Would You Open War Crimes Trials for OUR Soldiers?

[BrentWil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace."

If Iraq was a war of aggression, should we now turn to dealing with this now that Iraq is over? Should we start to seek justice from not just President Bush but from those who executed his policy?

[msongs]

1. sorry but war crimes are for the losers to be prosecuted by the winners nt

[Hugabear]

2. Why not?

How can we expect to hold other countries accountable if we don't hold ourselves accountable? Why should we be immune?

[BrentWil]

7. Well, the fact that it is kind of stupid to prosecute professional Soldiers for fighting wars.

And I would say that about Alfred Jodl .

[Hugabear]

9. Your OP specifically mentions "war crimes"

If a soldier commits a war crime, they should be held accountable.

[BrentWil]

10. If you are going to prosecute for fighting wars of aggression, and Iraq was a war of aggression..

Then anyone that went to war would be a war criminal.

[Hugabear]

13. Wrong

The actual day-to-day combat operations would be governed by the Geneva Conventions. For example, Abu Gharib and the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah could be considered war crimes.

[BrentWil]

20. Why did they hang Alfred Jodl, then? NT

[Hugabear]

24. Alfred Jodl was charged with specific war crimes

I found this very quickly through Google.

[BrentWil]

27. They threw everything they could at him, but "crimes against Peace" and "waging wars of aggression"

were the main thing. The French judge said it was a mistake because he was a professional solider. They basically hung him because he was the head of the German government at the time of surrender.

[Posteritatis]

43. Because the Chief of the OKW just might have been a little different than a common soldier. (nt)

[tritsofme]

15. You really exist in another reality.

Or are at least very naive.

I don't mean to suggest the situations are in any way analogous or similar, because they are not, but we did not lock up an entire generation of young German men after 1945. Do you believe we should have?

[BrentWil]

17. That isn't what I am suggesting at all...

I am suggesting that it is unfair to procecute any solider for fighting a "war of aggression" and this should be removed from international law. We shouldn't be able to use this for political proposes and neither should anyone else.

[Hugabear]

21. Who is suggesting this?

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that all soldiers who fought in Iraq be prosecuted for war crimes. You've created your own straw man to attack.

[BrentWil]

25. No, but this clause has been used in the past for political rational.

Alfred Jodl, for example. There is a lot of room to use it again.

What I am suggesting is that this is a bad legal standard.

[Zalatix]

18. Bingo. Why are such no-brainers being debated here??? n/t

[BrentWil]

22. To get someone to discuss International Law with me...

If I said, we should get rid of "Wars of Aggression" in International Law... I wouldn't get a lot of responses and no one would agree, if they did respond.

[msanthrope]

3. Wait--are you done with the "Obama's gonna go to war with Iran" thread? nt

[MADem]

4. No. Too many "ifs" in your scenario. nt

[teddy51]

5. Nope, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and those that gave the orders are the people responsible.

Hold them responsible, but not the little guys taking the orders.

[hlthe2b]

6. If they committed them and only after the higher ups have been charged as well. Geneva conventions

are on the back of every military id (or at least they used to be). There is no excuse. I sympathize for them being put in that position to begin with and that would/should likely play out (and heavily ameliorate) in the sentencing phase for them (not for the "higher ups), if found guilty, but I do not believe we have moved so far from Nuremberg as to make those principles irrelevant.

[BrentWil]

8. Who wouldn't have committed them, if Iraq was a war of aggression?

If you went and served, you would have committed the crime, at least to written standards.

[hlthe2b]

16. I'm talking about murdering civilians/ torturing others...

Not the fact that they participated in the war--no matter how questionable. Geneva conventions do not cover the issue of "illegal wars" but do cover torture and inhumane treatment, including both enemy and civilians. We did NOT, after all try all Nazis or other axis soldiers merely for taking part in the fight. It is war crimes, I am referring to.

[Hugabear]

19. I think the OP wants DUers to paint all soldiers as war criminals

The "if Bush was a war criminal, then ALL soldiers are war criminals" meme isn't going to work here.

