Israel has nukes? :eek: Why those are Weapons of mass Destruction!
[Gomer Pyle} Citizen’s array-est, citizen’s array-est![/Gomer Pyle]
Actually, Beagle, I’m talking about 1. a BBC news crew coming across a family that had been hit in crossfire, with a UK/US medic attending them, and 2. this morning, a Sky News crew giving a live report which was dramatically hijacked by a group of men who brought a damaged car up to them and asked where they could get medical treatment for the guy who was in the passenger seat (there was a British officer there who assured the cameras that it was just shrapnel and that he’d get medical assistance within 24 hours).
A complete news black-out would protect us from propaganda and do away with the entertainment value. Perhaps, we should then tune into Iraq TV to get a less entertaining perspective.
jjim I interpreted your “shocking & awesome” comment to mean civilian casualties related to the bombing of the buildings in Baghdad.
To the extent there is fighting in and around civilian areas, people are going be at risk of crossfire. That is why I hope the city fighting is postponed or avoided completely.
Can I buy an m? Do they cost more?
ABC’s man in Baghdad said he was concerned that there were no firetrucks responding, since people’s homes were probably on fire. Peter Jennings pointed out that they had only bombed the part of town where the government buildings were, and the reporter responded that there are homes in that area.
The United States is not killing the lowest number of civilians possible. Aerial bombing is necessarily imprecise, even with “smart bombs,” and results in a greater number of civilians deaths than a ground offensive. We prefer bombing because it spares our soldiers lives, at a cost to Iraqi civilian lives.
Heh, everyone does that. In fact, I use “jjim*” rather than “jjimm” when I do a vanity search.
Yeah, I phrased myself badly - I didn’t mean casualties WRT “shock & awe” - we’ll see these eventually, state-sponsored or not - I mean the juxtaposition of the astonishing pictures from last night, and the in-the-field down-and-dirty stuff.
What’s your definition of a war crime? Different war crimes have different mens rea requirements - some war crimes are analogous to manslaughter. See Part 2 of the Rome Statute.
In this case, whether the United States has committed war crimes will most likely turn on whether the buildings were legitimate military objectives, and whether the force used was proportional to the likelihood of civilian casualties.
What case? Am I supposed to assume that this is what elucidator was talking about when he said, “Seems to me you have set up an utterly dishonest and self-serving dichotomy: you are only wrong if the US deliberately commits war crimes.”? If so, why? No specific cases were mentioned. I thought that comment came out of left field anyway. It did not directy apply to anything I argued anyway. All I said was that the US troops were using a strategy to minimize civilian casualties.
Are some of you arguing left over issues from another topic I am unaware of?
I will assume you are imagining there is a war crimes trial for the bombing of the buildings in Baghdad. Or, perhaps there is an indictment somewhere I was unaware of. Not counting a Ramsey Clark kangaroo court indictment.
How many actual cases have dealt with the use of proportional force in war crimes tribunals? Before we go hanging GWB or the JCoS, I would like to know what precedent you base your reasoning on.
The US would never allow itself being tried for war-crimes by anyone.
But the US can still be held morally accountable for starting a war that will with high probability lead to civilian death and suffering. With shady motives.
Can’t see how you missed that one, Beagle, since it referred directly to your own quote: "…“outlandish predictions about the US bombing orphanages, schools, and hospitals”? "
Your quote does seem to imply an intentional indulgence in useless civilian carnage, and further implies that your opponents are making these claims, while you merely support truth and justice in denying them. When pressed as to whom is making these assertions, you move on to another subject.
Beagle, you stated that intent was a necessary element of a war crime, and that is not true. The “case” I was referring to was the possible accusation of war crimes being committed by the American bombing of Iraq.
Prior to the formation of the ICC, there was no tribunal in which war crimes could be prosecuted, only the ad-hoc tribunals (Nuremberg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda), so there is very little precedent. However, international law is not as dependent on precedent as our common law system. I’m getting these principles from the law of war, which has a long history as part of customary law and has been codified in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute (which I linked). Here is a list of the major treaties dealing with the law of armed conflict and links to other cites. The International Committee of Red Cross website has good resources on humanitarian law, but it seems to be down at the moment.
