NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4399528.stm

Not exactly European, but technically I am correct.

Not exactly European, but technically I am correct.
I call for their heads. It was an accident, but that doesn't excuse not reporting it.
I want those APCs redesigned, and I want the guy who didn't report it go to an Ivory Coast Jail for a few years - killing by negligence.

This is awful! I don't know what went wrong, but obviously the French troops (or European, if you like) went there to suffocate the opposition. Unfortunate casualty of war on terror.


EDIT: Somebody is bound to get me wrong. So I say abomination! and mean it.

Bump.

Bump.
I'm quite surprised not more people jumped at this...I would've thought there are plenty of people who've been waiting for a case like this.

I'm quite surprised not more people jumped at this...I would've thought there are plenty of people who've been waiting for a case like this.
Which raises certain questions.

Thats odd, all the usual characters who jump at the opportunity to decry the war crimes of the "Evil American Stormtroopers" seem to be silent on this one. HHmmmmmmmm............

My opinion? They are innocent until proven guilty in my book, although I believe the French laws are guilty until proven innocent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm quite surprised not more people jumped at this...I would've thought there are plenty of people who've been waiting for a case like this.

Only when it involves American soldiers. When its Europe they tend to turn a blind eye.

Look at the attention this got compared to the one where our marine raped a Phillipino woman.

Only when it involves American soldiers. When its Europe they tend to turn a blind eye.

Look at the attention this got compared to the one where our marine raped a Phillipino woman.
Yeah, I wondered about that. Is it not true when Europe does it or something?

Yeah, I wondered about that. Is it not true when Europe does it or something?

I don't like to throw around accusations but it seems mighty suspicous.

Thats odd, all the usual characters who jump at the opportunity to decry the war crimes of the "Evil American Stormtroopers" seem to be silent on this one. HHmmmmmmmm............

My opinion? They are innocent until proven guilty in my book, although I believe the French laws are guilty until proven innocent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

There's another difference too: no one defended it.

Yeah, I wondered about that. Is it not true when Europe does it or something?
Nah, it's just that you'll see all the usual suspects gloating excessively, rather than seeing 'em turn handsprings leaping to the defense of Americans.

Handsprings beats gloatings hands-down.

Bums on seats, laddy - bums on seats.

They are innocent until proven guilty in my book, although I believe the French laws are guilty until proven innocent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
No problem mate.
You're wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

And you see the usual America defenders bashing the europeans.

Its the usual hypocricy.

And you see the usual America defenders bashing the europeans.

Its the usual hypocricy.

Who? I saw two Europeans call it deplorable... No "Europe bashing" that I can see here.

Who? I saw two Europeans call it deplorable... No "Europe bashing" that I can see here.
Let's see whether we can get it started (I can feel the tension juust under the surface already, can't you?)...
So here goes nothing:

This apparently happened by accident - there's a difference between an accident and a rape!

Who? I saw two Europeans call it deplorable... No "Europe bashing" that I can see here.

People who say bad things about the americans arent saying them about europeans, so they have a double standard. People who defend the americans, aren't defending the europeans.

People who say bad things about the americans arent saying them about europeans, so they have a double standard. People who defend the americans, aren't defending the europeans.

Ah.

Let's see whether we can get it started (I can feel the tension juust under the surface already, can't you?)...
So here goes nothing:

This apparently happened by accident - there's a difference between an accident and a rape!

Both are fucked up. But if it was an accident then why didn't they report it?

People who say bad things about the americans arent saying them about europeans, so they have a double standard. People who defend the americans, aren't defending the europeans.

Nobody bashes the Europeans, so nobody needs to defend them. And surely no one needs to defend the incident.

Both are fucked up. But if it was an accident then why didn't they report it?
Either they were scared of punishment, or too ashamed of themselves to tell anyone.

I'm more worried that this apparently would have to do with the design of the APC, in which case it could happen again. They need to change the rules for detaining people, and quickly.

People who say bad things about the americans arent saying them about europeans, so they have a double standard.
Maybe they're busy baking pumpkin pies.
People who defend the americans, aren't defending the europeans.
Maybe they're busy baking apple pies.

Mmm, pie.

Either they were scared of punishment, or too ashamed of themselves to tell anyone.

Hell. I'm damn sure its not that they're ashamed... they're trained killers for Christs sake! It's probably that they were scared of being punished.

I'm more worried that this apparently would have to do with the design of the APC, in which case it could happen again. They need to change the rules for detaining people, and quickly.

What kind of APC was it?

Maybe they're busy baking pumpkin pies.

Maybe they're busy baking apple pies.

Mmm, pie.

No wonder I havn't taken a side, I prefer cheese cake.

THE REASON NO EUROPEANS HAVE RESPONDED IS BECAUSE IT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT NOW STOP CONGRADULATING YOURSELVES it's kinda annoying.

THE REASON NO EUROPEANS HAVE RESPONDED IS BECAUSE IT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT NOW STOP CONGRADULATING YOURSELVES it's kinda annoying.

You know what else is annoying? Posts with all caps.

I don't get it. What was it about the APC that suffocated the man? In fact, it doesn't go to specify who or what did the killing, only the means. Did they stuff a plastic bag over his head or was it a cramped APC with piss poor ventilation?

The link doesn't provide that much information.

Hell. I'm damn sure its not that they're ashamed... they're trained killers for Christs sake! It's probably that they were scared of being punished.
Well, they were peacekeepers...if they were any good at it, they would make a distinction. It's an important part of being a peacekeeper, to be able to say "For the duration of this mission I am not a soldier - I am not here to fight!"
But I agree, they were most likely scared of being punished.

What kind of APC was it?
The prisoner, Firmin Mahe, "was killed by suffocation by French soldiers in an armoured vehicle" in western Ivory Coast, the Defence Ministry statement said.
Well, it's French so it could only have been either a VAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAB_%28armoured_personnel_carrier%29) or a AMX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10P).
Smaller ones are the VBL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBL), so that may well have been it.

You know what else is annoying? Posts with all caps.
I know, sorry, grabs attention though doesn't it.:)

You know what else is annoying? Posts with all caps.
Ok, I'm laughing now.

Make it stop! The pain! The p-a-a-a-i-n!

Well, they were peacekeepers...if they were any good at it, they would make a distinction. It's an important part of being a peacekeeper, to be able to say "For the duration of this mission I am not a soldier - I am not here to fight!"
But I agree, they were most likely scared of being punished.

"Peacekeeper" is just a nice sounding PC word for occupation force.

No one pwning the French?

I'll try to help.

Ahem. Those French idiots! They're are so stupid. America pwns France. Uhh...etc.

How was that? In your face, or what! ;)

"Peacekeeper" is just a nice sounding PC word for occupation force.
Not to me it ain't. And obviously not to the German army either, if you look at the rules of engagement (namely: "Don't!") for German Forces in Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, German Special Forces have been on a mission as part of the US campaign in Afghanistan, which is seperate from that.

No one pwning the French?

I'll try to help.

Ahem. Those French idiots! They're are so stupid. America pwns France. Uhh...etc.

How was that? In your face, or what! ;)
only one out of ten in france insulting you didn't mention cheese, funny accent or stink. You better go back to insult school!

No one pwning the French?

I'll try to help.

Ahem. Those French idiots! They're are so stupid. America pwns France. Uhh...etc.

How was that? In your face, or what! ;)
Erm... okay, let me take up the opposing side:

Ahh - if it weren't for uhh... (checks story again) ...if it weren't for those damned Ivorians and their filthy Ivorian ways, Africa'd be free to be... ahhh, French again. I guess. Filthy damned dirty non-French bastards! ...or something...

Is that working?

Is that working?
Meh, you could've done (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3567349.stm) better (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989941.stm).

Meh, you could've done better.
*shrugs*

Wait just one damn minute. We (America) gets all this shit because of Iraq, but no one is talkiong about this shit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989941.stm)?

Wait just one damn minute. We (America) gets all this shit because of Iraq, but no one is talkiong about this shit?
Well, better late than never. Hello and welcome, indignant poster. We were wondering when you'd make the rounds.