[BrentWil]

23. That would be a different subject...

If you said, the "person" or "institution" that decided to go to war, the International Legal standard would be much better.

[hlthe2b]

26. well, I certainly don't agree with that. Perhaps the OP should read the Geneva Conventions.

[BrentWil]

29. I am one of the very few here that can say that I have. NT

[hlthe2b]

30. count me as well...

[tritsofme]

11. How disgusting. These men and women served their country admirably.

It is despicable to suggest that all soldiers who served in Iraq are criminals.

Your beef is with the policymakers, not the soldiers.

[BrentWil]

14. Was Alfred Jodl convention correct? NT

[Hugabear]

28. Alfred Jodl was a Nazi war criminal

Do a Google search for "Commando Order". Jodl wasn't some rank-and-file soldier. He was the Army Chief of Staff, ordering the execution of all captured prisoners, even if they surrendered.

Nice try at obsfucation though.

[BrentWil]

31. That was not the primary reason he was hung

The evidence was very weak on actual war crimes. He was mainly hung because he was the head of the German government during the surrender.

There is very little evidence he was anything BUT a professional solider during the war.

[ProSense]

39. Wait

That was not the primary reason he was hung

The evidence was very weak on actual war crimes. He was mainly hung because he was the head of the German government during the surrender.

There is very little evidence he was anything BUT a professional solider during the war.

...so you invoke his name in response to the charge that you're implying that all soldiers are war criminals, and then when challenged, you state that he was "hung because he was the head of the German government during the surrender"?

What the hell are you arguing?

[BrentWil]

44. That it isn't a good idea to have an international war crimes standard of

"waging wars of aggression". And if you do have it, it should be for political leaders. It is something that will be used unfairly by us or by someone else.

[ProSense]

48. That's

That it isn't a good idea to have an international war crimes standard of "waging wars of aggression". And if you do have it, it should be for political leaders. It is something that will be used unfairly by us or by someone else.

...absurd, and bears no resemblance to the OP, which is a leading question about charging the troops with war crimes.

[BrentWil]

52. I didn't suggest that I agreed that we should charge Soldiers with war crimes..

I posted that for debate. My opinion is that it is stupid to have that standard as part of international law.

[ProSense]

53. In

"My opinion is that it is stupid to have that standard as part of international law."

....which country do they charge the troops for the policy, not individual acts, but the policy?

[BrentWil]

56. Crime Against Peace is still part of international Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

What I am suggesting is that this could be used one day in a very unfair means and should be abolished as a crime for those that execute wars. It is far to broad.

[ProSense]

57. You

Crime Against Peace is still part of international Law

What I am suggesting is that this could be used one day in a very unfair means and should be abolished as a crime for those that execute wars. It is far to broad.

...didn't answer the question, and simply threw out a hypothetical, which is absurd.

[quinnox]

12. Not in general, but for specific incidents like Haditha, you bet

I was disgusted how the involved soldiers recently all were basically given a free pass for those killings, and they should have gotten prison time in that case. Just because your unit was hit by a bomb and a soldier killed doesn't give them the right to go "Rambo" and start going into houses and opening fire on women and children in revenge.

[ProSense]

34. You don't

understand. It's just to have a discussion!!!

Actually, I think you do, and I agree: the natives are getting restless.

It's so damned obvious.

[quinnox]

35. lets just say I think

you are on the right track with this post. I have noticed the same things.

[BrentWil]

37. Most idiots and dipshits....

Call other people idiots and dipshits. That is what I find, at least.

[ProSense]

38. Appears

"Most idiots and dipshits....Call other people idiots and dipshits. That is what I find, at least."

...this characterization was accurate: "You strike me as someone who considers himself highly intelligent."

[BrentWil]

40. I like debate

And I am a democrat who voted for Obama and will do so again... do I have no place here? The GOP is fucking crazy right now and anyone that isn't really has no real choice, anyway.

