TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 118--WAR CRIMES
Sec. 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States,
commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection
(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term
of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be
subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a)
are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war
crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national
of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term ``war crime''
means any conduct--
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such
convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the
Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party
and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and
contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as
amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May
1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully
kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(Added Pub. L. 104-192, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2104,
Sec. 2401; renumbered Sec. 2441, Pub. L. 104-294, title VI,
Sec. 605(p)(1), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510; amended Pub. L. 105-118,
title V, Sec. 583, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2436.)
References in Text
Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in
subsec. (b), is classified to section 1101 of Title 8, Aliens and
Nationality.
Amendments
1997--Pub. L. 105-118 which directed amendment of section 2401 of
this title by substituting ``war crime'' for ``grave breach of the
Geneva Conventions'' in subsec. (a) and for ``breach'' in two places in
subsec. (b) and by amending subsec. (c) generally, was executed by
amending this section to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the
amendment by Pub. L. 104-294. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as
follows:
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term `grave breach
of the Geneva Conventions' means conduct defined as a grave breach in
any of the international conventions relating to the laws of warfare
signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 or any protocol to any such convention,
to which the United States is a party.''
1996--Pub. L. 104-294 renumbered section 2401 of this title as this
section.
Read the text in subsection C, numbers 1 and 3. The federal government is in violation of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 118, Section 2441 of the United States Code. Comments please.
Source: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite: 18USC2441
Source: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Originally posted by WulebgrFor the record (as someone who has studied international law), national soverignty is NOT trumped by international law. For example, that is why any decision by the World Court is not enforceable without the consent of the parties involved.
Is Bush does not resign, he should be impeached. Indeed, the so called "Bush Doctrine" in foreign affairs asserts that the U.S. stands above international law.
As for impeachment....could you provide a specific crime by President Bush that is a candidate for impeachment?
Originally posted by Crusader ScottSo, why are we arresting people in Serbia and trying them in The Hague?
For the record (as someone who has studied international law), national soverignty is NOT trumped by international law. For example, that is why any decision by the World Court is not enforceable without the consent of the parties involved.
As for impeachment....could you provide a specific crime by President Bush that is a candidate for impeachment?
What were the Nurenberg trials about then?
Originally posted by socialist1917You did not read (b).
Read the text in subsection C, numbers 1 and 3. The federal government is in violation of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 118, Section 2441 of the United States Code. Comments please.
This law only applies to individual people (specifically United States nationals) and not to federal governments.
Originally posted by WulebgrYes, there's a Doctrine In The House.
Is Bush does not resign, he should be impeached. Indeed, the so called "Bush Doctrine" in foreign affairs asserts that the U.S. stands above international law.
History has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome, but one could argue a process of change started because of the American invasion of Iraq:
Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy--unheard of in decades--prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, in which unarmed civilians, Christian and Muslim alike, brought down the puppet government installed by Syria.
What if Bush has been right about this all along?
Originally posted by xsEverything you've named is an example of classic Liberalism. The Bush Doctrine that the U.S. can and will act alone with no regard for the opinions of our allies is another matter. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, it violates everything the U.S. fought for through the Cold War. (Yes, we did violate these standards of international law, that we ushered into place, a few other times, but we always felt a need to justify them to our allies. Now, we tell our allies to kiss our ill-soaked, Texas drugstore cowboy butts.)
Yes, there's a Doctrine In The House.
History has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome, but one could argue a process of change started because of the American invasion of Iraq:
Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elect ...[text shortened]... the puppet government installed by Syria.
What if Bush has been right about this all along?
Bush's overt lies to Congress and the American people are impeachable offenses.
The Bush Administration does not deny that the Geneva Convention's prohibitions are ignored in the detaining and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo; rather, the administration claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to a war against terrorism. See http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm.
Originally posted by Crusader Scott1. Illegal authorization of wiretapping without prior court order.
As for impeachment....could you provide a specific crime by President Bush that is a candidate for impeachment?
2. Misleading the American public into a costly war. If you remember, Bill Clinton mislead the American public about his sex life and the U.S. House impeached him.
Originally posted by MaxWaxSo, you denounce the Geneva Convention. Thus, the "fix" you advocate is the abandonment of the traditional U.S. commitment to democracy (even as we seek to impose it upon Islamic theocracies [Afghanistan, and soon, Iran] and secular dictatorships [Iraq]).
You say illegal I say legal.
You say war crime I say no crime.
The two of us will go nowhere in this discussion.
Meanwhile just sit back and let the USA fix the all the problems in the world while you sit on your ass and criticize how we do it.
Way to go chief.
Originally posted by xsThere were elections in all those countries long before Bush. Like most right wingers, your history stinks.
Yes, there's a Doctrine In The House.
History has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome, but one could argue a process of change started because of the American invasion of Iraq:
Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elect ...[text shortened]... the puppet government installed by Syria.
What if Bush has been right about this all along?
Originally posted by WulebgrDoes the Geneva Convention apply to a war against terrorism?
The Bush Administration does not deny that the Geneva Convention's prohibitions are ignored in the detaining and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo; rather, the administration claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to a war against terrorism. See http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm.
In regards to treatment of prisoners of war:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
GENERAL PROVISIONS, Article 2
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.