Why the USA opposes the rule of law.

[Sevastopol]

War crimes prosecutions that will never happen

“It is now clear that leaders were responsible for abuses in Iraq,” Mr Sifton said. “It’s time for them to be held accountable”.

I stated it before to some mild disagreement, which bears fleshing out:

Either -

Prosecution of thousands of US troops for war crimes

or

The USA opposes the rule of law

True or false? An excluded middle, if so I’m not seeing it?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Where do you get “thousands”? The article doesn’t give any specific number beyond the 11 convicted Abu Ghraib abusers. How big were the detachments to that and similar facilities?

[XT]

@Bryan Ekers

Where do you get “thousands”? The article doesn’t give any specific number beyond the 11 convicted Abu Ghraib abusers. How big were the detachments to that and similar facilities?

Obviously the vast majority of American’s in Iraq (maybe all of them :eek: ) are war criminals. I suppose the OP COULD have said ‘tens of thousands’, or even ‘hundreds of thousands’…I certainly wouldn’t have been surprised if he HAD said that in fact.

I suppose the beef (now) is that, though 11 soldiers WERE in fact convicted (rule of law and all that), they were lower level spear carriers…so they don’t count. Or something. The ‘gut’ feeling by the OP et al is that this was authorized and sanctioned from the top…i.e. Bush is to blame and ever effort needs to be made to convinct him and then shoot him (they are waiving their distaste for the death penalty in this one special case).

Failing to be able to do this though, they want to start marching up the chain of command…again, since only spear carriers have been found guilty so far. Again, there is a ‘gut’ feeling (substantiated by supposed interviews with the completely credible HRW) that there had to have been official sanction for this stuff from above.

Couple of things from my own viewpoint. For one, I think there is some confusion as to what exactly was a crime here. I read through some of the trials of these soldiers. For the most part (and correct me if I’m wrong…I’m sure you will :)), they weren’t convicted of things like sleep deprivation, or…well, here, from the cited article:

He described how they used dogs to intimidate the detainees, had them walking on their knees in the gravel and standing for extended periods with arms outstretched holding water bottles.

These things WEREN’T what they were on trial for…because these things weren’t (and unless I’m mistaken still aren’t) either illegal or proscribed. THESE things, I believe, WERE officially sanctioned…so how exactly would you put the officers on trial for them?

What the soldiers who were convicted were on trial for was for abuses that went beyond this stuff. Well, we’ve all seen the pictures after all. THAT stuff, afaik, was definitely proscribed…and illegal. And THAT is what they were found guilty of.

Now, its possible that there were officers who either looked the other way during the more serious abuses, or even encouraged their troops to do them. And if thats the case then I’m all for those folks also being tried and convicted if found guilty. Thus far I know of no evidence however linking these more serious abuses directly to an officer. Having been in the military I can say that officers DO get more slack in such things than enlisted…but they don’t get a totally free ride. During the trials for the folks convicted, if there was evidence presented by the defense that the soldiers were under orders, then there would have been a serious investigation.

The defense, contrary to what the faithful believe, does not simply roll over and show its belly simply because its a military court…quite the opposite, at least in my own experience. And especially in so public and watched trial…you can believe that every I was dotted and ever T crossed.

I’d say that the fact that we in fact DID put our soldiers on trial and both found many guilty and punished them (contrary to what many around here indicated we’d do, claiming the US would never put its own on trial, no matter the guilt…or if we did they would be whitewashed and their crimes swept under the rug)…well, I’d say this was a good indication that the OPs assertion that the US doesn’t believe in the rule of law is a load of (typical) BS. YMMV.

So…

The USA opposes the rule of law

Complete horseshit.

True or false?

Er, sorry. That would be ‘false’.

-XT

[msmith537]

Why do you hate America and our soldiers?

[Clothahump]

@Sevastopol

War crimes prosecutions that will never happen

I stated it before to some mild disagreement, which bears fleshing out:

Either -

Prosecution of thousands of US troops for war crimes

or

The USA opposes the rule of law

True or false? An excluded middle, if so I’m not seeing it?

