Originally posted by spruce112358 ...the US has conducted war crimes trials in the past, so I don't think they are opposed in principle but more around the implementation.
I think the U.S. might have been concerned, in the Wuterich case for example, that a neutral war crimes commission might not have acquitted him along with his subordinates who murdered the 24 civilians and then it might not have been expedient for the U.S. military to have given Wuterich a general discharge under honourable conditions which was the outcome the military required so as to play down any unhelpful talk of there having been a "massacre". I think the U.S. would be concerned that a neutral war crimes commission might prosecute Wuterich for political reasons by bringing the 24 dead into it in a 'tainted' way that showed insensitivity with regard to Just How It Is when the U.S. military is waging war.
Originally posted by spruce112358 You may be right. But the US has conducted war crimes trials in the past, so I don't think they are opposed in principle but more around the implementation.
Yeah there is maybe a option within the U.S justice system for trying their service people for 'war crimes' but they cannot/will not submit a U.S citizen to the Hague; but then I cannot think of any country that does so willingly.
Originally posted by FMF Should Wuterich have been imprisoned for life? He and his men lied about coming under fire and about the twenty four innocents they slaughtered being armed. If not "life", how long do you think? [I know you were unhappy with the sentence passed down.]
I don't know exactly what his prison sentence should be. Unless I'm going to take every word on Wikipedia as Gospel, I don't know enough about the case to make such a specific judgment. It does seem that some level of prison sentence would have been appropriate, but life? I don't think so. I also don't think you can compare a military overreaction (even a negligent one) to an intentional killing spree.
Originally posted by spruce112358 If the alleged perpetrator was serving in a military force in a war zone, this would qualify as a war crime.
It would be inappropriate for the military force in which he was serving to be responsible for his trial since the possibility of a biased judgement would be very large.
I'm sure he'd prefer that.
He's likely to get a harsher sentence in a US military court than in The Hague.
Originally posted by FMF I think the U.S. might have been concerned, in the Wuterich case for example, that a neutral war crimes commission might not have acquitted him along with his subordinates who murdered the 24 civilians and then it might not have been expedient for the U.S. military to have given Wuterich a general discharge under honourable conditions which was the outcome the ...[text shortened]... hat showed insensitivity with regard to Just How It Is when the U.S. military is waging war.
If we had a democratically elected UN, then member nations could cede the responsibility of trying persons accused of war crimes to the court sanctioned by that body (e.g. the Hague) since war is by definition a supra-national event.
But the US would never cede that right to a debating society comprised mainly of appointed political hacks and dictator-backed cronies. It would only be feasible if an actual, democratically elected, representative UN were to exist.
The new UN would have to start by passing a law saying exactly what a war crime was, for example. And what the penalties might be for it.
Originally posted by kevcvs57 Yeah there is maybe a option within the U.S justice system for trying their service people for 'war crimes' but they cannot/will not submit a U.S citizen to the Hague; but then I cannot think of any country that does so willingly.
A US citizen has no elected representative in the UN so it is not clear that the UN has any legal or moral authority over him -- or any citizen from any nation for that matter.
As a rule, a US citizen will only submit to the authority of an appointed functionary when that functionary may be removed by representatives he participated in electing. True for the US Supreme Court, but not true for the Hague.
Originally posted by sh76 There's no comparison between this case and Wuterich. The latter case was a combat situation and, though Wuterich seemingly acted wrongfully, that was nothing like this case, which was apparently a cold blooded shooting rampage to kill civilians.
In this case, the perpetrator is either insane, in which case he should be sent to a mental hospital for the criminally insane, or he's not, in which case he should be imprisoned for life.
Originally posted by FMF The news and analysis about the Frank Wuterich case is in the public domain and has been discussed on several threads on this forum. There is a lot going on out there in the world. Nobody can keep on top of it all. If you're not interested, just let it pass.
You bring up the new case of a Massacre in Kandahar as somehow related to the prosecution of Frank Wuterich as if both the facts of the cases are identical or that the cases are related.
The older case is settled, but the new one is still news. Just heard it reported on today's morning news. It is preposterous to attempt to parallel one with the other without knowing the facts. It sounds to me that you don't like the finding in the former, and presume the later will end up the same way.
Originally posted by normbenign You bring up the new case of a Massacre in Kandahar as somehow related to the prosecution of Frank Wuterich as if both the facts of the cases are identical or that the cases are related.
Where is it you think I implied that "the facts of the cases are identical"? Sounds like a straw man. As for how they are related, well they are both massacres - or mass murders, if you want - committed against innocent civilians and perpetrated by the U.S. military and there is a question mark over whether the U.S. military will be able to deal with the case appropriately and justly; can the U.S. military handle its own war crimes satisfactorily. Both cases are clearly war crimes. You may disagree. But there are obviously enough parallels for there to be a debate.
It sounds to me that you don't like the finding in the former, and presume the later will end up the same way.
Originally posted by FMF Where is it you think I implied that "the facts of the cases are identical"? Sounds like a straw man. As for how they are related, well they are both massacres - or mass murders, if you want - committed against innocent civilians and perpetrated by the U.S. military and there is a question mark over whether the U.S. military will be able to deal with the case ap ...[text shortened]... ume the later will end up the same way.
Originally posted by sh76 Oh, well Waheed Tanha says it.
Must be true.
And it doesn't appear from the last words of the quote itself that Waheed Tanha has any agenda that s/he is supporting.
Where did the fear of standing armies go? Could we come close to balancing our budget, by eliminating all foreign based troops, even when there isn't a conflict? Why are we in Afghanistan, 11 years after the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by sh76 Oh, well Waheed Tanha says it.
Must be true.
And it doesn't appear from the last words of the quote itself that Waheed Tanha has any agenda that s/he is supporting.
So the America Please Leave Afghanistan "agenda", if expressed by the likes of fellow American conservative whodey, appears to get a tacit nod from you judging by your silence, but when the America Please Leave Afghanistan "agenda" is expressed by Waheed Tanha, an Afghan, it draws whodey-like pouting from you. 😉
Massacre in Kandahar
12 Mar '12 12:454 edits
Back to Top