I am not dividing anyone. I am providing questions and providing my answers with openness and transparency. What about that is "dividing"?

And I actually don't know the "other" site. The only other political bulletin board I used to post on was Hannity, and I got banned for being a lib....

[ProSense]

41. Well

"And I am a democrat who voted for Obama and will do so again... do I have no place here? The GOP is fucking crazy right now and anyone that isn't really has no real choice, anyway. "

...I'd expect the "fucking crazy" GOP to debate which side the U.S. would take in hypothetical wars, like Iran.

"I am not dividing anyone. I am providing questions and providing my answers with openness and transparency. What about that is "dividing"? "

You're right, it's more like trying to unite GOP and liberal thinking by prodding liberals to discuss the issues from the GOP perspective.

I mean, what great things have Republicans achieved?

That's deep, but who gives a shit?

[BrentWil]

42. Free Slaves might....

And it was US policy in a war between Pakistan and India. That isn't some "crazy" thing to ask. President Clinton had to deal with that in 99.

What "conservative view point" you mean, a radical plan to give 30K dollars to everyone that makes below 50K?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002209412

Thats REALLY conservative....

[ProSense]

45. And

And it was US policy in a war between Pakistan and India. That isn't some "crazy" thing to ask. President Clinton had to deal with that in 99.

...LBJ had to deal with Vietnam. It's just as "crazy" as creating a hypothetical scenario around a war with Iran.

"What 'conservative view point' you mean, a radical plan to give 30K dollars to everyone that makes below 50K?"

Yeah, I saw that, and frankly, it's ludicrous.

"Free Slaves might...."

Thank God for Republicans, huh?

[BrentWil]

47. Please tell me..

Why discussing a possible war between India and Pakistan, a border that most consider the most volatile in the Word (Including North Korea) is "crazy". That is actually something that there is a decent chance of happening during the next term. Hell, the Mumbai attacks only happened in 2008 and that was directly linked to Pakistan's ISI. Another such attack could trigger a war. I doubt the US would have not gone to war over that type of attack.

Okay, it ludicrous.... Is it "conservative" Would the current GOP support it?

Thank God for the Radical Republicans of the 1860s. Why would you not thank god for them?

[ProSense]

49. You

Why discussing a possible war between India and Pakistan, a border that most consider the most volatile in the Word (Including North Korea) is "crazy".

...can discuss wars between any countries you want to. Creating hypothetical situations in which the U.S. would become involved is where lunacy takes over.

I mean, what's the point? I'm sure you could find any number of Republicans to engage you in a hypothetical involving Israel and Iran.

"Thank God for the Radical Republicans of the 1860s. Why would you not thank god for them?"

Oh, but I do thank Lincoln, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=236242

[BrentWil]

50. Well, on Iran..

The one that has suggested invading or doing something is President's Obama's Defense Secretary. I simply suggest I would listen if the case was made. I have never mentioned Israel. You do understand that Iran and India are not the same country, right?

Okay, so why do you have a problem with me suggesting that the Republican party of the 1860s wasn't that bad of a thing?

[ProSense]

51. Yes

Well, on Iran..The one that has suggested invading or doing something is President's Obama's Defense Secretary. I simply suggest I would listen if the case was made. I have never mentioned Israel. You do understand that Iran and India are not the same country, right?

...I'm sure you would.

[BrentWil]

54. So it is a problem that I will evaluate what President Obama says?

I mean, I did post that because HIS Defense Secretary has been making comments on Iran... What am I supposed to do? Assume I am right, and that he is wrong in some sort of knee jerk reaction?

[ProSense]

55. No

So it is a problem that I will evaluate what President Obama says?

I mean, I did post that because HIS Defense Secretary has been making comments on Iran... What am I supposed to do? Assume I am right, and that he is wrong in some sort of knee jerk reaction?

...it's a problem that you're implying that the President said anything about a war with Iran, another hypothetical.