Excluded middle: other than Abu Graib, no war crimes have been committed.

[Squink]

@Clothahump

no war crimes have been committed.

The speaker of the Iraqi Parliament criticized the American government’s involvement in Iraq on Saturday, likening the invasion and its consequences to “the work of butchers” and demanding that the American authorities disentangle themselves from Iraq’s political affairs.
…
“We know there was a corrupt regime in Saddam, but a regime should be removed by surgery, not by butchering,” he said during a speech at a United Nations-sponsored conference on transitional justice. “The U.S. occupation is butcher’s work under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice.”

“Leave us to solve our problems,” he continued. “We don’t need an agenda from outside.”

Is butchery a war crime? If so, the speaker of Iraq’s parliament disagrees with you, Clothahump.

[elucidator]

Beg to differ.

For starters, we established at Nuremberg that aggressive war is a crime against humanity. Absent a clear and present danger, our invasion of Iraq was such a crime. For which crimes, I remind you, we tried Germans. Tried, judged and hanged.

We are signatories to treaties defining aggressive war as a war crime. It necessarily follows that all civilian casualties resulting from such a war are, each and every, war crimes.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

• Thomas Jefferson

[BrainGlutton]

@msmith537

Why do you hate America and our soldiers?

[shrug] I dunno. Same reason you hate your mother.

[elucidator]

America’s got issues.

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

For starters, we established at Nuremberg that aggressive war is a crime against humanity.

Jonathan Alter goes into more depth:

Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials …, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz’s biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or “aggressive” war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a “prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

“The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can’t use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they’ve found – then we’ll figure out what we’re going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq – which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter.”

Even closer to home:

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that Bush’s attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the court rejected Bush’s attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans “cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits “are considered ‘war crimes’ punishable as federal offenses,” as Justice Kennedy wrote.

Think he’s sleeping well?

[ElvisL1ves]

Make that Jan Frel, writing on Alter’s site, not Alter himself. Sorry.

A bunch more links, including warnings even prior to the invasion.

In The Name of Democracy is available from Amazon.

Drawing on a wide range of documents—from the protocols of the Geneva Convention to FBI e-mails about prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay to executive-branch papers justifying the circumvention of international law—In the Name of Democracy examines the legality of the Iraq war and the occupation that followed. Included in this powerful investigation are eyewitness accounts, victim testimonials, statements by soldiers turned resisters and whistle-blowers, interviews with intelligence insiders, and contributions by Mark Danner and Seymour Hersh.

The result is a controversial, chilling anthology that explores the culpability of officials as well as the responsibilities of ordinary citizens, and for the first time squarely confronts the matter of American impunity.

[Lemur866]

Excluded middle.

Suppose invading Iraq was a “war crime”. Who’s guilty of that crime? Every soldier who has served in Iraq, or stateside during the invasion?

Of course not, and only someone like Sevastopol could imagine this. How many German soldiers were tried at Nuremburg? If there is to be a Nurmeburg-style trial for the invasion of Iraq, who gets tried? Bush, his cabinet and advisors, some generals.

No soldiers or officers below field grade were tried at Nuremburg. Sure, soldiers were tried for individual atrocities. But no German soldier was tried for invading France, dropping bombs on London, occupying Belgium.

Obeying orders to go to Iraq and shoot at people is not a war crime…even if we contrafactually stipulate that the invasion of Iraq were a war crime.

[elucidator]

@Lemur866

…even if we contrafactually stipulate that the invasion of Iraq were a war crime.

“Contrafactually”? In what way?

[ElvisL1ves]

There are war crimes that do not require the issuance of an order to commit them, as well. Several soldiers stationed at Abu Ghraib have already been convicted of them, and the Haditha Marines are being court-martialed as well.

Lemur, which facts have you considered before concluding reality is “contra” them?