KiraSeer2016

Here's a start:

"The ICC was created by the Rome Treaty in 1998, with jurisdiction to try "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community": genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. In theory, the court was supposed to supplant ad hoc tribunals such as the ones put together to try war criminals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslav republics. In a number of ways, the abuse at Abu Ghraib presents the model ICC case. The defendants hail from one country; the victims from another. The acts were committed during a military occupation following a war of dubious legality. And the acts, at first glance, might constitute war crimes under both the Rome Treaty and the Third Geneva Convention."

"One option that's not on the table would perhaps best serve the interests of global justice: a trial before the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, we cannot avail ourselves of this option, because we have refused to join this new world court. Even more unfortunate, we may nevertheless find ourselves subject to its jurisdiction, trumpeting the message worldwide that American justice is inadequate to punish American criminals."

From an article by Philip Carter on Abu Ghraib and the ICC, in Slate, 2004.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2004/05/do_the_right_thing.html

This is a fact: Unless charges ARE brought before an International Court, whether the U.S. is a signatory or not, how can the world's peoples expect justice in any OTHER subsequent "war crimes" violations or "crimes against humanity"? If the world has an International Court, then it must be used to show that man CAN act in responsible, moral and humanitarian ways.

KiraSeer2016

Remember Abu Ghraib?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

I WILL BE SHOVING IT DOWN YOUR CHILDISH AMERICAN THROATS. AND THEN OVOMIT AND CLINTON WILL BE TRIED BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. BECAUSE IF MAN CANNOT DO THIS, HE IS HARDLY WORTH THE SAVING!!

E

Remember Abu Ghraib?

I do remember Abu Ghraib. Damn you for bringing that back up. Now, I'm going to take a dump and hopefully forget you and that topic. We have more pertinent issues to discuss.

KiraSeer2016

Thought you were on my shit list, E.

Well, now you are.

Do you suppose God wants to vomit America out of his mouth?

And if you were a caring person, you would too. But you are a Christian, am I right?

I just finished telling a good friend of mine that Americans will find excuses, or just tell themselves that it's just not that important. Thanks for proving me right.

Or maybe it's just guilt, repressed.

KiraSeer2016

Bringing charges before the ICC MIGHT just change your mind. But I doubt it....

KiraSeer2016

Do you remember this, when good men acted for the right thing?

"In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts."

KiraSeer2016

Wonder if Global Deep State believes they/it are immune from any justice for the world's peoples?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR1zvvysdB8 "Oh Sinner Man!"

Where you gonna run to? You shoulda been a'prayin'.

rebob14

Achieve humanity??? Good grief!!!! We achieve it daily

KiraSeer2016

You really think so, don't you.

Bye, you are now on my exalted shit list. I don't like either liars---lying to yourself---or deluded people.

KiraSeer2016

For those who are interested, (and this excludes all OPP posters) I am adding more info:

Definition of "Prisoners of War": A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, PsW, enemy prisoner of war (EPW) or "missing-captured"[1]) is a person, whether combatant or non-combatant, who is held in custody by a belligerent power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The earliest recorded usage of the phrase "prisoner of war" dates to 1660. [Wikipedia]----John Hickman, 2008 NOTE: Whether combatant or non-combatant.

Definition of Belligerent: A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "one who wages war".[1] Unlike the use of belligerent as an adjective to mean aggressive, its use as a noun does not necessarily imply that a belligerent country is an aggressor. [Also Wikipedia]

Definition of Armed Conflict: [ICRC]: International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely: · international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and · non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and nongovernmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.



Questioning of Prisoners of War:
Article 17, Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, III, 1949:
ARTICLE 17. -QUESTIONING OF PRISONERS Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the firisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inficted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any ztnpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the p~ovisions of the preceding paragraph. The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
NOTE: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inficted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any ztnpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

But in the case where a Prisoner of War becomes a suspect in certain crimes, the detaining party has similar obligations: [From "Name, Rank, Serial Number and The Right to Remain Silent] file:///C:/Users/fullservice-pe/Downloads/irrc_860_9%20(1).pdf "Selected Articles on International Humanitarian Law"

Secondly, prisoners of war may be questioned so as to establish their personal involvement in certain acts committed before capture, with a view to potentially prosecuting them for unlawful behaviour. With the evolution of international criminal law, the proliferation of international and internationalized criminal tribunals and an increasing incorporation of the respective international crimes into national jurisdictions, the likelihood of investigation of prisoners of war to determine their possible involvement in criminal activities has become much greater. In this connection it should be noted that certain fair trial rights may come into play long before the actual trial commences, for instance the right to be informed of the charges, the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate oneself. Th is raises the question as to the point in time at which a prisoner of war suspected of having committed a crime would start to benefi t from these fair trial provisions.


AND by the way, Bush II: ONE is an isolated incident; TWO are war crimes.

KiraSeer2016

And it is especially sick, because the fair trial rights are, if not an American invention, surely part and parcel of what was once good about America.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

It was all about justifying the war.

KiraSeer2016

What was all about justifying the war? Try to make good connections here, nwtk, because I've about had it with the "great" Americans.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

KiraSeer2016

How could that possibly justify any war? It only justifies the belief that the American military are savages, worse, perhaps then even the armies of Genghis Khan.