Well, better late than never. Hello and welcome, indignant poster. We were wondering when you'd make the rounds.

In a world that has already allowed French troops to machinegun several hundred unarmed Ivorians in the street with no international outcry, I'm not surprised.

It only makes headlines when the US does something bad. Everyone else gets a free pass.

In a world that has already allowed French troops to machinegun several hundred unarmed Ivorians in the street with no international outcry, I'm not surprised.

It only makes headlines when the US does something bad. Everyone else gets a free pass.
Yeah, but you're jaded and nonplussed, not indignant, Sierra. There's the difference.

Yeah, but you're jaded and nonplussed, not indignant, Sierra. There's the difference.

Well, I figure half the reason that the US appears in headlines when it screws up is for the same reason that the papparazi chase the royal family. They're not really that important, but their halfwit peccadillos sell copy.

Less than half of the motivation to print that stuff is political - most of it is a matter of keeping up newspaper circulation and news show ratings.

Get people a bad story that makes them outraged about Americans, and you'll sell something.

No one would believe that the French actually kill anyone in any case. If it's not a story about another French surrender, it's not credible.

It only makes headlines when the US does something bad. Everyone else gets a free pass.
It got headlines in Australia when it happened. Maybe you just happen to live in a country that doesn't report news when they're not US-related?

I have said it once and I will say it again.

Relax, it's Africa, nobody cares about Africa.

It is a movie quote but I think it holds quite a bit of truth.

What they just randomly suffocated someone?:confused:

What they just randomly suffocated someone?:confused:

Are you stalking me? :p

Are you stalking me? :p
Would you like me to answer a question with a question?

Would you like me too?;)

What they just randomly suffocated someone?:confused:
Reading the article, I think there are two possible things that could've happened.
a) They purposely killed him by suffocation, ie they sat on him, or pulled a bag over his head or something like that. In which case they need to stand trial for out and out murder. Preferably in Cote-d-Ivoire.

b) They left him in the back of their truck and went for a coffee or something (maybe a bit longer) and switched off the ventilation in there. He suffocated/died from overheating as many kids and dogs do in summer when the parents lock their cars. In which case they need to stand trial for killing by neglect - still in Cote-d-Ivoire.

Leonstein speaks quite correctly. By will or negligence, those soldiers commited homicide, and should be tried by the citizens of Cote d'ivoire.

What part of the article made people here assume that the man's death was an accident?

What part of the article made people here assume that the man's death was an accident?

Of my part, it was wishful thinking :P

Likely, they did killed him on porpose.

No one pwning the French?

I'll try to help.

Ahem. Those French idiots! They're are so stupid. America pwns France. Uhh...etc.

How was that? In your face, or what! ;)

This post gets the official Sdaeriji Seal of Approval. Good show.

Reading the article, I think there are two possible things that could've happened.
a) They purposely killed him by suffocation, ie they sat on him, or pulled a bag over his head or something like that. In which case they need to stand trial for out and out murder. Preferably in Cote-d-Ivoire.

b) They left him in the back of their truck and went for a coffee or something (maybe a bit longer) and switched off the ventilation in there. He suffocated/died from overheating as many kids and dogs do in summer when the parents lock their cars. In which case they need to stand trial for killing by neglect - still in Cote-d-Ivoire.

It's option a. I don't know if they actually intended to kill him, or just to shut him up, being to stupid to realise he would suffocate when you pull a bag over his head. News here insunated the later, though I think it's unlikely.

Reading the article, I think there are two possible things that could've happened.
a) They purposely killed him by suffocation, ie they sat on him, or pulled a bag over his head or something like that. In which case they need to stand trial for out and out murder. Preferably in Cote-d-Ivoire.

b) They left him in the back of their truck and went for a coffee or something (maybe a bit longer) and switched off the ventilation in there. He suffocated/died from overheating as many kids and dogs do in summer when the parents lock their cars. In which case they need to stand trial for killing by neglect - still in Cote-d-Ivoire.

You will notice, of course, that no one is even investigating or charging any of the French soldiers who machinegunned several hundred unarmed Ivorians and left their bodies in the streets.

After a stunt like that, do you think they'll really care about some guy who stifled?

You will notice, of course, that no one is even investigating or charging any of the French soldiers who machinegunned several hundred unarmed Ivorians and left their bodies in the streets.


Just out of curiousity, what where the several hundred Ivorians, as well as the French troops, doing immediately prior to their machinegunning? Depending on your answer, there may be a legitimate reason why no investigation was done.

You will notice, of course, that no one is even investigating or charging any of the French soldiers who machinegunned several hundred unarmed Ivorians and left their bodies in the streets.

After a stunt like that, do you think they'll really care about some guy who stifled?

Self defence is a right of a soldier. And machetes are weapons.

Self defence is a right of a soldier. And machetes are weapons.

Somehow, if Americans shoot armed insurgents who are shooting at US soldiers, people call it "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah".

Somehow, if Americans shoot armed insurgents who are shooting at US soldiers, people call it "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah".

No, people shout at US soldiers that kill innocent iraquis.

Somehow, if Americans shoot armed insurgents who are shooting at US soldiers, people call it "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah".

When I do a google search for "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah" I get an article saying A Marine shot an unarmed insurgent in a Fallujah mosque on Saturday.

What incident were you referring to exactly?

Somehow, if Americans shoot armed insurgents who are shooting at US soldiers, people call it "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah".

Not quite the same location, but I'm sure the Afghani villagers weren't doing anything remotely similar to shooting at anyone when the US forces decided it was a good place to drop some 500lb bombs on their homes in the wee hours of the morning.

When I do a google search for "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah" I get an article saying A Marine shot an unarmed insurgent in a Fallujah mosque on Saturday.

What incident were you referring to exactly?

He was probably as "unarmed" as the Ivorians in the street were.

I would add, however, that unlike Ivory Coast, people don't walk around with explosive vests under their clothing. That sort of thing tends to make you nervous, especially if you're looking to get that last oak leaf cluster on your longevity ribbon, or hoping to live long enough to get home again.

He was probably as "unarmed" as the Ivorians in the street were.

I would add, however, that unlike Ivory Coast, people don't walk around with explosive vests under their clothing. That sort of thing tends to make you nervous, especially if you're looking to get that last oak leaf cluster on your longevity ribbon, or hoping to live long enough to get home again.

They can be fanatic, but they are not stupid; In fallujah, the insurgents fought a house to house battle with the US. Could you please explain to me what kind of foot soldier would take an explosive vest into the middle of a firefight?

They can be fanatic, but they are not stupid; In fallujah, the insurgents fought a house to house battle with the US. Could you please explain to me what kind of foot soldier would take an explosive vest into the middle of a firefight?

They did it in Fallujah. Some of them pretended to surrender, only to blow themselves up. So it made the Marines rather suspicious of those who were wounded or had given up. Until you searched someone in detail, you didn't know.

Some even pretended to be dead, and blew themselves up.

The Marine who shot the unarmed, wounded insurgent on the floor thought the man was playing possum, and reaching for something in his shirt. This same Marine, having been wounded previously in the day by a man doing the same thing in blowing himself up, had every reason to suspect that in the next second or so, he might be killed. So he shot him.

And he was cleared by the investigation.

They did it in Fallujah. Some of them pretended to surrender, only to blow themselves up. So it made the Marines rather suspicious of those who were wounded or had given up. Until you searched someone in detail, you didn't know.

Some even pretended to be dead, and blew themselves up.

The Marine who shot the unarmed, wounded insurgent on the floor thought the man was playing possum, and reaching for something in his shirt. This same Marine, having been wounded previously in the day by a man doing the same thing in blowing himself up, had every reason to suspect that in the next second or so, he might be killed. So he shot him.

And he was cleared by the investigation.

One thing is "pretend to surrender", other is being wonded and being shot (The guy was just moaning in the floor, in didn't even say "I surrender").

And offcourse he was cleared by the investigation! American foot soldiers only get accused of anything when they are to serve as escape goats for their superiors.

This'll be good for maintaining the peace. They should be made an example of, if only so that the Ivorians don't get the impression that such behaviour is tolerated.

