If he wouldnt be tried in a international military court, it seems odd that military forces are being used to destroy him and his orginization.

Most evidence in a hypothetical case is military top secret, and no jury or panel of trained jugdes has reviewed it.

I am an American and I will not give up my belief in a civilized, democratic process of justice, no matter what. Innocent until proven guilty, either your with us or your not.

A possible update to this..
I just saw on CNN that the US govt. has in place a secret military court for Terrorists, in which they can be detained and executed on grounds more flexible than civilian courts (elements like hearsay etc can be figured into the equation).
The summary was that the US govt had the power to detain and execute aliens without trial in secret as a way to crack down on terrorism. Is that what a democratic nation does?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

The difference is intent. Purposely targeting and killing civilians is completely different from their accidental deaths in combat. Completely, totally, and absolutely different.<hr></blockquote>

And that is precisely the point about Osma Bin Laden. When the police are trying to aprehend a suspected murder, they do not have "Shoot to Kill" orders. They are told to use deadly force only if their lives are placed in immediate jeopardy by the subject. Otherwise, they must explore every avenue possible to take the suspect alive.

When was the last time you heard of a police aircraft carrying Hellfire missiles with a 'fire on site' order? Any military unit which deliberately seeks the death of Osma Bin Laden is a DEATH SQUAD. Not better than the Death Squads that inhabit the history of past and present dictatorships.

Maybe this is the reason why the US, like China and Iraq , are refusing to sign up to the International Criminal Court?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
National Review Online's Featured Article June 28
... According to a new Cato Institute report by Gary T. Dempsey, the ICC could prosecute American citizens for the ill-defined crime of "aggression," which presumably outlaws preemptive military strikes and naval blockades...It seems the Court can prosecute Americans for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and "aggression" if the country where these allegedly occur is a member of the ICC. As Dempsey tells NR: "Americans in some foreign land could find themselves arrested and prosecuted by the ICC as soon as the 60 nations necessary to activate the treaty ratify the document."
<hr></blockquote>

So is the US scared that, if it signs the treaty, it won't be able to use Death Squads without fear of prosecution? Is that why it is proudly standing side by side with those other champions of human rights, China, Libya, Iraq and South Korea in attempting to block the creation of the court?

Clinton started moves to sign into the ICC, Bush is blocking it. I really hope that this is just a partisan glitch and that the United States really believes in Justice and Democracy. Or am I wrong and am I just a victim of a media myth? Somebody clarify this for me.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:


So is the US scared that, if it signs the treaty, it won't be able to use Death Squads without fear of prosecution? Is that why it is proudly standing side by side with those other champions of human rights, China, Libya, Iraq and South Korea in attempting to block the creation of the court?

Clinton started moves to sign into the ICC, Bush is blocking it. I really hope that this is just a partisan glitch and that the United States really believes in Justice and Democracy. Or am I wrong and am I just a victim of a media myth? Somebody clarify this for me.<hr></blockquote>

*for some reason I couldn't quote the first point, but I'll answer it here*

When was the last time you heard of a common criminal killing 5,000 people? Nothing common about Osama, and nothing uncommon about the Hellfire missles fired in his direction.

*2nd point*

The US doesn't use death squads, because if we did, Osama might not be the problem he is today. Political assasinations were outlawed for over 30 years before the current situation, which caused that decision to be reversed. The US isn't standing proudly beside the other nations who opposed it, but as always, we act in our own best interests.

It is hard for American's to accept the idea that Americans, in the military, following orders could be prosecuted by a world civilian court. American soldiers who act against the law are prosectuted at home. For instance, the Marine accused of rape in Japan. Besides, why would American soldiers be prosecuted in a civilian court and not the military court which already exists?

I believe the thought behind our refusal is that we prosocute illegal activity by service men and civilians at home, and the world civilian court should be for those who aren't or can't be prosecuted similarly. For soldiers following orders, why wouldn't the government in question be prosecuted? Should French army soldiers who violate orders be prosecuted by France or by the world? Should Timothy McVeigh have been prosecuted by a world court?

