War Crimes

war crime:

the jewish doctors in Autswiz tied a woman legs together while she was gving birth to her child, she and her child died.

they would get two jews, and stand them together side by side and shoot one to see if the bullet would go through both of they're heads.

i personally believe that if anyone is still alive who commited war crimes they should be put to justice
 
war crime:

the jewish doctors in Autswiz tied a woman legs together while she was gving birth to her child, she and her child died.

they would get two jews, and stand them together side by side and shoot one to see if the bullet would go through both of they're heads.

i personally believe that if anyone is still alive who commited war crimes they should be put to justice

I assume you mean Nazi doctors.
If a state official ordered bombing of civilian targets in a country not officially at war with their country, is that a war crime. (this would put US officials in front of war crimes tribunals)
 
Countries receive immunity against prosecution of war crimes.

Does that mean that some people are not human enough to be considered as victims?
 
And yet oddly enough superpowers tend to be immune.

How'd that come about?

Also, no. Nuremburg, for example.

Nazis have been prosecuted in Israel, hardly neutral turf, not that I am concerned about it in this case.

Notice any tribunals weigh in on US actions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Or Nicarauga, etc.

Russia in Chechnia. And so on.

War crimes tend to be prosecuted, these days, against smaller countries and the big powers preside, divving up judicial power amongst other smaller countries.

Saadam Hussein. War Crimes. Iraq court put together by a regime pasted together by the Americans. Again, not that I am crying.

The injustice has tended to come in not because of who is prosecuted, but by who is not prosecuted.

Winning helps. Economic and military might also help avoid prosecution. Those nations are immune. So being a 'winner' in a broad sense helps.

Hmm but if what you say is right then it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, and justice is not served. If it is true do other countries do nothing about it because they are afraid of the 'superpower' ?
 
Countries receive immunity against prosecution of war crimes.

Countries aren't usually prosecuted for war crimes. It's more individuals.

What examples are you thinking of?
 
Countries aren't usually prosecuted for war crimes. It's more individuals.

What examples are you thinking of?

I could reword it as countries can receive immunity for their citizens or soldiers...
 
SAM:

Which countries receive immunity, and from whom?

Some countries certainly have a record of refusing to participate in various international processes. The US comes to mind in that regard.

But I'm not aware of any country being granted immunity from war crimes trials by other nations. Examples?
 
The UN exemption for example:
A contentious resolution granting immunity to U.S. peacekeepers was first adopted by the Security Council in July 2000. It was renewed last year and remains valid until the end of June. The present resolution is a call for a second renewal of the exemption.

Yesterday at the United Nations, the administration, citing opposition on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have extended immunity for U.S. personnel in U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A757-2004Jun23.html

Not that it matters:

U.S. Immunity in Iraq Will Go Beyond June 30

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A01

The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said

The administration plans to accomplish that step -- which would bypass the most contentious remaining issue before the transfer of power -- by extending an order that has been in place during the year-long occupation of Iraq. Order 17 gives all foreign personnel in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority immunity from "local criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction and from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their parent states."




And apparently refusing to be a party to the ratification does not oblige you to follow ICC resolutions:
The atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers warrant war crimes prosecutions, according to some constitutional lawyers, but the United States cannot be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) because it has refused to accede to the Rome Statute that created the ICC.

The administration of former President Bill Clinton signed the statute in December 2000. But in an unprecedented reversal, his successor George W. Bush said he has no intention of ratifying the ICC treaty, releasing Washington from the obligation of not acting contrary to the object and purposes of the statute.

Since then, the United States has concluded a series of bilateral treaties, including with nations that are party to the ICC, obliging states not to hand over U.S. personnel to the world court.

The last is mostly through blackmail
The United States threatens to end its military assistance to Ecuador in case the latter refuses to accept the immunity of US troops from criminal prosecution.

"Our laws say we cannot give military assistance to countries of a certain type with which we have not signed Article 98, which is about the jurisdiction where US troops could be brought to trial," US Ambassador to Ecuador Kristie Kenney said Wednesday.

"What I say is not a secret, as we have talked in the past with the government" of Ecuador, she added.
http://english.people.com.cn/200506/30/eng20050630_193302.html

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=2625
 
Back
Top