By the way, your title is incorrect. While I'm sure that in America the European Union is regarded as a single, sovereign entity, it's not quite that far gone just yet. A lot of people would actually be insulted by the suggestion, just as an Irishman would be insulted if you called Ireland part of Britain. "French soldiers kill people without trial? The suffocate apparently" is what you were meaning to say, I'm sure.

Yeah, I wondered about that. Is it not true when Europe does it or something?

This post was made at 3am GMT, I would like to point out. I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I was in bed asleep at that time. And then when I woke up, I went to work. Yeah, we have jobs too. I'm still at work, in fact, but it's quiet here on A Friday afternoon.

One thing is "pretend to surrender", other is being wonded and being shot (The guy was just moaning in the floor, in didn't even say "I surrender").

And offcourse he was cleared by the investigation! American foot soldiers only get accused of anything when they are to serve as escape goats for their superiors.

There were those who were wounded who blew themselves up. As was the case with the first wounded insurgent this Marine ran into earlier in the day.

If that had happened to me, I'm sure I would have put insurance rounds into every body I passed.

BTW, insurance rounds are legal in wartime.

Most of the fighters who remained in Fallujah to fight intended to die in place - and take as many Marines as possible with them.

This title is too funny :D. "Soldiers kill people without trial :p" Yeah, they tend to do that :p.

Though I have to say, killing unarmed people is kinda bad :p.

There were those who were wounded who blew themselves up. As was the case with the first wounded insurgent this Marine ran into earlier in the day.

If that had happened to me, I'm sure I would have put insurance rounds into every body I passed.

BTW, insurance rounds are legal in wartime.

Most of the fighters who remained in Fallujah to fight intended to die in place - and take as many Marines as possible with them.

I still would like to see a reference for your claim that:

Somehow, if Americans shoot armed insurgents who are shooting at US soldiers, people call it "shooting innocent Iraqis in Fallujah".

And it would be nice if someone could find an article about this French/Ivorian incident.

I still would like to see a reference for your claim that:


You could go to the al-Jazeera website and read that for yourself. There are plenty of anti-US web pages on the subject of Fallujah that have that slant.

During the actual battle, the US took the hospital building first. Largely because the insurgents were both firing from a marked hospital building, and using it to tend their own. And using it to store large amounts of ammunition.

The Arab press played it as though US forces had entered an unarmed hospital and was going around shooting sick women and children.

You will notice, of course, that no one is even investigating or charging any of the French soldiers who machinegunned several hundred unarmed Ivorians and left their bodies in the streets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989941.stm
This is the link you quoted, so I assume this is what you are talking about.
The French troops have moved at least 80 people to safer locations in Abidjan since supporters of President Laurent Gbagbo went on the rampage.
Paris has denied official charges that its forces killed at least 15 protesters in the riots.
Thousands of people armed with machetes and clubs have been roaming the streets, setting up roadblocks of burning tyres.
This is actually the closest thing to your claim here. It says nothing about machinegunning hundreds, nor about them being unarmed. You'll also notice that the very same rioters had been hunting for Europeans for a few days.
And the Ivorian Airforce actually bombed the French, who responded with destroying it.
The allegations are worth investigating, but until you actually post a link or something substantiating your allegations, they are exactly that - unfounded allegations.

After a stunt like that, do you think they'll really care about some guy who stifled?
It would be assumed that this guy is a prisoner, which would give him still other rights than those people who storm at French positions as part of a violent mob.

I see no such defense on your part for American soldiers who shoot at insurgents.

I see no such defense on your part for American soldiers who shoot at insurgents.

Maybe because it's not the right thread for it? :rollseyes:

You haven't supported your allegations yet though.

Maybe because it's not the right thread for it? :rollseyes:

You haven't supported your allegations yet though.

That's because I ran a thread on the French shooting unarmed protesters back when it happened, and had links to AFP.

What, links to news sources don't last forever on the Internet? Perish forbid! :rolleyes:

The evil Imperial French Stormtroopers must pull out of Ivory Coast! It is an illegal war and all the soldiers should be put on trial for crimes against humanity! The French military should be 100% taken apart! FRANCE = THE GREAT SATAN!


I like how if this thread was about a US Marine it would have 20 pages by now. :)

That's because I ran a thread on the French shooting unarmed protesters back when it happened, and had links to AFP.

What, links to news sources don't last forever on the Internet? Perish forbid! :rolleyes:

Do you at least have a timeline of when it occured? You aren't really helping your case here.

Do you at least have a timeline of when it occured? You aren't really helping your case here.

It happened on a single day. AFP reported the protesters as unarmed Ivorians - not machete wielding rioters. The Ivorians were over 300 yards away when the French troops opened fire.

There used to be videos of it here:
http://radioci.embaci.com/englishdownload/frenchsoldiershootingcivilians1.mpg

and here:
http://radioci.embaci.com/englishdownload/frenchsoldiersshootingcivilians2.mpg

but they aren't there anymore.

U.S. Marine shoots a "wounded insurgeant" playing dead: A war crime as horrible as My Lai that should be brought before the Hague.

French soldier shoots unarmed civilians in broad daylight: Business as usual and nothing that the Hague should concern itself over.

By Jon Boyle

PARIS (Reuters) - France acknowledged on Thursday that French troops under investigation for the death of an Ivorian civilian did not act in self defence, contradicting the previous official version of events.

Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie on Monday suspended three soldiers, including the former commander of French peacekeepers in Ivory Coast, as part of a military probe into an alleged possible cover-up over the May 15 killing.

Two days after the death, France said its troops had returned fire after coming under attack by a known highway gang leader wanted for rape. Detained with serious wounds, the man named Mahe died from his injuries on his way to hospital.

"The facts, as they have been gathered by the command's inquiry, have established that, contrary to what was said at the time, there was no legitimate defence," Defence Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau told a regular news briefing.

Colonel Gerard Dubois, a spokesman for the French armed forces staff, said Mahe "had been apprehended and was being transferred to the town of Man", in western Ivory Coast, at the time of his death.

Alliot-Marie on Monday suspended four-star General Henri Poncet, who commanded French peacekeepers at the time of the shooting. Similar action was taken against the non-commissioned officer commanding soldiers involved in the death, and his commanding officer.

Bureau confirmed the soldiers involved in the patrol remained on duty pending further inquiries.

HAIL OF BULLETS

According to the Le Figaro newspaper, which did not name its sources, French troops spotted the gang leader while on patrol. As the suspect fled across nearby fields, they fired 650 rounds, leaving him for dead.

Seriously wounded, he was discovered by local villagers who carried him to the roadside, where he succumbed to his wounds.

Asked about the report, Bureau said it was up to the criminal investigation to establish the precise sequence of events. But the investigation showed "that the circumstances are serious, that the facts are serious.

"If the examining magistrate has launched an investigation on the basis of a charge of voluntary homicide, that is not anodyne," he said.

Parallel to the criminal probe, the French military staff is investigating a possible cover-up over the death. Irrespective of the outcome of any criminal proceedings, that could lead to disciplinary action, although the Defence Ministry says the men's suspension does not prejudge the criminal case.

Relations between France and the world's top cocoa producer have been at a low ebb since an attempted coup sparked a civil war that has divided Ivory Coast into a government-controlled south and a rebel-held north.

Abidjan has accused French troops patrolling the buffer zone separating the two sides of supporting the rebels, fuelling anti-French sentiment. Paris has denied the accusation.

Thats odd, all the usual characters who jump at the opportunity to decry the war crimes of the "Evil American Stormtroopers" seem to be silent on this one. HHmmmmmmmm............

My opinion? They are innocent until proven guilty in my book, although I believe the French laws are guilty until proven innocent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nope. Your right. Guilty until proven innocent.

The question is, what's going to happen next? Where is the outrage?

If America does it, its a war crime but someone else doing it isn't? Double standard here.

No problem mate.
You're wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

Actually no, you are entirely incorrect. The Defense has to prove that their client is innocent of any crime they are accused of committing.

In a world that has already allowed French troops to machinegun several hundred unarmed Ivorians in the street with no international outcry, I'm not surprised.