It is also obvious that we believe this would be used by nations as leverage against America relating to specific incidents and in reprisal. Maybe prosecution of the US military personel flying the "spy" plane, over international waters, downed by China? No wait, China's not participating. The fact the world feels it needs the US to "sign on" to give this court validity only re-enforces our feelings. With the anti-American sentiments today, who could blame us...

BTW skunk, I like the way you argue different sides relating to different points on the issue (but really prefer when you argue my side [img]smile.gif[/img] ). That's classy! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lifetime:
A possible update to this..
I just saw on CNN that the US govt. has in place a secret military court for Terrorists, in which they can be detained and executed on grounds more flexible than civilian courts (elements like hearsay etc can be figured into the equation).
The summary was that the US govt had the power to detain and execute aliens without trial in secret as a way to crack down on terrorism. Is that what a democratic nation does?<hr></blockquote>

Unfortunatly, yes. American civil liberties have been compromised for sometime by the drug "war" in particular. The feds already had a foot in the door for years. The fbi and other federal criminal agencies, as well as some state and local, have pushed for search and wiretap regulations (or the lack of) like those enacted in the anti-terror bill for a long time. Besides, what does one expect from an administration that so easily shrugs off diplomatic judicial process in favor of military aggression?

IMO There is no justice with out a fair and public trial with equal representation for accused and accuser, regardless of the crime.

Ahhh Ronn_Bman, we agree broadly on the issues - but the nuances at the end are where seem to depart:

"When was the last time you heard of a common criminal killing 5,000 people? Nothing common about Osama, and nothing uncommon about the Hellfire missles fired in his direction."
Remember that, until this case is heard in a court of law, it is an alleged offense - not a proven one. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of both of our respective justice systems.

"The US doesn't use death squads, because if we did, Osama might not be the problem he is today. Political assasinations were outlawed for over 30 years before the current situation, which caused that decision to be reversed."
Bill Clinton admitted, for the record, that he tried to have Bin Laden assassinated in 1998 - but couldn't find him. If troops are ordered to perform an assassination, then that would be contrary to international law. If troops searching for Osma Bin Laden have been given this order - they are breaking the law. If the spy plane sees OBL, unarmed, standing in a field and shoots and kills him, that would also be against international law. He is an alleged terrorist - not a convicted terrorist.

"It is hard for American's to accept the idea that Americans, in the military, following orders could be prosecuted by a world civilian court. American soldiers who act against the law are prosectuted at home. For instance, the Marine accused of rape in Japan. Besides, why would American soldiers be prosecuted in a civilian court and not the military court which already exists?"
The US sent troops and the CIA to Nicaragua to train the 'Contra rebels' (terrorists) to overthrow the democratically elected government - that was against international law and Nicaragua is still demanding the extradiction of several US citizens. To date, no one has been brought to trial for these actions. No-one ever will, I suspect. Oh and finally, a civilian crime (like rape) should be tried in a civilian court...not behind the closed doors of a military court.
That's fair for both accuser and accused.

"I believe the thought behind our refusal is that we prosocute illegal activity by service men and civilians at home, and the world civilian court should be for those who aren't or can't be prosecuted similarly."
Well, as I said, those training and arming the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua have not been prosecuted at home. Should a country harbouring these sorts of people refuse to hand them over for trial, then the International Criminal Court will issue an order for their arrest.

