NationStates Jolt Archive

Can someone or some nation(s) act and commence hearings against the israli military and political leaders to the international war commitee, as former countrys were tried and found guilty of aggresoins over the geneva conventions so to should this nation be acountable for it attrocitys, mind you this applies to both palestein leaders and israli leaders.


Never more has so much stupidity been depicted by so few men who define the laws set down by former allies and enemys.

nope

A war crime is a punishable offense, under international (criminal) law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts don't necessarily amount to war crimes.

War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle, such as attacking those displaying a flag of truce, or using that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack. The definition of the term "war crime" usually varies between trials to convict the defendants with a more specific crime that they may have committed.

It comprises such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials have been convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

On July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note however that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he was to travel to a country which is a signatory to the treaty, regardless of the fact that their country of origin is not a signatory.

To date, the former heads of state and heads of government that have been charged with war crimes include Karl Dönitz of Germany, ex Prime Minister Hideki Tojo of Japan and former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević was brought to trial for war crimes, but died before the trial could be concluded. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is accused of committing war crimes and is currently on trial in Iraq.

The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners, as certain controversies have not been ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the United States' destruction of civilian targets during World War I and World War II and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Others cite the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.


For the last remaining brain cells who feel that being informed is of some importance


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

A war crime is a punishable offense, under international (criminal) law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts don't necessarily amount to war crimes.

War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle, such as attacking those displaying a flag of truce, or using that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack. The definition of the term "war crime" usually varies between trials to convict the defendants with a more specific crime that they may have committed.

It comprises such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials have been convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

On July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note however that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he was to travel to a country which is a signatory to the treaty, regardless of the fact that their country of origin is not a signatory.

To date, the former heads of state and heads of government that have been charged with war crimes include Karl Dönitz of Germany, ex Prime Minister Hideki Tojo of Japan and former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević was brought to trial for war crimes, but died before the trial could be concluded. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is accused of committing war crimes and is currently on trial in Iraq.

The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners, as certain controversies have not been ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the United States' destruction of civilian targets during World War I and World War II and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Others cite the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.


For the last remaining brain cells who feel that being informed is of some importance


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Collateral damage is not a war crime. The Israelis can always claim they were shelling a known location of Hamas insurgents.

Or are you going to put virtually every nation that has ever fired artillery or dropped ordnance from an aircraft on trial for war crimes?

Collateral damage is not a war crime.
Collateral damage might be a war crime.

Or are you going to put virtually every nation that has ever fired artillery or dropped ordnance from an aircraft on trial for war crimes?
Finally, you came up with a good idea!

But no.

The Israelies still havent established that this was a directed action. It could have been insobordination or possibly an unexploded shell being detonated by children accidentally. It wouldnt be the first time either had happened.

Collateral damage might be a war crime.

Finally, you came up with a good idea!

But no.

Collateral Damage isn't a war crime.

The Israelies still havent established that this was a directed action. It could have been insobordination or possibly an unexploded shell being detonated by children accidentally. It wouldnt be the first time either had happened.

A true statement.

Collateral Damage isn't a war crime.
I'll repeat myself: Collateral damage might be a war crime. It's all about proportionality.

Nuke the city because you observed one man with a gun: You got the soldier, and the thousands of dead civilians were collateral damage. This might be a war crime.

I'll repeat myself: Collateral damage might be a war crime. It's all about proportionality.

It isn't period.

Nuke the city because you observed one man with a gun: You got the soldier, and the thousands of dead civilians were collateral damage. This might be a war crime.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Can your hypotheticals get anymore ludicrous?

It isn't period.
Because you say so?

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Can your hypotheticals get anymore ludicrous?
Oh yes they can, you have no idea.
But you're avoiding the point - I wonder why...

Because you say so?

Hmm no because no one has ever been charged because of Collateral Damage.

Oh yes they can, you have no idea.
But you're avoiding the point - I wonder why...

Because it is so stupid, it doesn't deserve a response.

Collateral damage might be a war crime.

Finally, you came up with a good idea!

But no.
No? Then why single out Israel? I don't often accuse people of this, but could it be that you're an antisemite? Certainly the collateral damage caused by Israel is less than that caused by the US to Japan or the allies to numerous German cities including Dresden.