Sorry for the hijack. I imagine at some point we’ll start a thread on the question of American war crimes in Iraq.
It’s true that that is extremely unlikely. However, it is much more likely that Bush, Blair, and members of their administrations would be prosecuted in the domestic courts of a third-party state, given the increasing acceptance of universal jurisdiction. Since the Pinochet case, former leaders such as Kissenger and Thatcher have lawyers advise them on which countries it’s safe to travel to, and Sharon has been indicted in Belgium.
Why would I want to name names of posters who may have made some silly statments, but don’t post regularly? Why would I want to drag them in here? You guys are having enough fun with me already.
If I am going to address the war crimes issues I am going to have to admit one thing: I have been searching all my usual news outlets and cannot find any information about alleged civilian casualties as a result of the war. R.S. mentioned 200 injured ^. I have not found even that yet. jjimm - new improved second m - mentioned some civilians caught in crossfire. I don’t think it is a war crime, nor was jjimm claiming it was, I hasten to point out.
I don’t see the war crimes. DtC mentioned incinerated babies ^. I could not find any mention of that. I felt stupid later after claiming bullshit, thinking maybe there was an actual big story I had missed. Not that I can find.
Upon what basis do we try anyone for war crimes? I don’t see the plaintiffs yet. Not that dropping 2000 pound bombs and cruise missiles on Baghdad eventually won’t lead to civilian casualties. I’m not dense.
Seems to me like we’re jumping straight from watching big bombs land on some buildings in Baghdad to assuming there was a war crime committed. Before, as far as I can tell, anyone even has concrete information on the targets destroyed or people injured and killed. Maybe I’m wrong. In which case I resort to the MOTA: Cite?
(Mother of all Arguments)
Not necessarily. I think we can safely take it as a given that in any war, civilians will be killed. Of course, the deliberate murder of civilians, as in Dresden, might reasonably be considered a “war crime”, or, at the very least, a hatefully inhumane act. But you seem to wish to drag the argument towards intent, and imply that we are innocent so long as we do our best to avoid such.
And I have little doubt that we are, and will. But that buggers the question. When we go to war, we have accepted the immutable fact that innocent persons will die as a result of our action. You may find this acceptable, I do not, save only in the most dire and immediate necessity of self-defense. The present circumstances come nowhere near that. Hence, in my judgement, we are morally culpable. (I say “we” only in that it is done in my name. Would that it weren’t.)
Well, watching the news is funnier this day. Ironic but pretty damm funny. Yesterday, for example Rumsfeld was discussing the virtues of surgical strikes while we were seeing a city in flames.
Well, watching the news is funnier this day. Ironic but pretty damm funny. Yesterday, for example Rumsfeld was discussing the virtues of surgical strikes while we were seeing a city in flames.
I don’t discuss the american ability to hit wathever they want, but if you choose to hit a building you can bet that other buildings that are near will suffer the consequences. Therefore 3000 bombs in a modern city will produce similar results that 60 years ago Tokio saw, totall destruction. Bagdag downtown looked not unlike Berlin or Dresden.
While I sympathisize with your positon, Estilicon, the fact remains you are indulging yourself in a wild exaggertion. The destruction in Baghdad will not come anywhere near that visited upon Tokyo or Dresden. If for no other reason but that we wouldn’t dare.
I was just watching images on TV of americans in the street cheering, smiling, holding up signs, honking car horns, make no mistake- they are having a great time. Its not just the media making this an entertaining event; there are plenty of americans who are truly enjoying this- how can people act any more disgusting? They are only further degrading America… is if it needs any help…
VOA story on alleged civilian casualties.
Granted, these claims are coming from Iraq and have not been confirmed. It is also granted that they are plainly full of shit on some of their other claims (such as the assertion that they are inflicting “ugly losses” on American troops).
My “incinerated toddlers” comment was not made from any specific knowledge, it was rhetorical. I think that “minimizing” civilian casualties is not especially noble in light of the fact that no attack was called for in the first place.
I expect that once the dust clears in Baghdad we will see some ugly pictures (as long as they aren’t censored or controlled by the military).