"For soldiers following orders, why wouldn't the government in question be prosecuted? Should French army soldiers who violate orders be prosecuted by France or by the world? Should Timothy McVeigh have been prosecuted by a world court?"
Weellllll.... it was established during the Nuremburg trials that it is no defense to simply state "I was merely following orders". If you, as a soldier are asked to perform an action which is contrary to international law (as also stated in the Vienna Convention), then it is your duty to refuse to obey that unlawful order.
I like your analogy of the French soldiers because it brings to mind an example of French military 'indiscretion'. Remember the illegal sinking of that Greenpeace ship by French military intelligence ops a few years back. Obviously, the French government was not going to prosecute them - but they got caught in New Zealand and the courts there prosecuted and jailed them.
In any event, international law states that the accused is tried in the country within whose jurisdiction the crime was alleged to have taken place...

Finally Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil. US laws on disclosure and press behaviour allowed him to have a fair trial within the US justice system. So it was right for him to be tried in the US.
But in the case of OBL, well for the reasons I highlighted in the very first post of this thread, he would be unlikely to be given anything like a fair trial in the US - his case would really belong with the ICC...

I seem to be sitting on both sides of the wall here. I am yelling alongside the 'anti-war protesters': "Justice not revenge". But unlike them, I feel that it is right to use limited armed force to bring the perpetrators to trial.

Much of the worlds legal system is based on Roman law. Shame that the Roman empire fell as a result of its failure to adhere to its own laws...

Almost forgot to mention.
The concept of the International Criminal Court remains alive and well. It has been much hindered by the US decision not to ratify the court but not stopped. 46 countries have so far fully ratified the Rome statute of the ICC - the court needs 60 ratifications.

As soon as the magic 60 ratifications occur, the UN will declare it a permanenant and irrevocable body which all nations will have to obey and will be subject to - regardless of whether they accept it or not (just like the war crimes tribunals).

It may take another 5-10 years without the US, but it will happen and US citizens (just like anyone else) will have to answer to any charges levelled against them by the court...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:

As soon as the magic 60 ratifications occur, the UN will declare it a permanenant and irrevocable body which all nations will have to obey and will be subject to - regardless of whether they accept it or not (just like the war crimes tribunals).

<hr></blockquote>

Now, I'm very curious to see how that would play out. The US is strong on imposing UN treaties and sanction on other nations that didn't sign them (International War Tribunal is one of those exemple). Now, I would be surprised that even if the UN declared that the Internation Civil Tribunal (whatever its called) applied to the US that the US would refuse to recognise it's power over the US soil and citizens caught in international affairs... sorry, I really doubt that the US would accept it.

After all, the US dictate international law, they don't have it imposed on them [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


The difference is intent. Purposely targeting and killing civilians is completely different from their accidental deaths in combat. Completely, totally, and absolutely different. You are a sensible ( at least for the most part ;) ),educated man, and you know the difference, whether or not you admit it.

...

The definition of collateral damage doesn't apply to September 11th, while it does apply to innocent Afghan civilians killed in the 6 weeks of attacks.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Again, we dissagree. I was a military officer of over 9 years. It's funny but as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned if a military action will kill innocent civilians, the action should not take place! It's that simple. Now, let's just use the case of the dam. US intelligence could have anticipated that a flood would have followed the destruction of the dam and that it could have killed civilians that lived in the valey. Therefore, the dam is OFF-target. If you knowingly bomb the dam and a tidal wave follows, you had the intent to kill civilians. So, by the Geneva convention, the crew of the plane that bombed the dam up to the highest level of authority that gave the order to bomb the dam and who bears responsibility in this action(arguably the President of the USA because, as the Commander-in-Chief, he's the one responsible for all military actions), could be up for charges in the International War Tribunal.

I know it's sounds crazy but think of it this way. You're a guy who just happened to have too much to drink and you drive your car home. On the way home, you hit and kill two kids that were playing in the street. As far as the law is concerned, you are up for murder charges (at least here in Canada) because you knew that drinking and driving was a big no-no and you still did it. It is argued that by driving your car, knowing that because you drank you had lower reflexes and you weren't fully "there" that you had the intent to kill...even if you really didn't have the intent! It's intent by association of actions!

