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'...
|