It only makes headlines when the US does something bad. Everyone else gets a free pass.

Unfortunately accurate :(

Now I know why I am glad that I don't travel overseas. The rest of the world makes me sick.

Leonstein speaks quite correctly. By will or negligence, those soldiers commited homicide, and should be tried by the citizens of Cote d'ivoire.

I actually agree with Portucale MK3? The world is ending :D

What I find interesting is that when the US abuses people, and the US military investigates, we get called on the carpet for not sending the people involved to the Hague. Yes, we even investigate our own people, try them, and jail them (as in Abu Gharaib) and even trash the careers of the officers involved (as in Karpinski).

But for the rest of the world, that isn't enough - they want war crimes trials in the Hague.

A French General can have his troops gun down unarmed people - on video - and they can investigate it, and trash the career of a French General - but NO ONE IN THE WORLD calls for those people involved to be sent to the Hague.

If you're going to call for international enforcement of international law, how about being "international" about it, instead of only crying for it to be imposed on the US.

What I find interesting is that when the US abuses people, and the US military investigates, we get called on the carpet for not sending the people involved to the Hague. Yes, we even investigate our own people, try them, and jail them (as in Abu Gharaib) and even trash the careers of the officers involved (as in Karpinski).

You are indeed correct but the people around here don't care. YOu should know that by now Sierra. Its sad I know :(

But for the rest of the world, that isn't enough - they want war crimes trials in the Hague.

Even though we are not a signatory to the ICC.

A French General can have his troops gun down unarmed people - on video - and they can investigate it, and trash the career of a French General - but NO ONE IN THE WORLD calls for those people involved to be sent to the Hague.

Goes to show the double standard doesn't it?

If you're going to call for international enforcement of international law, how about being "international" about it, instead of only crying for it to be imposed on the US.

Here Here.

Euro-bashing, intersting.
Oh if Europe was only as unified as many Americans seem to think.

Indeed, if the US military invesitgates its own, you might as well give the soldiers a "Get out of Jail Free" card according to most NS'ers :rolleyes:

Euro-bashing, intersting.
Oh if Europe was only as unified as many Americans seem to think.

I don't think that Europe is that unified. But it does appear to me that most European countries enjoy a double standard at least as much as the United States.

It's perfectly OK for a French military tribunal to investigate their own crimes, but not OK for the US to do it.

It's perfectly OK for the French to loot the oil of Iraq, but not for the US to do it.

It's perfectly OK for the French and Russians to sell billions of dollars of weaponry under cover of sanctions to Iraq, but not OK for the US to arm the current Iraqi military.

That's the take from most of the posters here on NS who are from Europe.

It happened on a single day. AFP reported the protesters as unarmed Ivorians - not machete wielding rioters. The Ivorians were over 300 yards away when the French troops opened fire.

I was kind of hoping for a date of occurence. Year, month, day, that sort of thing. Perhaps it was poor wording on my part.

U.S. Marine shoots a "wounded insurgeant" playing dead: A war crime as horrible as My Lai that should be brought before the Hague.

French soldier shoots unarmed civilians in broad daylight: Business as usual and nothing that the Hague should concern itself over.

Considering that the ones responsible for My Lai, from the brass who said it was ok to shoot anything not American right down to the soldiers who pulled the trigger, walked away without any punishment and the one who did get a house arrest got a presidential pardon, I don't see what kind of moral high ground you can get here.

Both groups should have gotten a trial and a long jail sentence. Preferably in the 100s of years. Without pardon too I might add.

But we're not likely to see that are we?

U.S. Marine shoots a "wounded insurgeant" playing dead: A war crime as horrible as My Lai that should be brought before the Hague.

French soldier shoots unarmed civilians in broad daylight: Business as usual and nothing that the Hague should concern itself over.

Just for the sake of precision: Whose mouth are you putting those words in? Europeans in general? French people in general? Or someone specific on the forums?

Just for the sake of precision: Whose mouth are you putting those words in? Europeans in general? French people in general? Or someone specific on the forums?

1. US troops abuse prisoners at Abu Gharaib.
2. US military investigates.
3. Soldiers are court martialed and sentenced to prison.
4. General in charge is trashed.
5. During this time, Europeans demand that the US send EVERY soldier involved to war crimes tribunals instead of trying them in US military court martials.
6. Europeans from then on bash US for not doing so.
7. Meanwhile, French soldiers shoot unarmed people on video.
8. French military investigates.
9. No soldiers are court martialed - no one sentenced to prison.
10. General in charge trashed.
11. During this time, not one single European nation demanded that the French send EVERY soldier involved to war crimes tribunals instead of trying them in French military courts.

I'm still waiting for a single European leader, or any European poster on this forum, especially any French, to call for the French soldiers to be dragged to the Hague.

After all, the French did sign on to the ICC... and keep bitching that the US isn't playing along...

It's a very, very, very clear double standard.

1. US troops abuse prisoners at Abu Gharaib.
2. US military investigates.
3. Soldiers are court martialed and sentenced to prison.
4. General in charge is trashed.
5. During this time, Europeans demand that the US send EVERY soldier involved to war crimes tribunals instead of trying them in US military court martials.
6. Europeans from then on bash US for not doing so.
7. Meanwhile, French soldiers shoot unarmed people on video.
8. French military investigates.
9. No soldiers are court martialed - no one sentenced to prison.
10. General in charge trashed.
11. During this time, not one single European nation demanded that the French send EVERY soldier involved to war crimes tribunals instead of trying them in French military courts.

I'm still waiting for a single European leader, or any European poster on this forum, especially any French, to call for the French soldiers to be dragged to the Hague.

After all, the French did sign on to the ICC... and keep bitching that the US isn't playing along...

It's a very, very, very clear double standard.

Don't hold your breath Sierra.

I still find it funny how much this thread has been ignored by the Euro's on here. :p

But for the rest of the world, that isn't enough - they want war crimes trials in the Hague.



Hmmm.. War on Terror... crimes committed during this... crimes committed were during war...... oh they're NOT war crimes... riight.


If you're going to call for international enforcement of international law, how about being "international" about it, instead of only crying for it to be imposed on the US.

If the US (as leader of the free and democratic world) isn't arsed... why should anyone else be? Can't have it both ways guys.

Hmmm.. War on Terror... crimes committed during this... crimes committed were during war...... oh they're NOT war crimes... riight.



If the US (as leader of the free and democratic world) isn't arsed... why should anyone else be? Can't have it both ways guys.

So should French soldiers be dragged before the Hague then for this incident as well as machine gunning innocent civilians?

If the US (as leader of the free and democratic world) isn't arsed... why should anyone else be? Can't have it both ways guys.

I'm not the one calling for it. It's the Europeans who call for it, unless of course it might be applied to their own.

The "can't have it both ways" is the point of my posts. Thank you for saying that, but you really need to focus your cynicism on the Europeans.

So should French soldiers be dragged before the Hague then for this incident as well as machine gunning innocent civilians?

Why should they? Your troops aren't. You can't go around casting judgements of others even though you don't hold yourself to the same level of judgements.

(Personally, if thought of committing war crimes then yes- otherwise judged under the law of the land.)

I STILL haven't seen a link for that 'slaughter' piece. Can someone provide it?

I STILL haven't seen a link for that 'slaughter' piece. Can someone provide it?

You're expecting links that existed at the time of the slaughter still exist on news sites.

I posted the links when I brought this up back when it happened. And no Europeans could be "arsed" to step up and condemn it.

I also posted links to the videos of the shootings (in this thread), but the videos are now gone.

I'm not the one calling for it. It's the Europeans who call for it, unless of course it might be applied to their own.

The "can't have it both ways" is the point of my posts. Thank you for saying that, but you really need to focus your cynicism on the Europeans.
I KNOW! The double standard that we both speak of would be quickly resolved if the US signed up to the ICC- then NO ONE would have an excuse of 'Well, you're not a memeber, why should we be?'

Lead by example.

If the US soldiers have nothing to be afraid of, then nothing would happen to them legally.

Why should they? Your troops aren't. You can't go around casting judgements of others even though you don't hold yourself to the same level of judgements.

