If you agree that the US should be able to take military actions against countries that harbour terrorists, should the same apply to those that shelter war criminals?
I am thinking specifically of Henry Kissinger who is close to being indicted for his actions in Cambodia. Would anyone support attempts by the international courts of justice to forcibly extradite him from America? If the US refused this, could they not be accused of hypocrisy?
Thoughts anyone?
Could I have a cite regarding an international court being close to indicting Kissinger for war crimes?
If that is the case, then the US would be a hypocrite to expect Milosevic and bin Laden to be sent to the court, but refuse to send Kissinger to stand trial under the same circumstances.
Actually I have always been skeptical about the concept of “war crimes” as being apart from the usual nasty business that war is. Not to say that there are not “war crimes” that one can define: killing civilians, torture, killing unarmed soldiers trying to surrender, refusing medical treatment, intentional starvation, etc…
When you try to broaden the scope much beyond things like what I mentioned, I think you are almost trying to punish people for war itself. War, itself, is one big crime against humanity from start to finish.
But, you did ask a specific question. Yes. I would support extraditing Henry Kissinger if there is an accusation leveled against him which qualifies as a war crime. I wonder though, since the VC and NVA used Cambodia as a supply route into South Vietnam, what the allegations will be? Bombing? Not a war crime under almost any circumstances, IMHO. It could be that it was just war–not to be confused with “a” just war–and less a war crime. I have heard some of what Christopher Hitchens has to say. (Hope I got his name right) But, could you give us some more background?
That would certainly be hypocritical if in fact Kissinger were indicted for war crimes.
However, no, it isn’t the same as terrorism. The U.S. and its allies are taking a stance against terrorism based on the fact that terrorists are a clear, existing threat to the security of their countries and their people. There is a state of danger in existence right now than bin Laden is perpetuating. To assist bin Laden is therefore equivalent to threating the security of the United States. That’s an act of war.
Henry Kissinger and those like him are different in that you’re accusing him of having committed a crime. Even if that is true, we’re talking about the execution of criminal justice - not eliminating a military threat. Kissinger isn’t killing Cambodians NOW, is he? He’s not a threat to anyone as it stands. No nation can legitimately claim that Henry Kissinger presents a direct threat to their security, so the U.S. cannot be accused of being an accessory to that.
My mistake: the indictment is for his role in the death of a Chilean army officer as part of “wider plot to prevent the Chilean Marxist leader, Salvador Allende, from becoming president.”
However, there are alsao widespread calls for him to answer in a court of law for his actions in Cambodia too. (See here for details.)
No, terrorism and war crimes aren’t identical, but morally I don’t see much difference. The point of a war crime is that is goes beyond what could reasonably be expected even in a war. Your argument logically implies that if OBL ceased to be a threat to US security (say, if his network was destroyed), then any right to have him extradicted would dissolve.
Alex B
Agreed, Beagle.
I mean, take for example the law against using any bullets designed to fragment, tumble, or expand upon entry. What’s up with that? Where did the people at the Geneva Convention get the idea that it should be against the law to use ammunition designed to be more lethal than normal rounds? If soldiers are going to be fighting in the presence of civilians, wouldn’t it make sense to use a bullet that would break up instead of going right through its target and possibly hitting an innocent person? The people who make these rules seem to be completely out of touch with what war is all about.
In addition, they also banned shot guns as they are “maiming weapons”. i.e. they frequently wound.
[goldilocks]
These bullets are too deadly.
And these shells aren’t lethal enough.
But these full metal jackets are just right.
[/goldilocks]
As to the O.P., hmmmm, that’s a tough one. It seems to me to be a question for our State Department. If we respect the court systems of Chile and Argentina, then we should allow them to question Mr. Kissenger. If however, we suspect that he will find himself in a kangaroo court, we can disallow questioning in good conscience. Now, that is one tough distinction. From the little I know of Chile and Argentina, I would request the State Department allow Chilean and Argentinian authorities to question him on American soil. After which the nations involved could decide if extradiction is warranted.
I really don’t see much of a comparison with Bin Laden. Bin Laden is suspected of an act of war. Mr. Kissenger is suspected of the criminal acts of conspiracy and murder. One is a military matter, the other civilian.
Well, according to that article, he’s being sued in a United States court as a civil action, not being prosecuted by an international court for crimes. So unlikely that he’ll be able to avoid being part of it unless the judge decides to throw the entire case out.
Well, should the Hague find enough evidence to support a trial, I would fully accept and support an extradition; again, we supported others being sent to the Hague, so it would be hypocritical for us to turn our backs on such.
Should it be a question of sending him off to Cambodia for local trial… well, I feel the same way Beeblebrox does.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RoboDude *
**
IANAE but I thought I recalled something to the extent of that the idea is to create casualties not deaths. Yes invariably people will die quite often from being hit by FMJ bullets, but hitting him in the first place is usually enough. Enhancing the lethality of the round is just kinda rude I guess. People are going to fight and people are going to get hurt and killed but it shifts the odds a few percent back in the favor of not getting killed.
IIRC the shotgun thing is because it tends to to such horrific damage that those who survive still have massive scarring and disfiguration from it.