Skip to main content

View Diary: The public has spoken on Syria. Perhaps "growled" more then spoken. (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The rules we, the human race, have collectively (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots

    agreed on are clear that the President requires approval from both Congress and the UN before acting, so you are good with that, right?

    They are clear that the Iraq war was an illegal war and that many members of his administration should be arrested and tried for war crimes.  You are good with that, right?

    They are clear that many members of Congress committed a war crime by approving the AUMF.  You are good with that, right?

    They are clear that many U.S. soldiers participating in that illegal war are war criminals because following orders is no defense.  

    You are good with all of that, right?  Just checking.

    My clear impression was that the Navy intended us to know our obligations under the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Nuremberg Conventions. These Conventions have legal standing as US law due to their having been ratified by our Senate.

    If the war is acknowledged as illegal that means admitting that everyone who participates in it, plans it, or orders it is a war criminal.

    This is what the Nuremburg Conventions demand. One cannot be excused from illegal acts simply because one was ordered to commit those acts. We are all moral beings, even in the military, and as such have a legal and moral obligation to refuse to participate in War Crimes. And yet tens of thousands of military personal, not to mention the entire military command up to the president, are by definition War Criminals.  Common Dreams

    Principle VI

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

     (a) Crimes against peace:
       (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

       (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). Nuremberg Principles

    Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

    The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." War of aggression

    On 16 September 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." Iraq War
    The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. Nuremberg Principles
    •  I have not, nor has my country, agreed to (0+ / 0-)

      go out and enforce every ruling of the Hague.  I do not, nor would I, nor I will agree, to the idea that every time a mysterious atrocity happens in a far corner of the globe, it is our job to go attack.

      I think the Hague should look into crimes.  I think we should look into them too.  I do not think that at this point, we have a lcear understanding what happened.

      I'm not okay with much of anything you said in your post.  There is a far distance between saying somebody committed a war of aggression and saying that we are then ready to go mobilize over it.  We never agreed to that, and you need to get your head together.

      You are good with all that right?  Just checking.

      Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

      by martianexpatriate on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that we are violently agreeing. (0+ / 0-)
        I do not, nor would I, nor I will agree, to the idea that every time a mysterious atrocity happens in a far corner of the globe, it is our job to go attack.
        Agreed.
        There is a far distance between saying somebody committed a war of aggression and saying that we are then ready to go mobilize over it.
        Agreed.  And the "somebody" that commited a war of aggression that I am referring to is the United States.

        I was replying to VelvetElvis, upthread.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site