However, France is a signatory to the ICC whereas the US is not. So you support the idea for France to break a treaty that they are a party too in regards to trying warcriminals?

(Personally, if thought of committing war crimes then yes- otherwise judged under the law of the land.)

This took place in the Ivory Coast and not in France

You're expecting links that existed at the time of the slaughter still exist on news sites.

I posted the links when I brought this up back when it happened. And no Europeans could be "arsed" to step up and condemn it.

I also posted links to the videos of the shootings (in this thread), but the videos are now gone.

I wasn't being a prick about that Sierra, I was being genuine about that. Roughly when did it happen , this year or..? (I'll search for it myself)

However, France is a signatory to the ICC whereas the US is not. So you support the idea for France to break a treaty that they are a party too in regards to trying warcriminals?

If the biggest player in town doesn't bother, why should ANYONE else? Reminds me slightly of the Leauge of Nations....

It weakens the whole premise of it. If the strongest plays by different rules- then there's no point in anyone playing by anything BUT the strongest.


This took place in the Ivory Coast and not in France
I know, hence me saying that exact thing.

If the biggest player in town doesn't bother, why should ANYONE else? Reminds me slightly of the Leauge of Nations....

It weakens the whole premise of it. If the strongest plays by different rules- then there's no point in anyone playing by anything BUT the strongest.

So do you support that France is violating the tenents of the ICC in regards to warcrimes by not referring this to them which is stated in the statutes of the ICC?

Wow. I didn't think hyprocracy was this rampant on these forums

I wasn't being a prick about that Sierra, I was being genuine about that. Roughly when did it happen , this year or..? (I'll search for it myself)

It happened more than once. One event was on May 15.

It seems to be policy of the French army to shoot unarmed civilians.

By Jon Boyle

PARIS (Reuters) - France acknowledged on Thursday that French troops under investigation for the death of an Ivorian civilian did not act in self defence, contradicting the previous official version of events.

Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie on Monday suspended three soldiers, including the former commander of French peacekeepers in Ivory Coast, as part of a military probe into an alleged possible cover-up over the May 15 killing.

Two days after the death, France said its troops had returned fire after coming under attack by a known highway gang leader wanted for rape. Detained with serious wounds, the man named Mahe died from his injuries on his way to hospital.

"The facts, as they have been gathered by the command's inquiry, have established that, contrary to what was said at the time, there was no legitimate defence," Defence Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau told a regular news briefing.

Colonel Gerard Dubois, a spokesman for the French armed forces staff, said Mahe "had been apprehended and was being transferred to the town of Man", in western Ivory Coast, at the time of his death.

Alliot-Marie on Monday suspended four-star General Henri Poncet, who commanded French peacekeepers at the time of the shooting. Similar action was taken against the non-commissioned officer commanding soldiers involved in the death, and his commanding officer.

Bureau confirmed the soldiers involved in the patrol remained on duty pending further inquiries.

HAIL OF BULLETS

According to the Le Figaro newspaper, which did not name its sources, French troops spotted the gang leader while on patrol. As the suspect fled across nearby fields, they fired 650 rounds, leaving him for dead.

Seriously wounded, he was discovered by local villagers who carried him to the roadside, where he succumbed to his wounds.

Asked about the report, Bureau said it was up to the criminal investigation to establish the precise sequence of events. But the investigation showed "that the circumstances are serious, that the facts are serious.

"If the examining magistrate has launched an investigation on the basis of a charge of voluntary homicide, that is not anodyne," he said.

Parallel to the criminal probe, the French military staff is investigating a possible cover-up over the death. Irrespective of the outcome of any criminal proceedings, that could lead to disciplinary action, although the Defence Ministry says the men's suspension does not prejudge the criminal case.

Relations between France and the world's top cocoa producer have been at a low ebb since an attempted coup sparked a civil war that has divided Ivory Coast into a government-controlled south and a rebel-held north.

Abidjan has accused French troops patrolling the buffer zone separating the two sides of supporting the rebels, fuelling anti-French sentiment. Paris has denied the accusation.

So do you support that France is violating the tenents of the ICC in regards to warcrimes by not referring this to them which is stated in the statutes of the ICC?

Wow. I didn't think hyprocracy was this rampant on these forums
You're avoiding my point. The entire premise of the ICC is negated if the bastion of freedom and democracy is the world doesn't feel it necessary to adhere to it.

Just like the Kyoto treaty- its pointless without the participation of the biggest polluter. Just like the L of N... etc etc

When the US signs up to it- then the rest can finally say "Right, NOW its ok to follow those rules". That would also stop this hypocrisy.

You're avoiding my point. The entire premise of the ICC is negated if the bastion of freedom and democracy is the world doesn't feel it necessary to adhere to it.

It is not negated by our absence. We just see it for what it is. An erosion of our soveriegnty in regards to prosecuting our own war criminals.

Just like the Kyoto treaty- its pointless without the participation of the biggest polluter. Just like the L of N... etc etc

And it has been proven that Kyoto was a joke and it wouldn't even do a damn thing to stop climate change.

When the US signs up to it- then the rest can finally say "Right, NOW its ok to follow those rules". That would also stop this hypocrisy.

Have a nice day. Apparently you don't care that France is violating the ICC by not sending their troops there.

You're avoiding my point. The entire premise of the ICC is negated if the bastion of freedom and democracy is the world doesn't feel it necessary to adhere to it.

Just like the Kyoto treaty- its pointless without the participation of the biggest polluter. Just like the L of N... etc etc

When the US signs up to it- then the rest can finally say "Right, NOW its ok to follow those rules". That would also stop this hypocrisy.

I'm not asking anyone to follow the "rules". Europe is asking, constantly, unless it applies to them.

We are by no means the biggest violator of human rights. Nor should someone else who cries the loudest for these rules say that they don't have to follow the rules because the US isn't leading the way.

If we were leading the way, they wouldn't follow.

It happened more than once. One event was on May 15.

It seems to be policy of the French army to shoot unarmed civilians.

-snip-.

Yeah I read that before. I was refering to the 600 dead because for French soldiers claim. Maybe I misread you.

French soldiers shoot unarmed civilians/US shoot unarmed civilians/British shoot unarmed civilians... welcome to the club France.:(

I'm not asking anyone to follow the "rules". Europe is asking, constantly, unless it applies to them.

We are by no means the biggest violator of human rights. Nor should someone else who cries the loudest for these rules say that they don't have to follow the rules because the US isn't leading the way.

If we were leading the way, they wouldn't follow.

'Europe'. means what? The EU? Individual European govts? What? Gimme a hand here guys- theres 25+ different Europeans govts! Which ones!?

I agree. The US is by no means the biggest violator- but you must be aware the spotlight is on you (and has been on you) since the USSR collapsed, leaving you as sole superpower.

You actually don't give the links between European and American enough credit- apart from the last 5ish years, Europe follows the US very closely.

It is not negated by our absence. We just see it for what it is.
Well, thats your personal opinion. Seems that the rest of the world agrees with my point.


An erosion of our soveriegnty in regards to prosecuting our own war criminals.
Because we don't always trust your legal system. Deal with it.


And it has been proven that Kyoto was a joke and it wouldn't even do a damn thing to stop climate change.
This is going off topic, but show me.



Have a nice day. Apparently you don't care that France is violating the ICC by not sending their troops there.

I will thanks. I care that because the US has decided... Nah, not worth our time. Everyone now thinks the same. Tis a shame.

I still find it funny how much this thread has been ignored by the Euro's on here. :p

Well I guess few Europeans would defend this incident. But you are certainly right, that more European/French posters could have condemned it.

Well, thats your personal opinion. Seems that the rest of the world agrees with my point.

Does it look like I give a damn about world opinion?

Because we don't always trust your legal system. Deal with it.

And we don't trust the ICC. Deal with it.

I will thanks. I care that because the US has decided... Nah, not worth our time. Everyone now thinks the same. Tis a shame.

Its a shame that you don't give a damn about France's violations of the ICC.

Does it look like I give a damn about world opinion?
I...don't care. Whats your point then?- "I don't care what the world thinks... therefore I'm right?"

Whatevvvver keeps you warm at night Corneliu
;)


And we don't trust the ICC. Deal with it.

em.... they ARE..... by not doing it either. Isn't that the whole point of our little tete-a tete?



Its a shame that you don't give a damn about France's violations of the ICC.

Its a shame you guys were too scared to sign up to it.

I...don't care. Whats your point then?- "I don't care what the world thinks... therefore I'm right?"

Whatevvvver keeps you warm at night Corneliu
;)

Don't try to bait me.

em.... they ARE..... by not doing it either. Isn't that the whole point of our little tete-a tete?

I'm confused on your point here.

Its a shame you guys were too scared to sign up to it.

We did sign it. It was never ratified by the US Senate and then our signature was removed.

Its a shame you guys were too scared to sign up to it.
Wiki had an appropriate reason why the U.S. does not want to sign up for the ICC.

Don't try to bait me.

You're letting yourself be baited my friend. i am merely lightly poking fun at your beliefs. Don't take it to heart.


I'm confused on your point here.
Simple- the rest of the world IS 'dealing with it' (You said Deal with it.) They are dealing with it.. by following your lead and not following it or what it says at all. You accuse 'Europe' (nice broad generic term there again) of being hypocritical. I agree. Now, WHY are they being hypocritical? They see the protector of freedom and democracy not signing it- so whats the point in signing it themselves?



We did sign it..... then our signature was removed.

Right.... so you are not signed up to it now though? Thats the time frame that counts... the PRESENT!

Colodia- Please don't use Wiki as a back up. I'm know there is a Realist reason why they didn't- but don't use Wiki. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4399528.stm

Not exactly European, but technically I am correct.
Ahh, "peacekeepers." Gotta love 'em! :D

Ahh, "peacekeepers." Gotta love 'em! :D

:| You against the presence of a peacekeeping force there in general Eut? Or is it merely the French?

Personally, I don't think the French should be in there- waaay too many pissed off former colony types.

But I am in favour of something being done regards Africa. I'm glad at least somone has taken it upon themselves to do something. UN or other.

But I am in favour of something being done regards Africa. I'm glad at least somone has taken it upon themselves to do something. UN or other.

So you support France's unilateral action in the Ivory Coast?

:| You against the presence of a peacekeeping force there in general Eut? Or is it merely the French?

Personally, I don't think the French should be in there- waaay too many pissed off former colony types.

But I am in favour of something being done regards Africa. I'm glad at least somone has taken it upon themselves to do something. UN or other.
It's for sure that "something" should be done, but what and by whom? Just wait until avian flu hits Africa sometime in the next few weeks. On top of all the insurrections, rebellions, coups d'etat, genocides, AIDS, etc., I'm expecting an almost incredible death toll. :(

So you support France's unilateral action in the Ivory Coast?

*sigh*

From the BBC News Article:

France's 4,000-strong peacekeeping mission, supported by UN troops, is enforcing a fragile truce between the Ivorian government and northern rebels.

Its not unilateral.

And no- I think having former colonist masters (however good the intentions) having their troops in there is bad news.... in ANY former colony. ie Zimbabwae and UK forces. Complicates the issues too much.

It's for sure that "something" should be done, but what and by whom?

Well I suppose, as the Middle East and South America have traditionally been USA spheres of influence... and Africa has normally been European Imperial spheres of influences- the US cannot (and to a certain extent SHOULD NOT) be expected to do anything.

It'll probably be up to the former colonial powers, under the guise of a UN peacekeeping mission. I have reservation about former colonial powers and that kinda thing... but 'something' has to be done to help :(

Nope. Your right. Guilty until proven innocent.

Article 9 - Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable, s'il est jugé indispensable de l'arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.

Read that if you can.

All men are presumed innocent until they are declared guilty, if it is judged indispensable to stop him, all action which is not necessary to insure his well-being needs to be severely (I could not figure out how to translate réprimée, and if anyone could help me with this, i'd appreciate it.) by the law.

So France presumes the innocence of all human beings.

As far as I can see, these peacekeepers, either through willful action or neglect, are involved in homicide. They should be tried for it, whether in France or Den Hague. Since it is not an international issue, I don't see why Den Hague would be necessary.

You might argue that the war on terror is not an international issue, but I don't see how.

Article 9 - Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable, s'il est jugé indispensable de l'arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.

Read that if you can.

All men are presumed innocent until they are declared guilty, if it is judged indispensable to stop him, all action which is not necessary to insure his well-being needs to be severely (I could not figure out how to translate réprimée, and if anyone could help me with this, i'd appreciate it.) by the law.

So France presumes the innocence of all human beings.

I don't have any problem reading French. Or German. Or English. Or Korean. Or Mandarin. Or Russian. Or Spanish.

You were making some comment about Americans then?

I was referring to the erroneous idea that Corneliu had that french people presumed guilt.

I translated it because like some people aren't able to speak english, some people aren't able to speak french and I would like to have the original source as well.

I don't have any problem reading French. Or German. Or English. Or Korean. Or Mandarin. Or Russian. Or Spanish.

You were making some comment about Americans then?

Maybe he was saying "Corneliu- pay attention to whats written"?

Don't always look for the negative aspects of people Sierra, :D don't let NS warp you that much! :D

I'm still waiting for a single European leader, or any European poster on this forum, especially any French, to call for the French soldiers to be dragged to the Hague.


As far as I remember, one of the first posts was by a European saying that they should be punished! :confused:

But hey, if you want a European to tell you that killing innocent, unarmed people is wrong: here I am!
Those soldiers should be tried and - if found guilty - be punished severely. :mad:

I'm not sure, however, about Den Hague. Shouldn't they be tried in France first, and only if there's no fair trial in their own nation, be dragged to Den Hague? Well, I don't know.

I'm not sure, however, about Den Hague. Shouldn't they be tried in France first, and only if there's no fair trial in their own nation, be dragged to Den Hague? Well, I don't know.

According to the ICC, all warcrimes are to be brought before the Hague. If they don't bring them before the Hague then France is guilty of a treaty violation.

According to the ICC, all warcrimes are to be brought before the Hague. If they don't bring them before the Hague then France is guilty of a treaty violation.
I'm pretty sure that is bollocks. But please feel free to provide a link. The ICC allows nations to prosecute crimes first, but will step in if a state cannot or will not genuinely prosecute.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that France won't prosecute the soldiers, so I'm looking forwards to see them in ICC. AND I'm still as appalled as I was when I posted the 3rd post to this thread (yeah, I'm European).

Stop calling these soldiers Europeans! They are French! The French are to the rest of us, what the Southern USA is to Canada and Mexico.

I'm pretty sure that is bollocks. But please feel free to provide a link. The ICC allows nations to prosecute crimes first, but will step in if a state cannot or will not genuinely prosecute.

Yea it is a complementary to national criminal jurisdiction under Article 1.

Under Article 5 though:

Section 1: The juridiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

a) The crime of genocide;
b) Crimes against humanity;
c) War crimes;
d) The crime of aggression.

Section 2: The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime andd setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Nope. Your right. Guilty until proven innocent.

The question is, what's going to happen next? Where is the outrage?

If America does it, its a war crime but someone else doing it isn't? Double standard here.
Typical paranoid American. "Everyone is out to get us!"

It sounds like you want no-one to complain about this incident, just to vindicate your paranoid theories.

You're also wrong about French law, though I know that you always try to make France look bad.

Okay, I went to the ICC webpage: http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/faq.html

To get these quotes:
with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes of international concern : genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute.

If a case is being considered by a country with jurisdiction over it, then the ICC cannot act unless the country is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.

A country may be determined to be "unwilling" if it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes. A country may be "unable" when its legal system has collapsed.

The suffocation of one man is not a genocide. It may be a crime against humanity depending on how it occured and it may be a war crime, considering it happened in a time of conflict.

The two next quotes reveal why these soldiers were not brought to Den Hague. The article clearly states that the soldiers Have been persecuted by France already. Therefore, the ICC cannot act.