For your second point. According to your logic, it could very well be argued that the 7000 dead of 9-11 were indeed collateral victims. Yes, in the past, Osama did invite all muslims to kill as many Americans as possible. However, if they don't have any evidence where he says that in this attack they must kill as many Americans as possible, it can be argued that really it wasn't Osama's intent in this attack. If he stand up and says our goal was to destroy those two towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol because they are symbols of opression, unless they have hard evidence where he says "in the process, make sure that you kill as many civilians as possible", he could well walk free under your so-called intent clause that you invoque. I'm not saying that he should, only that he could. I know its presposterous idea, but unfortunately that's the way it is. :(

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

Originally posted by Skunk:

Remember that, until this case (against Osama) is heard in a court of law, it is an alleged offense - not a proven one. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of both of our respective justice systems.

He is an alleged terrorist - not a convicted terrorist.

He is an admitted terrorist.

The US sent troops and the CIA to Nicaragua to train the 'Contra rebels' (terrorists) to overthrow the democratically elected government - that was against international law and Nicaragua is still demanding the extradiction of several US citizens. To date, no one has been brought to trial for these actions. No-one ever will, I suspect.

Then the US should be charged with the crime, not the grunts in the field. This is why Americans think it would be used for leverage against unpopular US actions. Charging an individual soldier who might be captured because no recourse to an action by the US is thought availible isn't really justice is it? Sadam Hussein isn't brought before an international military court, but an individual US soldier might be? This is wrong.

Weellllll.... it was established during the Nuremburg trials that it is no defense to simply state "I was merely following orders". If you, as a soldier are asked to perform an action which is contrary to international law (as also stated in the Vienna Convention), then it is your duty to refuse to obey that unlawful order.

A General or commanding officer saying they were following orders and a soldier in the field saying it are two entirely different things as was proven by the Nuremburg trials. The entire German army was not tried even though each member violated those laws, but instead, those in command and those who took particular pleasure in killing thousands and millions of innocents were tried. Following orders for the rank and file soldiers in the field was the reason they were not tried.

...in the case of OBL, well for the reasons I highlighted in the very first post of this thread, he would be unlikely to be given anything like a fair trial in the US - his case would really belong with the ICC...

He shouldn't be tried in the US because no matter how fair the trial might be, both allies and enemies would see his conviction as a predetermined outcome, and if he were found not guilty it would be our incompetence. It's a no win situation.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
Almost forgot to mention.
The concept of the International Criminal Court remains alive and well. It has been much hindered by the US decision not to ratify the court but not stopped. 46 countries have so far fully ratified the Rome statute of the ICC - the court needs 60 ratifications.

As soon as the magic 60 ratifications occur, the UN will declare it a permanenant and irrevocable body which all nations will have to obey and will be subject to - regardless of whether they accept it or not (just like the war crimes tribunals).

It may take another 5-10 years without the US, but it will happen and US citizens (just like anyone else) will have to answer to any charges levelled against them by the court...<hr></blockquote>

But since the UN is an organization without "teeth" how realistic is it to believe it will work even if the US joins the effort?

Sadam Hussein continues to flout the UN's authority. If he isn't brought to trial before a military court how can anyone possible justify bringing someone before any international court. Do you only prosecute those who are easy to find? Those who won't cause an incident? A US businessman traveling abroad who has violated an international enviromental law not endorsed by the US could be taken to trial, while Saddam Hussein continues to create and stockpile biological weapons? Is that justice?

These little wrinkles really have to be worked out before there is ever any hope of this court working, whether or not 60 nations sign on.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

In the case of the US it would be politically disasterous to flout an international court. How on earth could the US claim to be the beacon of democracy and justice if it refused to send accused people to trial?

And the UN does have teeth to bite with. No, we don't have Saddam Hussein - but he and Iraq are literarlly paying the price with both international assets being seized and a commercial blockade in place.
Hell, he can't buy anything from anyone without the UN approving.

