This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a jus cogens for the prohibition against torture.[10] It also stated that every State is entitled “to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction.”[10] Therefore, there is universal jurisdiction over torture. The rationale for this is that “the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind.”[13] Further to this, there is no allowance for states to make reservations to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Torture, and the Convention is considered to bind all states, not just those party to it.
So, protecting the defenseless against massacre was illegal? Well, darn! Where do we turn ourselves in? What sort of penance might we do to atone for this ghastly act?
Methinks you are the one doing the asserting. What evidence of genocide do you have?
I know that Clinton claimed over 100,000 had been killed leading up to the war, but the total casualties were on the order of 10,000 and that includes all those killed after we raised the stakes by entering the internal conflict.
According to legal experts, as of early 2008, 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks were convicted of war crimes by the ICTY in connection with the Balkan wars of the 1990s. (from Wiki)
I am requoting myself but I think war crimes convictions speak for themselves, but if you insist I can provide pics satellite photos and the like. I am a little astounded that you are even attempting to deny this happened and the 10,000 dead figure got a cite? Are you really denying that genocide happened in the former Yugoslavia? Really?
Actually, they do both. There were no Geneva Conventions at the US’s founding. Typical treatment at the time of POWs was much more severe, and often led to death by starvation or disease, especially since the capturing army didn’t consider itself responsible for providing food to the captives.
So the question remains unanswered. What makes you think that good treatment of POWs is one of the US’s “founding values”?
Which is yet another argument against your point. What makes you think that good treatment of “enemy combatants” is one of the US’s “founding values”?
They aren’t POWs. The right to a speedy trial and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment are among our founding values.
That’s not an argument against my point. “Enemy combatant” status is a legal fiction the administration created so they wouldn’t have to accord detainees civil rights of Geneva Conventions protection.
Documentation Center in Sarajevo published the most extensive research on Bosnia-Herzegovina’s war casualties titled: The Bosnian Book of the Dead – a database that reveals “a minimum of” 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s citizens killed and missing during the 1992–1995 war. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released. More than 240,000 pieces of data have been collected, processed, checked, compared and evaluated by an international team of experts to produce the final number of over 97,000 victim’s names—victims of all nationalities. The research has shown that most of the 97,207[101] documented casualties (civilians and soldiers) during Bosnian War were Bosniaks (66 per cent), followed by Serbs (25 per cent), Croats (8 per cent) and a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people.[102] Bosniaks also suffered massive civilian casualties (83 per cent) compared to Serbs (10 per cent) and Croats (5 per cent). At least 30 per cent of the Bosniak civilian victims were women and children.[100] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#War_crimes
Kosovo, not Bosnia. As I said earlier, I we didn’t bomb Serbia during the Bosnian War. Maybe I should have been more precise, but I thought it was obvious I was talking about Kosovo since I noted bombing Serbia.
On 23 September 1998 acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1199 demanding that all parties in Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cease hostilities and maintain a ceasefire. On 24 September the North Atlantic Council (NAC) of NATO issued an “activation warning” (ACTWARN) taking NATO to an increased level of military preparedness for both a limited air option and a phased air campaign in Kosovo.[96] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
UNSC said this was ok, yes in this particular part of the conflict there were less than 10,000 deaths but to somehow set this aside from the rest of the mess in the Former Yugoslavia is a bit of a stretch
No, the UNSC did not authorize the NATO bombing. This is the sort of argument Bush used to get us into the Iraq war.
But the alleged genocide you said we were prevented had already happened. You can’t claim the right to stop genocide and then cite something that happened 5 years earlier on a different battlefield and where a peace treaty had been concluded and was being implemented.