Corneliu, I would like to point out that this is the second time I have found you saying something contrary to plainly available facts. The ICC is not allowed to act if action has already occured. The reason, I believe, why american soldiers were requested to go to Den Hague was that it appeared as if the american government was trying to hide it (thus, unwilling). They have been tried and have you heard anymore requests to send them to Den Hague? This is beside the point and I will argue it no further.

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.


How often do you want me to say that?
*sighs*

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.


How often do you want me to say that?
*sighs*

quoted for truth. (European here too.)

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.

quoted for truth. (European here too.)

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
Thirded.

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be fried.

;)

quoted for truth. (European here too.)

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.


Are they going to believe us?

Are they going to believe us?
No

I hope yes.
Judging from past posts, I think maybe.

You're an optimist :)

And we don't trust the ICC. Deal with it.

Why not?


The suffocation of one man is not a genocide. It may be a crime against humanity depending on how it occured and it may be a war crime, considering it happened in a time of conflict.

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

Article 7
Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder

...

Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
...
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf


As far as I can tell, the killing of the one individual mentioned in the article, intentional or otherwise, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. That is likely the reason the french soldiers would not be sent to the Hague.

Edit: Unless they are in the country as a part of a UN-sponsored peacekeeping mission, and due to that has been exempted from prosecution.



Corneliu, I would like to point out that this is the second time I have found you saying something contrary to plainly available facts. The ICC is not allowed to act if action has already occured. The reason, I believe, why american soldiers were requested to go to Den Hague was that it appeared as if the american government was trying to hide it (thus, unwilling). They have been tried and have you heard anymore requests to send them to Den Hague? This is beside the point and I will argue it no further.

The ICC could not have tried the american solders, due to the restrictions on the courts jurisdiction.

Actually no, you are entirely incorrect. The Defense has to prove that their client is innocent of any crime they are accused of committing.
http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article.php3?id_article=354#sommaire_4

I've looked through the website of the French Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.gouv.fr/anglais/anavig.htm), I entered the words into about every search engine I know, but I found nothing tu support your claim.
Can you provide a link? All I can find is that part of the French "Rights of the Citizen" (ie Constitution) in which presumption of innocence is clearly stated.

EDIT: And I just read in this thread that I might be right afterall.

Whether or not they believe us (and yes, I am an optimist) it appears that:

France, having put the soldiers in courts themselves, do not need to send them to the ICC.

The ICC would not accept them either because the murder is an isolated incident, therefore not widespread or systematic.

Nor would they accept it as a war crime, as this murder/manslaughter was not plan or policy.

And indeed, since the US took up their duties to put their own soldiers into court, the ICC could not, and should not, act.

Hooray! All is good in the world when both the US and France abides by treaties they have and haven't signed. (<-optimism)

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article.php3?id_article=354#sommaire_4

I've looked through the website of the French Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.gouv.fr/anglais/anavig.htm), I entered the words into about every search engine I know, but I found nothing tu support your claim.
Can you provide a link? All I can find is that part of the French "Rights of the Citizen" (ie Constitution) in which presumption of innocence is clearly stated.

EDIT: And I just read in this thread that I might be right afterall.

In addition, France is bound by The European Convention on Human Rights, which in article 6 states that:
"2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art6

And we don't trust the ICC. Deal with it.

You are motivated by extreme nationalism. The proof?

1. Your insistence on France adhering to the ICC but not wanting America to do so.

2. You don't care about international opinion (because Americans are "better" than other people?) yet you like to refer to international law when it suits you.

3. You're a right-wing conservative, a trait shared by most extreme nationalists.

1. Your insistence on France adhering to the ICC but not wanting America to do so.

No, we just want France to adhere to what they say. They say Americans should be tried at the Hague for prisoner abuse, but they don't do it to their own people.

2. You don't care about international opinion (because Americans are "better" than other people?) yet you like to refer to international law when it suits you.
No, I think international law is a joke, used only for politically convenient prosecutions. As I noted, France has no interest in prosecuting its own troops in an international court. So they refer to international law when it suits them.

3. You're a right-wing conservative, a trait shared by most extreme nationalists.
Nope. I'm a libertarian at heart. But the current French government is right-wing conservative.

So, by your own definitions, I am not a nationalist, but the French most certainly are.

But, by your

No, we just want France to adhere to what they say. They say Americans should be tried at the Hague for prisoner abuse, but they don't do it to their own people.


No, I think international law is a joke, used only for politically convenient prosecutions. As I noted, France has no interest in prosecuting its own troops in an international court. So they refer to international law when it suits them.


Nope. I'm a libertarian at heart. But the current French government is right-wing conservative.

So, by your own definitions, I am not a nationalist, but the French most certainly are.

But, by your

Sierra,

Swimmingpool was talking to me. I saw the post for what it was and ignored it because if I said what I wanted to say, I would've gotten a warning for flaming.

Swimming? I will say this. 1) France has signd the ICC and the US has not. Under the law, France has the obligation to send those that committed this act to the Hague in accordance with Article 5 of the ICC. 2) International Opinion and International Law are two different things. Your right. I don't care about International Opinion. I don't care that they say what we are doing is wrong even though it is in complete compliance with International Law. I will invoke International Law in debates such as this because it goes to the very essence of the story. Under International law, France has the obligation to send these people to the Hague. They haven't done so. Under the ICC Statute, that is considered a violation. 3) Yes I am a nationalist. I'm proud to be a nationalist but I am not an extreme nationalist. I am also a Conservative Republican but I do pay attention to both sides, especially in an election year. I will vote for a Democrat when I feel that they can do a better job than the Republican Candidate.

I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.
I'm European.
Those soldiers should be tried.


Fourthededed.... :p

Guys, give it a rest about the ICC will you? If the French govt doesn't act then then ICC will. If the French govt DOES act, then the ICC won't. Problem solved.

Sierra,

Swimmingpool was talking to me. I saw the post for what it was and ignored it because if I said what I wanted to say, I would've gotten a warning for flaming.

Swimming? I will say this. 1) France has signd the ICC and the US has not. Under the law, France has the obligation to send those that committed this act to the Hague in accordance with Article 5 of the ICC. 2) International Opinion and International Law are two different things. Your right. I don't care about International Opinion. I don't care that they say what we are doing is wrong even though it is in complete compliance with International Law. I will invoke International Law in debates such as this because it goes to the very essence of the story. Under International law, France has the obligation to send these people to the Hague. They haven't done so. Under the ICC Statute, that is considered a violation. 3) Yes I am a nationalist. I'm proud to be a nationalist but I am not an extreme nationalist. I am also a Conservative Republican but I do pay attention to both sides, especially in an election year. I will vote for a Democrat when I feel that they can do a better job than the Republican Candidate.

1) No they don't. It is not an ICC matter first of all as it is neither a crime against humanity (it is not widespread or systematic murder), nor a war crime (which was the second possibility. This act was not committed as part of the war). It is not genocide. Secondly, France has already persecuted these soldiers, therefore the ICC is not allowed to step in, as per the treaty. Read it, then read the explanation which clearly states that, and I quote: The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute. France has acted, France was neither unable, nor unwilling.

2) That does not change the fact that torturing prisoners is against international law. Do you defend the American soldiers that did this? Do you defend any soldiers that do it for any reason whatsoever? I defend neither american, nor european, nor any other soldier or civilian who decides that torture is the right method. Not only because it is against international law, but because it is morally wrong. Again, read one when you point out that France has an obligation to send them to Den Hague - They do not, I have proved it. If you wish, you may attempt to prove that it is otherwise.

3) Not going to comment, because my comment wouldn't be pretty (so let's just ignore this point, shall we?).

Please, please Corneliu. I've presented you with facts twice and I would like to ask you this: Will you admit that France presumes innocence before guilt? Will you admit that the treaty clearly states that France does not have to send their soldiers to Den Hague if they try them themselves?

I am fully prepared to admit that the US soldiers only had to go to Den Hague if, and only if, the US did not try them. The US did put them in court.

I am fully prepared to admit that these french soldiers need to be tried, if they haven't already (which I believe they have). Sending them to Den Hague would in fact be against the terms of the treaty.

Edit:
And you know, in keeping with my optimism, it does seem like they believe us :) At least, they haven't said "No you don't!"

