ChatterBank0 min ago
War criminals?
17 Answers
Given the disclosure of information by Wikileaks, should Bush, Blair and their agents (namely the military) be tried as war criminals?
My basis for this question is from our own phrasing of what constitutes a war crime at the Nuremburg trials by Justice Jackson, to sum it up is one that involves kidnapping (check), torture (check) and the killing of civilians (erm, check).
If you want my full views on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'll give them later, but the question is about the nature of the war's prosecution, and it's legality included within it the culpability of the troops on the ground when cited.
My basis for this question is from our own phrasing of what constitutes a war crime at the Nuremburg trials by Justice Jackson, to sum it up is one that involves kidnapping (check), torture (check) and the killing of civilians (erm, check).
If you want my full views on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'll give them later, but the question is about the nature of the war's prosecution, and it's legality included within it the culpability of the troops on the ground when cited.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
AOG, that made very little sense to me at all.
Jaydah, the question is about the rules of engagement, such rules do exist.
Take the killing of civilians, there is on record an incident (sometimes reported as civilians which I feel is mischievous) of militants who have disarmed themselves and offered to surrender, they've got their hands up, the international signal for I surrender.
The pilot was informed that "you can't surrender to a helicopter" so he shot them, he can't even say he was following orders, yes that old chestnut.
Kidnapping, or as it was called "extraordinary rendition" Britain was complicit in this practice on a global scale.
Torture, Abu Gharib (spelling?) we handed over prisoners knowing they'd be tortured (admittedly harder to prove), one of the abuses was to be s o d o m i s e d with a truncheon, a popular form of Paddy bashing in Liverpool during the 70s and 80s.
I'm unsure as to how responsible British forces are for these actions, we're certainly involved in kidnapping, we've investigated torture allegations (proven), as to the killing of civilians I'm yet to see the evidence.
Jaydah, the question is about the rules of engagement, such rules do exist.
Take the killing of civilians, there is on record an incident (sometimes reported as civilians which I feel is mischievous) of militants who have disarmed themselves and offered to surrender, they've got their hands up, the international signal for I surrender.
The pilot was informed that "you can't surrender to a helicopter" so he shot them, he can't even say he was following orders, yes that old chestnut.
Kidnapping, or as it was called "extraordinary rendition" Britain was complicit in this practice on a global scale.
Torture, Abu Gharib (spelling?) we handed over prisoners knowing they'd be tortured (admittedly harder to prove), one of the abuses was to be s o d o m i s e d with a truncheon, a popular form of Paddy bashing in Liverpool during the 70s and 80s.
I'm unsure as to how responsible British forces are for these actions, we're certainly involved in kidnapping, we've investigated torture allegations (proven), as to the killing of civilians I'm yet to see the evidence.
That's not relelvant to the question (winners and losers) it's about international law.
Law as defined by our own counsel acting as prosecution in our own case.
By our own definitions as cited and defined in that case, have we committed war crimes in the prosecution of this conflict?
Mitigation is only useful if we're guilty.....
Law as defined by our own counsel acting as prosecution in our own case.
By our own definitions as cited and defined in that case, have we committed war crimes in the prosecution of this conflict?
Mitigation is only useful if we're guilty.....
Everton when will you give up having a go at Britain, Nuremburg was years ago long before most of us were born.
Things are not set in stone.
Times change in the past it was illegal to have a gay partner now it is ok . We now live in a multi cultural society and you will not always know your enemy.
As Sandy has said the losers end up in the dock.
http://www.guardian.c...ovic-hague-not-guilty
Things are not set in stone.
Times change in the past it was illegal to have a gay partner now it is ok . We now live in a multi cultural society and you will not always know your enemy.
As Sandy has said the losers end up in the dock.
http://www.guardian.c...ovic-hague-not-guilty
-- answer removed --
By military I mean the people who did the shooting.
Take the crew of the Apache helicopter (referred to earlier in the thread) they shot people who were surrendering.
I've seen footage of a car getting shot at, stopping the driver gets out with his hands in the air, only to be shot. Now, ok, we don't know what preceded that incident, but he's still given up is that not an issue worthy of further investigation?
I've read reports of troops shooting civilians for sport, I don't entirely believe this, I know that we operate in a certain way within these theatres of the war that to the unitiated could appear that way.
Take the crew of the Apache helicopter (referred to earlier in the thread) they shot people who were surrendering.
I've seen footage of a car getting shot at, stopping the driver gets out with his hands in the air, only to be shot. Now, ok, we don't know what preceded that incident, but he's still given up is that not an issue worthy of further investigation?
I've read reports of troops shooting civilians for sport, I don't entirely believe this, I know that we operate in a certain way within these theatres of the war that to the unitiated could appear that way.
1 to 17 of 17
