News Are Americans Above International Law?

[denverdoc]

Well certainly Bush et al have seen this coming for some time. They exempted their selves from possible tribunals. And in fairness have fought for the same re Armed services personnel of all stripes. But I would ask for an even higher level of consistency than signing onto the Geneva convention and then looking for loopholes, or refusing to endorce international tribunals with the primary complaint that we have a legal system that is non pareil and any further jeopardy is superfluous. This is the same issue as Gitmo, and the "extraordinary rendition" crap where we whisk in the dark of night "prisoners" to various countries where torture is common, and then deny that as a motive.

 

[drankin]

The UK is now your enemy?

You obviously don't grasp the idea of unlawful killing. The Military is just like any other job, you have some protection against being killed in an unlawful way.

Bit like the holocaust? or perhaps what milosevic was attempting? What is ridiculous is that you seem to believe your war effort is above international law.

Again, we aren't under international law. Period, zippo, zilch. To be above the law, we would first have to be under it. It's not part of our Constitution to be under any international laws. Your OP is flawed.

No, the UK is not our enemy. That wasn't my point. In war, people die, and sometimes because of mistakes from our own fire. The roles could easily have been reversed. We would accept it because it is understood that it happens. It's emotional, politically driven, non-sense. And you are falling for it.

 

[denverdoc]

But that's the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards. If you agree that we have the right to be outlaws, then say so. Bush etc have made such clear. They believe they are so. Hence this thread! We have a case of some trigger happy young man who missed clear markings and fired. More disturbingly we have had a bunch of blown up journalists in Iraq by "friendly" fire and Israeal recently hit red cross vehicles. In this case it was an honest mistake I believe, but to sequester evidence, really does no one anyone good.

 

[drankin]

But that's the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards. If you agree that we have the right to be outlaws, then say so. Bush etc have made such clear. They believe they are so. Hence this thread! We have a case of some trigger happy young man who missed clear markings and fired. More disturbingly we have had a bunch of blown up journalists in Iraq by "friendly" fire and Israeal recently hit red cross vehicles. In this case it was an honest mistake I believe, but to sequester evidence, really does no one anyone good.

I pretty much agree with you, doc. My point is that we can't be called outlaws because in order to be an outlaw you have to be subject to the laws in the first place.

Now, we do have a moral obligation to our comrades in war but there is a point to where that obligation ends. Otherwise, the next time we need to fight side by side we will be signing release waivers. Please, do the lawyers have to get their hands on everything?

 

[Manchot]

But that's the point--most civilized countries agree to certain conduct. And to enforce these standards.

When the Constitution was written, falling under the jurisdiction of international law meant falling under the jurisdiction of the European monarchs. There was a good reason for the authors to ensure that the US wouldn't succumb to their influence. Furthermore, as I'm sure you know, the Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend. This is also for a good reason: it allows the government to withstand the willy-nilly opinions of the public. (For example, without inertia, the neocons would've turned this country into a police state after 9/11). Given that no one has yet to provide a compelling political reason for amending the Constitution to allow the government to abide by international law, it hasn't been done.

In fact, I don't think it will ever be done. Our laws are too similar: whenever a conflict between international law and American law arises, it will never be a clear-cut difference, and will always be in a moral gray area (e.g., a friendly fire shooting). Therefore, there will never be a public outcry, and nothing can ever be done to change that.

 

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
Knock your self out.

I don't see any examples of what I asked for there. Did you read my request correctly?

Great, so the Pentagon has a closed door internal investigation and the families of those how were killed should just accept the outcome of the pentagon?

The families can accept or reject anyone's opinion or form their own if they want. They are humans, afterall, and that is always the choice...

Anyway, what isn't clear cut about it? To me it is clear cut, it was an accident, but a crinmal one.

What about an accident makes an accident criminal? Gross neglegence, right? That's the part that isn't clear-cut here. The pilots were told several times that there were no friendlies in the area. You can, of course, say that they should have known better, but that's an opinion with no factual or logical basis different from the opposite opinion. That's pretty much the definition of a toss-up.

I didnt answer it because you didnt ask it, plus I already answered it.

I'm going to frame that! That's priceless!

However I will answer it *again*, NO.
When you are being critizied do you feel that the person critizing you is bashing you?

*I* didn't pilot the plane or carry out the investigation, yet you use the word "you"... That's a pretty good indication that your purpose here is to extend this issue to a general USA-bashing. That, and the general rediculousness of this whole line of discussion.

Did a non-impartial judge look at this case inside the USA?

No - why would an American judge look at this?

Why did the USA not send witnesses? Why were they not wanting to help?

They did send investigatory materials (evidence), but on what basis would the US compell witnesses to go to the UK to participate?

The reason why there won't be a trail is because the USA won't allow it to happen.

And you base that on what...? The family saying they don't want one...?

C'mon - you're just making stuff up here. This is a nothing issue.

The UK is now your enemy?

No - you misread the passage.


[these weren't to me, but they are easy to answer, so I'll take them...]

You obviously don't grasp the idea of unlawful killing. The Military is just like any other job, you have some protection against being killed in an unlawful way.

You obviously aren't applying any criteria to accidental killing. Is every car accident a crime?

 

[russ_watters]

haven't all those crimes been brought to light by news media before the government has even admitted there to be something worth investigating?

Some yes, some no.

i don't think there would be any trials if the government was able to keep a lid on things like they have been trying to.

Some yes, some no.

 

[Evo]

From the evidence provided, this thread has become pointless, if you read the transcript, which has been previously cited, it was an accident. There was no malice. There was no proof of reckless endangerment cited in the article. This discussion has become circular and non-productive.

As has been pointed out by another mentor, there is an additional reason why this thread should have been closed.

1) the thread violates the rule not to cast entire populations under the same prejudicial light when discussing the actions of specific politicians or persons

Pointless threads will from now on be locked or deleted immediately.

Thread closed.