1) No they don't. It is not an ICC matter first of all as it is neither a crime against humanity (it is not widespread or systematic murder), nor a war crime (which was the second possibility. This act was not committed as part of the war). It is not genocide.

Article 5 of the ICC Statute again: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

Section 1: The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

a)The crime of genocide;
b)Crimes against humanity
c) War crimes;
d) The crime of aggression

Crimes against humanity is outlined in the ICC Statute Article 7. In this under part a it states murder.

Secondly, France has already persecuted these soldiers, therefore the ICC is not allowed to step in, as per the treaty. Read it, then read the explanation which clearly states that, and I quote: France has acted, France was neither unable, nor unwilling.

When did the trial take place? What was the verdict? How long will they be imprisioned?

2) That does not change the fact that torturing prisoners is against international law. Do you defend the American soldiers that did this?

Nope! That was why they were charged, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced as well as a dishonorable discharge. BTW: We did this dispite the fact that the world community wanted it done at the Hague. A court that we do not recognize but yet the French do.

Do you defend any soldiers that do it for any reason whatsoever? I defend neither american, nor european, nor any other soldier or civilian who decides that torture is the right method. Not only because it is against international law, but because it is morally wrong. Again, read one when you point out that France has an obligation to send them to Den Hague - They do not, I have proved it. If you wish, you may attempt to prove that it is otherwise.

According to the ICC they do. Why was there calls to send our soldiers to the Hague over Abu Ghrab but yet this doesn't get said calls?

3) Not going to comment, because my comment wouldn't be pretty (so let's just ignore this point, shall we?).

lol!

Please, please Corneliu. I've presented you with facts twice and I would like to ask you this: Will you admit that France presumes innocence before guilt? Will you admit that the treaty clearly states that France does not have to send their soldiers to Den Hague if they try them themselves?

Article 12:

Section 1: A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accpts the jurisdiction of the COurt with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.

I am fully prepared to admit that the US soldiers only had to go to Den Hague if, and only if, the US did not try them. The US did put them in court.

Even then they can't. Reason being is that we do not recognize the court.

I am fully prepared to admit that these french soldiers need to be tried, if they haven't already (which I believe they have). Sending them to Den Hague would in fact be against the terms of the treaty.

Incorrect.

Edit:
And you know, in keeping with my optimism, it does seem like they believe us :) At least, they haven't said "No you don't!"

LMAO!

No, we just want France to adhere to what they say. They say Americans should be tried at the Hague for prisoner abuse, but they don't do it to their own people.

No, I think international law is a joke, used only for politically convenient prosecutions. As I noted, France has no interest in prosecuting its own troops in an international court. So they refer to international law when it suits them.
I mostly agree here. International law is only a joke when it is not enforced, which is not often enough. I think all countries should abide by the ICC, but all governments are pragmatic and only do such things when it suits them.

So, by your own definitions, I am not a nationalist, but the French most certainly are.
Is it a secret the French are nationalists? I'm not defending them so much as I am criticising some Americans.

Swimming? I will say this. 1) France has signd the ICC and the US has not. Under the law, France has the obligation to send those that committed this act to the Hague in accordance with Article 5 of the ICC.

2) International Opinion and International Law are two different things. Your right. I don't care about International Opinion. I don't care that they say what we are doing is wrong even though it is in complete compliance with International Law. I will invoke International Law in debates such as this because it goes to the very essence of the story. Under International law, France has the obligation to send these people to the Hague. They haven't done so. Under the ICC Statute, that is considered a violation.

3) Yes I am a nationalist. I'm proud to be a nationalist but I am not an extreme nationalist. I am also a Conservative Republican but I do pay attention to both sides, especially in an election year. I will vote for a Democrat when I feel that they can do a better job than the Republican Candidate.
I apologise for my comments on points #1 and #2. I misunderstood your posts.

3) Why would anyone be a proud nationalist? What's so great about thinking your country is inherently "above" all others? Patriotism is good, but nationalism is very bad, as any glance at 20th century history will show.

I apologise for my comments on points #1 and #2. I misunderstood your posts.

Appology accepted :)

3) Why would anyone be a proud nationalist? What's so great about thinking your country is inherently "above" all others? Patriotism is good, but nationalism is very bad, as any glance at 20th century history will show.

Why don't you ask the French and all of Europe? They are more nationalistic than I am.

Why don't you ask the French and all of Europe? They are more nationalistic than I am.

I am not nationalistic. :mad:

Appology accepted :)



Why don't you ask the French and all of Europe? They are more nationalistic than I am.

Many europeans will take great offense at that.

I suggest you only say that to the nationalist parties.

By the way, I am currently searching for info, so I will soon post a long list of stuff that may well be worth reading over.

Nor I :mad:

LMAO!

Crap :(

Anyway, I am now going to prove exactly why the ICC does not have any jurisdiction.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

Therefore, not a crime against humanity.


Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;

It may be a war crime, if this was planned or policy. It is not french policy to murder civilians (read their constitution to figure this one out). The soldiers may have planned this murder and if they have, then they are guilty of a war crime and could be sent to Den Hague.

NOT TRUE - There is not an article about genocide, but it is clearly not genocide as genocide involves more than one. - NOT TRUE, BIG BLUNDER ON MY PART!


Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Therefore, this isolated incident is not a genocide.


Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
...
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;

(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

Now to find out if the soldiers involved have indeed been tried.


A military prosecutor has begun an investigation for murder.


The three soldiers and their commanding officer in the vehicle are due to appear before a special investigative commission.


All four would be investigated and face punishments appropriate to their responsibilities, apart from possible criminal proceedings.


A military prosecutor has begun an investigation for murder.

First, third and fourth quote have the same source, but the third quote had more from it (the author was AFP). Second quote has BBC as the source. Any further searches with google either gave me AFP or BBC.

EDIT: remove the space in the fourth quote to get the website.

Even if it is a war crime (which it may very well be considered), Article 17 of the ICC means that, since France is indeed investigating and punishing, it will not interfere.

EDIT2: Fixed a grave mistake with overlooking article 6

Why don't you ask the French and all of Europe? They are more nationalistic than I am.
Most Europeans are patriotic, but nowhere near nationalist. Some French are because they like DeGaulle or some similar reason. I'm certain that it has something to do with him.

Most Europeans are patriotic, but nowhere near nationalist. Some French are because they like DeGaulle or some similar reason. I'm certain that it has something to do with him.


The only time I have ever met patriotic Europeans was at sports competitions.
The French like their way of life, that's true, but none of the people I know possesses a French flag or knows the lyrics of their national anthem.

The only time I have ever met patriotic Europeans was at sports competitions.
The French like their way of life, that's true, but none of the people I know possesses a French flag or knows the lyrics of their national anthem.

Pfft, who knows the lyrics of their national anthem? I'm not belgian, but since I live here I even bothered to try to see what they were (and I just love the national anthem... it just sounds so belgian. I love it because everytime I hear it, I can't help but burst out laughing). They're in two languages and they're very short, but I can only remember small bits and pieces.

I might be able to do the first verse of the danish anthem. After that, I am lost.

*thinks* I do have a danish flag... but then, I also have a norwegian one and I think a finnish one somewhere. And the danish flag I personally have is not one to be proud of *laugh* it's in tatters, small, old, ragged and well... not the kind you'd wave around. Besides, we danes are known for always putting up flags to celebrate birthdays. Why, I do not know, but it has nothing to do with nationality, merely that if you see a lot of danish flags it won't mean nationalism or patriotism - It'll mean BIRTHDAY PARTY!

This is all besides the point, as I wait for a response.

There is not an article about genocide, but it is clearly not genocide as genocide involves more than one.

I guess you overlooked Article 6:

Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


And I still don't understand why some claim not to trust the ICC.

I guess you overlooked Article 6:
And I still don't understand why some claim not to trust the ICC.

Ooops. I shall edit. That is why I put the website in the brackets.

I shall also go to bed soon, expect no more replies from me.

Ooops. I shall edit. That is why I put the website in the brackets.

I shall also go to bed soon, expect no more replies from me.

No worries, it's just details as your point clearly comes across anyway :)