[BrentWil]

58. His administration has...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57345322/panetta-iran-will-not-be-allowed-nukes/

Pelley: If the Israelis decide to launch a military strike to prevent that weapon from being built, what sort of complications does that raise for you?

Panetta: Well, we share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.

Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?

Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.

Pelley: Including military steps?

Panetta: There are no options off the table

Pelley: A nuclear weapon in Iran is...

Panetta: Unacceptable.

I didn't ask the question because I was crazy and wanted war. I asked it because it is/was possible.

[ProSense]

59. What

nonsense. You point to standard boilerplate rhetoric as discussing war?

[BrentWil]

60. That shit isn't standard...

If you pay attention....

Standard is, "Iran needs to meet international demands blah blah blah"

[ProSense]

61. No

"That shit isn't standard..."

...it's standard. If you're actually interested in not reading war into boilerplate statements to justify discussing hypothetical wars between India and Pakistan, here's the President:

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address

[BrentWil]

62. The key part of that statement is...

You miss the key part of that statement. Of course they are not going to have the President come out and say something to harsh. They are not sure what they want to do yet and I am sure they want to avoid military action.

However, the key part is "I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal" That is actually a reasonable strong signal, especially coming in a SOTU.

[ProSense]

63. Seems

You miss the key part of that statement. Of course they are not going to have the President come out and say something to harsh. They are not sure what they want to do yet and I am sure they want to avoid military action.

...like denial.

However, the key part is "I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal" That is actually a reasonable strong signal, especially coming in a SOTU.

Boilerplate, a statement made in every negotiation. Get it?

[BrentWil]

64. What ever you think...

From my experience with DOS that is a pretty big signal. Believe me, all these statements are vetted. If I had to read the tea leaves, I would say that they are really, really concerned about this. For the Secretary of Defense statements, I would suggest that "all options" are actually on the table.

However, you are free to judge the statements however you want. This is rather off topic now.

[ProSense]

65. Being

"If I had to read the tea leaves, I would say that they are really, really concerned about this."

...concerned, doesn't mean the next move is war. That's the leap Republicans make.

[BrentWil]

66. Did I say the next move was war?

But I think it is something that is being looked at and is a decent possibility.

[ProSense]

67. Seems

Did I say the next move was war?

But I think it is something that is being looked at and is a decent possibility.

...like wishful thinking.

[BrentWil]

69. No, actually it isn't.

Seems like you like to censor people and judge motivations. Does it make you feel good?

[ProSense]

70. Seems

No, actually it isn't.

Seems like you like to censor people and judge motivations. Does it make you feel good?

...like an odd thing to say after an almost hour-long discussion, but I suspect it's a cop out from actually defending your comment that there is a "decent possibility" for war with Iran.

[BrentWil]

71. Because there is a decent possibility...

The last time I check, thinking something has a good chance of happening isn't the same thing as thinking something is a good event to happen. You do understand the difference, right?

[ProSense]

72. There

Because there is a decent possibility...

The last time I check, thinking something has a good chance of happening isn't the same thing as thinking something is a good event to happen. You do understand the difference, right?

...that wasn't hard. I don't know, implying that there is more to Panetta's statement (and he's not the President), ignoring that the President's statement rebuffs war and discussing U.S. involvement in hypothetical wars between other countries does leave an impression.

[BrentWil]

73. See what you want in the statements...

I am done.

[T S Justly]

33. Cops, too. And mayors and presidents. K&R (nt)

[Vattel]

36. Here is what the U.S. Army's Field manual says:

The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes.
Although this manual recognizes the criminal responsibility of individuals for those offenses which may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes, members of the armed forces will normally be concerned, only with those offenses constituting "war crimes."[

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Yes.

[NYC_SKP]

68. Can we consider Dick Cheney among these "soldiers"?

Because he, Rumsfeld, and the rest really ought to be the first to suffer prosecution.

To me, soldiers are more often the victims of these things.

[boppers]

74. "If Iraq was a war of aggression"

That's a mighty big "IF", there, and it's why there was a huge legal defense built up before we went in.