If the US or anyone else were to risk this, the cost would be equally enormous and the longterm damage (as companies lose out to their foreign rivals) would be equally unpleasant.

How bad would this be? Take for example the impact on trade with just the European Union. So far to date (within this financial year), the US has imported some $44 billion dollars worth of goods from the EU. But! it has exported $121 billion dollars worth of goods to the EU.
](source: US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce)

Clearly, the loser would be the US and if the delay was longterm (more than two weeks) there is a real risk that Asian companies would fill the gap... That is real biting power.

In the end however, cases like the example you cited are unlikely to occur. I can't see the US not handing over this fictional business man (unless it was to a corrupt regime). No, where the US might be less enthusiastic is probably in the realm of something to do with covert ops...

And I really think that the existence of this body would be good for the US. You see, when it comes to domestic civil rights the US, with a few exceptions, is really quite exemplary. But, on the foreign scene the US is not above being extremely underhand. And, contrary to popular US belief, it is not jealousy of 'fat rich America' that drives the hatred of the US - its these dual standards applied between US citizens and foreigners and the near constant covert interference within external sovereign states. The ICC would probably make those responsible think twice before 'dealing dirty'.

The creation of this military court for foreign terrorists is a good example of these dual standards. And the Bush administration has seemingly forgotten that is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This military court clearly breaches the declaration:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Article 7.
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
<hr></blockquote>

Don't get me wrong. My last few posts may appear to be 'US Bashing'. That is NOT the intention - I still count the US as my natural ally. I just think that there is a gulf between what foreigners think about the US and why, and what US citizens themselves think the reasons for this 'anti-US' feeling is all about.

If it was all about 'rich and poor', why are all those fanatics not shouting "EU out!", "Kill the EU", "We hate the Swiss!", "French go home"...?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
In the case of the US it would be politically disasterous to flout an international court. How on earth could the US claim to be the beacon of democracy and justice if it refused to send accused people to trial?

And the UN does have teeth to bite with. No, we don't have Saddam Hussein - but he and Iraq are literarlly paying the price with both international assets being seized and a commercial blockade in place.
Hell, he can't buy anything from anyone without the UN approving.

If the US or anyone else were to risk this, the cost would be equally enormous and the longterm damage (as companies lose out to their foreign rivals) would be equally unpleasant.

How bad would this be? Take for example the impact on trade with just the European Union. So far to date (within this financial year), the US has imported some $44 billion dollars worth of goods from the EU. But! it has exported $121 billion dollars worth of goods to the EU.
](source: US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce)

Clearly, the loser would be the US and if the delay was longterm (more than two weeks) there is a real risk that Asian companies would fill the gap... That is real biting power.

In the end however, cases like the example you cited are unlikely to occur. I can't see the US not handing over this fictional business man (unless it was to a corrupt regime). No, where the US might be less enthusiastic is probably in the realm of something to do with covert ops...

And I really think that the existence of this body would be good for the US. You see, when it comes to domestic civil rights the US, with a few exceptions, is really quite exemplary. But, on the foreign scene the US is not above being extremely underhand. And, contrary to popular US belief, it is not jealousy of 'fat rich America' that drives the hatred of the US - its these dual standards applied between US citizens and foreigners and the near constant covert interference within external sovereign states. The ICC would probably make those responsible think twice before 'dealing dirty'.

Don't get me wrong. My last few posts may appear to be 'US Bashing'. That is NOT the intention - I still count the US as my natural ally. I just think that there is a gulf between what foreigners think about the US and why, and what US citizens themselves think the reasons for this 'anti-US' feeling is all about.

If it was all about 'rich and poor', why are all those fanatics not shouting "EU out!", "Kill the EU", "We hate the Swiss!", "French go home"...?<hr></blockquote>

I don't think you're US bashing, and I do understand the reasons a world civilian court would be good. But I also understand our reasons for not submitting to a court without being satisfied with the parameters.

