Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   What if Omsa Bin Laden seeks political asylum in Europe? (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78022)

Chewbacca 11-18-2001 10:51 PM

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.

Lifetime 11-19-2001 03:18 AM

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?

Skunk 11-19-2001 04:47 AM

<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.

Ronn_Bman 11-19-2001 07:38 PM

<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>

Chewbacca 11-19-2001 09:32 PM

<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.

Skunk 11-20-2001 07:23 PM

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...

Skunk 11-20-2001 07:40 PM

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...

Ryanamur 11-21-2001 09:00 AM

<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>

Ryanamur 11-21-2001 09:20 AM

<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>

Ronn_Bman 11-21-2001 09:38 AM

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>


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved