War crimes by a country

[Asguard]

i would LOVE to see the US invade canada, it would be the end of the US no matter what, nato wouldnt surport them, nor would any commonwealth nation, we would be fighting on the side of canada including england

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

james to be fair (not saying i actually care) the nuremberg trials tried people for crimes which wernt crimes when they were commited which breaches the tenants of the westminster justice system. i know the US doesnt seem to have a problem with this but in australia and i belive the UK too the only laws which can be retrospective are ones which help people and tax laws (which are anounced and put into effect before they are passed by the parliment), criminal law cant be made retrospective EXCEPT to remove a crime or lesson the sentance.

Now charging people with invading poland when it wasnt illegal to invade a country before the end of the war wasnt following this basic principle

the other problems i have was the fact that they were exercuted inspite the fact that as far as i know the british had already abolished the death penelty and the fact that the alies wernt procuted for THERE crimes (like the fire bombing of Dresden)

I think it's in the Constitution that you can't be tried for breaking a law when it wasn't a law..

 

[Asguard]

umm you herd of the charge of ading terriousts or being a member of al kida or the taliban BEFORE the invasion?

 

[Norsefire]

i would LOVE to see the US invade canada, it would be the end of the US no matter what, nato wouldnt surport them, nor would any commonwealth nation, we would be fighting on the side of canada including england

Might makes right, I'm afraid. So g'luck trying to fight off the strongest country in the world.

 

[superstring01]

i would LOVE to see the US invade canada, it would be the end of the US no matter what, nato wouldnt surport them, nor would any commonwealth nation, we would be fighting on the side of canada including england

It wouldn't happen because Canada wouldn't do it. But in the very off fantasy scenario that the US did invade Canada, the rest of the world would do what it does best (and has done with impunity up till now) bitch, moan, but not do anything to hurt international trade. They would brush the matter under the carpet as quickly as possible while continuing their anti-American rhetoric. Let's fact it: there isn't much anybody could do. With half the world's military budget and several thousand nukes in American hands, not much in the way of a response could occur.

But, again, this whole scenario is nonsense because it would never happen.

~String

 

[superstring01]

I think it's in the Constitution that you can't be tried for breaking a law when it wasn't a law..

Exactly. This has been around longer than the Westminster System's abolition of ex post facto laws. In fact, the reason why it is even in the Constitution is out of response to the fact that the British Parliament consistently passed them in order to make things illegal retroactively and fuck with American citizens. (if you think of the Constitution as one big "bitch piece" you see that it was all done, pretty much, in reaction to parliamentary laws that pissed Americans off)

~String

 

[iceaura]

The notion that an international court is worthless bureaucracy, and war crimes make no sense, because one particular country can ignore it and them, is a bit strange.

The rest of the world could, and is apparently beginning to, set them up and submit to their rulings in limited but important ways. This could present these countries with an advantage, long term, in dealing with a rogue country - they could, for example, find themselves negotiating such things as war reparations as a united body against any rogue country.

And the pressure of international law has proven to be a factor that people like Kissinger or Radosovic have to consider.

To find citizens of a democratic republic unable to see the value in declared norms of behavior publicly endorsed and formally supported, when their very own society is essentially based on such voluntary submission (however imperfect) to agreed rules, is disturbing.