The UN really doesn't have teeth unless someone, not always the US, is willing to step up, take the lead, and put troops in theater. We don't have Saddam because the UN was afraid of the reaction in the Middle East if we chased the Iraqis back to Baghdad. UN inspectors haven't been allowed in Iraq for 3 years since they were refused access to selected sites even though they are still under sanctions and agreed to submit. What is the UN doing about that? Since it's been 3 years, and they still refuse I'd say not enough. Iraq continually flaunts UN sanctions, but what do people say? That the US is starving Iraqi children. When improved anti-aircraft sites in Iraq were recently taken out because they were against the sanctions, and as a safety measure for allied aircraft, the US takes the heat not the UN. The UN is just being used by the US against Iraq.

A couple of days ago, the US caught a dilapidated Iraqi ship trying to illegally transport oil out of the controlled zone. They frequently do this and later combine their cargo with a legitimate ship's which makes it virtually untraceable. This gives them disposable income the UN can't touch. With US soldiers onboard, the ship began to sink because it was overloaded and was unseaworthy to begin with. Two US soldiers and six crewmen from the ship are still missing and presumed dead, but what did I hear on the news from Iraq and the Middle East? It wasn't their fault, the US did it.

If the UN and the world expects more from the US, they'll have to start providing more. We also believe there is a double standard. We have to look after our interests. I'm not down-playing the help we're receiving in Afghanistan or inappreciative, but speaking in general. The world thinks the US operates on a double standard, and the US thinks the world wants to hold us to a different standard. The world may have become tired of the US's views, but the US is rapidly becoming tired of the world's view of US.

I still don't understand why covert operation teams would be tried in a civilian court? Why would they be held responsible, and not the US if the act was illegal? Because picking up a stray US soldier would be a deterant to future US actions? A way to make an example of the US. The international civilian court would make sense for use against international industrial spying or sabatoge, but against soldiers, acting on the orders of their government, it does not make sense. Even at Nuremburg, the government was held responsible first.

Don't think money will make US turn over citizians. While you didn't mean it this way, it *smacks* of blackmail. If you want to talk about the civilian court, talk about using it to try civilians. If you want to talk about soldiers, talk about the military court, but if you really want to talk about blame for a US soldier's actions, look to the US government and impose sanctions or whatever else you think is necessary. Trying to making an example out of a US citizian because it is thought it's the only way to make the US government "take notice" isn't really justice is it? It certainly won't lead to a productive world atmosphere.

Bush's proposed military tribunals are not finalized, and are still under Congressional review. What about the rights of those killed on September 11th? 5,000 died without their rights, and those who did it, and those who aided them in their efforts, should be given theirs if taken to trial. Most of the German's who closed the doors on the gas chambers day in and day out didn't get that lucky, they got "field" justice. Wrong? Maybe, maybe not. War is Hell!

Ultimately, when it comes to our security at home, we have to take care of ourselves. We want cooperation from our allies, and we want them to understand our reasoning and approve of it, but we can't wait for the world to decide if how we protect ourselves is ok. When attacked, we do have the right to retaliate and take defensive measures. If all lives are of equal value, then the value of the many is larger than the value of the few.

I do believe many of those against our actions in Afghanistan would feel differently if their country was the one attacked by terrorists. No doubt some would blame it on US anyway. The attitude I hate is that it's always our fault (not that you've given that impression because you haven't). God forbid, but if terrorists attack anyother city on the level of September 11th, there are those who would place more blame on the US because of our actions in Afghanistan than against the terrorists.

I've never been involved in the rich vs poor debate here in the War Forum because I don't agree with it. It's over power and influence. It's good to know there are others being protested against, but I have to admit, most of what I've seen in the news (including international programs and online sites) focuses on the US.

