with war crimes). Also I might point out that filing charges at the ICC( against the US) is a double edged sword- drawing attention inter alia to their own human rights records- can you imagine Iran or North Korea filing charges against the US over the conduct of American soldiers in the Korean War???- anyway the ICC has NO jurisdiction over war crimes committed prior to its inception on July 1, 2002!
artistauthor is offline  
Old May 29th, 2018, 03:38 AM   #17

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,490

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
If the US agreed to its personnel coming under ICC jurisdiction you can bet that there would immediately be a line of nations and individuals with miles long lists of charges to be investigated/tried, most of very dubious validity.
Rather than have the ICC used as a stick for anyone with an anti-American grudge to beat is personnel, the US has wisely refused to allow this court to have jurisdiction.
Couldn't have put it better.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old May 29th, 2018, 05:20 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
If the US agreed to its personnel coming under ICC jurisdiction you can bet that there would immediately be a line of nations and individuals with miles long lists of charges to be investigated/tried, most of very dubious validity.
Rather than have the ICC used as a stick for anyone with an anti-American grudge to beat is personnel, the US has wisely refused to allow this court to have jurisdiction.
And that's basically it. Most times the ICC gets used its because an individual escapes "justice," punishment for a crime condemned by int'l community led by the US, either because their home country has no real system of law and order, or else the national govt condoned their actions.

The US does not have lax rules of war. Look at the so-called Haditha Massacre. A squad of Marines gets nailed by an IED, they chase the IED trigger man to a house, enter it per their training by fragging it, then shoot everyone upon entry in smoke and dust filled house, which was also part of training. A few civilians died, civilians heard about it from Iraqis, a senior US congressman declares its a war crime and that they should be punished without a trial, from highest level of US govt they decide to court martial everyone involved. Naval Criminal Investigative Services forcefully interrogates squad members, finds a young, scared, and weak one, tells them that instead of life in prison, they'll only give him 15 years if he testifies against the rest. He does. And the rest still get off, because in the end what they did wasn't murder, at worst it was some bad judgment in a frantic episode of combat in the middle of 200/150 blood pressure, 160 heartbeat, and ear ringing noise.

Every once in a while a legit crime happens. And sure, someone involved or in the chain of command will usually try to cover it up. But not because evil US is evil, but simply because all tight knit organizations protect each other. Cops, corporate board rooms, soldiers, football teams, etc. When one of their own commits a crime, they rarely rat them out or help outsiders solve the crime; its just a byproduct of institutional dysfunction. They want to avoid shame and embarrassment and public condemnation, easiest way to do that is to make it look like nothing happened.

But when there is evidence of a legit war crime, in the US military it will usually end with a court martial. A US serviceman who smoke checks someone he or she shouldn't have is going to have to worry their entire life of a CID or NCIS warrant officer knocking on their door to talk about murder charges. They are never Scott Free and that's a fact. Which not many other nations, including those who repeatedly get sent for ICC trials, would worry about, because in their situation their national govt has their back and condoned (sometimes ordered them) to commit the war crime. Or else there simply doesn't exist any sort of legit court that would attempt to seek legal justice.
aggienation is offline  
Old May 29th, 2018, 05:27 AM   #19

artistauthor's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 289
Why didn't the US charge Korean War veterans with war crimes?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter View Post
Couldn't have put it better.
Ho hum, you obviously have NOT seem my point- no matter how much say Iran or North Korea may hate and despise the US- the idea of them going to the ICC is pretty unlikely any more so than Syria or Russia would(neither country has signed or ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC anyway and shows NO interest in so doing- hardly surprising given allegations of unethical and abusive human medical experiments in NK) There is a curious contradiction in criticism of the Court- first it is too weak one minute and then too strong the next- as the late Rafael Lemkin (who helped write the Genocide Treaty for the United Nations,see Wikipedia bio entry_ wearily put it in his "mustard argument"- "if someone dislikes mustard on principle, he or she can always find an excuse to dislike it after the previous reason has been debunked!"). Anyway, Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC last November announced that her office would seek permission from the Chamber of Judges to open an inquiry into the conduct of ALL parties in the current Afghan conflict-presumably including US and UK forces(although she wisely did not mention anybody by name).



Terry
artistauthor is offline  
Old May 29th, 2018, 05:38 AM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by artistauthor View Post
Ho hum, you obviously have NOT seem my point- no matter how much say Iran or North Korea may hate and despise the US- the idea of them going to the ICC is pretty unlikely any more so than Syria or Russia would(neither country has signed or ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC anyway and shows NO interest in so doing- hardly surprising given allegations of unethical and abusive human medical experiments in NK) There is a curious contradiction in criticism of the Court- first it is too weak one minute and then too strong the next- as the late Rafael Lemkin (who helped write the Genocide Treaty for the United Nations,see Wikipedia bio entry_ wearily put it in his "mustard argument"- "if someone dislikes mustard on principle, he or she can always find an excuse to dislike it after the previous reason has been debunked!"). Anyway, Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC last November announced that her office would seek permission from the Chamber of Judges to open an inquiry into the conduct of ALL parties in the current Afghan conflict-presumably including US and UK forces(although she wisely did not mention anybody by name).

Terry
You don't seem to understand what it means to be powerful. You have this pursuit for equality when that doesn't exist, especially in a world full of competing nation states, most of which hate one another. But there is no equality, especially for the super powers. The little man is never going to march the big man into a court of law because the big man has guns and the will to use it, and the little man doesn't. Want justice? Find a big man and ask him to support you, which is why the US occasionally supports ICC indictments and trials, because it works in their favor.

But here you are demanding that the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth surrender its volunteer troops up to a kangaroo court just to mollify your desire for equality. Nope, that wont happen. And there are other powerful countries, though not as powerfully economically and militarily than the US, that will feel similarly, that weak outsiders will not judge them if they can prevent it. Which they can.

So my question is, you and what literal army are going to hold US servicemen at gunpoint in The Hague? And are you willing to face the consequences for your actions?
aggienation is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
charge, crimes, korean, veterans, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How would Americans view the Korean war if America lost the Korean War? Ashiusx Speculative History 16 May 30th, 2018 06:35 AM
could korean member here tell me what these korean characters mean ztmyy Asian History 9 May 21st, 2017 01:23 AM
Why didn't the Confederacy put a better commander in charge of the Army of Tennessee betgo American History 35 October 10th, 2016 08:39 AM
White fragility: I didn't pull that trigger, I didn't crack that whip Sharks And L0ve Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 36 June 29th, 2015 01:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.