Skunk, this rant [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] is not aimed at you. You and I see "eye to eye" more often than not, and I respect your opinions but, in this particular case, have to strongly disagree.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Originally posted by Skunk:

The creation of this military court for foreign terrorists is a good example of these dual standards. And the Bush administration has seemingly forgotten that is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This military court clearly breaches the declaration:

Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
Article 7.
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

I think if you'll look at the rest of this, you'll find that the UN has basically done nothing in the last 50 years. It has merely been an umbrella different nations have used to act under, sometimes alone, sometimes together, for mutual benefit, at different times.

Read very carefully all of those rights from that link, and then look at the list of member nations. ;) This is the perfect example of the double standard the US believes it is expected to live up to.

The US will refuse to be "arbitrarily" singled out. Sanctions? If Iraqi can survive this "deadly" UN force, the US certainly can.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


"When improved anti-aircraft sites in Iraq were recently taken out because they were against the sanctions, and as a safety measure for allied aircraft, the US takes the heat not the UN."
British planes have done the same and also took the heat for it too. But that's unavoidable since there are not that many countries willing to really commit their armed forces on the scale of the US and British forces.

"I still don't understand why covert operation teams would be tried in a civilian court? Why would they be held responsible, and not the US if the act was illegal? Because picking up a stray US soldier would be a way to make an example of the US."
I wasn't talking about soldiers. There is already an International War Crimes Court which could deal with such people, here in the Netherlands. As for trying a soldier - the grounds for doing so are, as I mentioned before, that a soldier has a duty under international law to refuse to obey an illegal order. We sent many a german to the firing squad on those grounds after WWII.
Actually, I was referring to other parties often involved in such actions, from the CIA to those contracted by the CIA - even to a head of state. The Pinochet drama (not so long ago) has now set a precedent that an ex-head of state can be prosecuted for crimes committed whilst in power.

"Don't think money will make US turn over citizians. That sounds alot like blackmail."
I doubt if it will. But it might (in future) make it think twice about doing anything contrary to international law or the treaties to which it is a signatory.[/i]

"I do believe many of those against our actions would feel differently if they had been attacked by terrorists instead of the US."
Europe has been a hot bed of terrorism since the 16th century. But on a more recent note, the Spanish are severely plagued by ETA (who love killing journalists that don't agree with them), Britain and the IRA is unforgettable etc etc

"No doubt some would blame it on US anyway."
As long as the US is willing to put its money where its mouth is and commit its armed forces in the role of international policeman, that view will continue be held by some. And I hope that the US does not back away from that committment (which it was slowly beginning to do prior to Sept 11th.) Its work in that area is a little too valuable. Hopefully things will ease up as and when the Europeans finally get their 'European Army' together.

In the end, there are always full time protesters (Rebels without a cause) who will happily criticise everything the US does. They exist both in the US and Europe. I had quite a laugh when I saw the first anti-war protesters carrying their banners "Justice not revenge". I mean, the whole war is about Justice. If anyone had wanted revenge, they would have just bombed downtown Kabul and leveled it...

I guess I see the US like a police station. Most people see the need and respect the officers who put their lives on the line for the good of the community. But we don't want them to beat out confessions or plant evidence on the criminals either. The police should be accountable too. And all it needs is a couple of corrupt or unlawful actions on the part of a couple of officers to bring the whole force into disrepute. Ask the LA Police dept...

All I'm saying is that people have a long memory for the bad things and a short memory for the good. Reputations are easily lost and hard (but not impossible) to reclaim. The ICC might help to put future foreign and 'intelligence' policy on probabation - which will almost certainly help the US to slowly win the propaganda war. And *that* war is crucial to the current 'War on Terrorism'...

While you were replying, I actually edited and softened a few things and added some points. My posts and the works of Tolkien are only similar in that they always need revision...lol.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>[qb]Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
This is the perfect example of the double standard the US believes it is expected to live up to.
QB]<hr></blockquote>

That isn't my point. I'm not saying that the US should ignore threats to its national security.

No, without going all christian on you (I'm not religious), my point is to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. And I'm certainly not saying 'turn the other cheek' 'cause experience has taught me that path gives you two black eyes instead of one. So by all means, have an active intelligence community monitoring every possible enemy. And if you have strong evidence of terrorists planning another 9-11 attack, go ahead and apprehend them and use deadly force if they don't give themselves up.

No, the point I'm trying to say is that there is a fine line between an ethical policy like the above and a non-ethical policy (like Nicaragua) where the action was taken to destabilise a regime that the US didn't like.
Should Europe have funded terrorists to destabilise Austria when it formed a government that included the Austrian facist party? Or should we just say, well that's democracy in action and, as long as they do not implement any racist policies we'll keep our nose out of their domestic affairs?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
the point I'm trying to say is that there is a fine line between an ethical policy like the above and a non-ethical policy (like Nicaragua) where the action was taken to destabilise a regime that the US didn't like.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not saying we always do the right thing, my point is that the UN should hold the US responsible and not it's soldiers. I don't just believe this true for the US.

I don't believe Iraqi soldiers are "guilty" in the invasion of Kuwait, but I do hold those who raped and tortured to a different standard. This was the standard of Nuremburg.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:

All I'm saying is that people have a long memory for the bad things and a short memory for the good. Reputations are easily lost and hard (but not impossible) to reclaim. The ICC might help to put future foreign and 'intelligence' policy on probabation - which will almost certainly help the US to slowly win the propaganda war. And *that* war is crucial to the current 'War on Terrorism'...<hr></blockquote>

This is 100% true [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:

Europe has been a hot bed of terrorism since the 16th century. But on a more recent note, the Spanish are severely plagued by ETA (who love killing journalists that don't agree with them), Britain and the IRA is unforgettable etc etc <hr></blockquote>

My intent was not to belittle those injustices. Europe has suffered from terrorism much more frequently than the US and has suffered a larger total loss in life over time, but no nation has been affected in a single attack on the level of September 11th. The level of the terrorist's attack is what I was talking about.

45 minutes and 5,000 dead is a record I hope no one ever breaks! The world needs to come together and end this here and now.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I'm not saying we always do the right thing, my point is that the UN should hold the US responsible and not it's soldiers. I don't just believe this true for the US.

I don't believe Iraqi soldiers are "guilty" in the invasion of Kuwait, but I do hold those who raped and tortured to a different standard. This was the standard of Nuremburg.<hr></blockquote>

Now I understand why we seemed so at odds. We're not at all- we just weren't making our respective points clearly enough. No, I'm talking about the kind of grunts involved in the My Lai Massacre - not the ordinary soldier who conducts the business of war with ethics. (and lets face it, in the case of My Lai, it was clearly a political decision to only prosecute a lowly lieutenant for the actions of a whole company of soldiers).

If the war itself is wrong, then the government/country itself should be prosecuted. This is already possible via the International Court of Justice (click here for a list of all cases handled by this institution since 1946). Note that Yugoslavia tried to get the bombing stopped via this institution (without success).

BYB, in the case of Nuremburg - it was a trial for high ranking officers. But subsequently other trials tooks place for 'war crimes' which included the prosecution of several prison guards who had newly arrived at the death camps and who were not accused of any direct violation of human rights. These men were *still* convicted because they witnessed the atrocities and did nothing to prevent them. To quote the latin tag:
quod non prohibet cum potest, jubet - what a man does not forbid when he can, he orders.

Maybe that is a little unfair - but complacency is a crime in many western countries, including Britain. It does not mean that, if there are 20 soldiers and your the only one to disagree that you open fire on the others - the law recognises that you must do what is *possible* to prevent a crime (not commit suicide), but you are expected to refuse to perform the action yourself at the risk of imprisonment or even the firing squad.

And I know that this is a very easy thing to say from the comfort of my armchair...

It does seem we agree more than differ, even in this :D