No? Then why single out Israel? I don't often accuse people of this, but could it be that you're an antisemite? Certainly the collateral damage caused by Israel is less than that caused by the US to Japan or the allies to numerous German cities including Dresden.

Don't forget the collateral damage done to ally cities from German bombing.

Collateral damage as such is not a war crime, but a war crime could be classed as collateral damage.

There we go, that one was easy.

Hmm no because no one has ever been charged because of Collateral Damage.
That no one has ever been charged, doesn't mean it isn't a crime.


Because it is so stupid, it doesn't deserve a response.
The point, that collateral damage might be a war crime, is so stupid? I see...

Excuse me while I post an excert of what is internationally recognized as war 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:
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

No? Then why single out Israel? I don't often accuse people of this, but could it be that you're an antisemite? Certainly the collateral damage caused by Israel is less than that caused by the US to Japan or the allies to numerous German cities including Dresden.

Actually the collateral damage caused by Israel in its entire history is less than the collateral damage caused by the United States during the occupation of Iraq. But, as you noticed, Israel somehow got singled out here...

That no one has ever been charged, doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

Show me the treaty that makes Collateral Damage a war crime.

The point, that collateral damage might be a war crime, is so stupid? I see...

Excuse me while I post an excert of what is internationally recognized as war crimes:

Excuse me while I point out that the US isn't part of this :D

Can someone or some nation(s) act and commence hearings against the israli military and political leaders to the international war commitee, as former countrys were tried and found guilty of aggresoins over the geneva conventions so to should this nation be acountable for it attrocitys, mind you this applies to both palestein leaders and israli leaders.


Never more has so much stupidity been depicted by so few men who define the laws set down by former allies and enemys.

Noone will ever have the balls to try and convict the israelis. They are #2 in the middle east power wise and are a HUGE ally of the US and take care of terrorism in their part of the world.

The US isn't part of it because? Paranoia, essentially, that it will be bigger than the US.

The US isn't part of it because? Paranoia, essentially, that it will be bigger than the US.

We didn't become a part because we take care of our own law breakers.

No? Then why single out Israel? I don't often accuse people of this, but could it be that you're an antisemite? Certainly the collateral damage caused by Israel is less than that caused by the US to Japan or the allies to numerous German cities including Dresden.
I haven't singled out Israel. My statement is: "Collateral damage might be a war crime." This goes regardless of nations.

I don't think one should start prosecuting nations for what they did more than 50 years ago. It wouldn't be practical. But if you want to do it, I won't stop you so go right ahead.

So... am I anti-semitic yet?

The US isn't part of it because? Paranoia, essentially, that it will be bigger than the US.

That the international criminal court will be bigger than the US? As an abstract political body that has no power except by consent, I'd have to say that every soverign state on the planet has more power, and is 'bigger', than the ICC.

We didn't become a part because we take care of our own law breakers.

Because, the US is scared that the international community will adjudge as criminals those that the US might wish to protect.

It's understandable, just not admirable.

That the international criminal court will be bigger than the US? As an abstract political body that has no power except by consent, I'd have to say that every soverign state on the planet has more power, and is 'bigger', than the ICC.

Not what I was saying. In terms of war crimes, the ICC, if successful, will have much more moral authority than the US very swiflty.
The pressure for any alleged war criminals to face the court would soon become overwhelming.

I haven't singled out Israel. My statement is: "Collateral damage might be a war crime." This goes regardless of nations.

I don't think one should start prosecuting nations for what they did more than 50 years ago. It wouldn't be practical. But if you want to do it, I won't stop you so go right ahead.

So... am I anti-semitic yet?
Well when asked if everyone who used artillery or dropped bombs from aircraft, two activities that tend to cause collateral damage, should be charged with war crimes you said no. In your earlier posts you claimed that Israel should be charged with war crimes partly because of the collateral damage it's actions have caused. Now you say that nations shouldn't be judged for what they did fifty years ago. So what about the US collateral damage in Iraq? What about any collateral damage caused when France recently atttacked Cote d'Ivor's airfields? Clearly you're singling out Israel among all other nations.

Show me the treaty that makes Collateral Damage a war crime.

How about the Geneva convention, article 51, nr 5?
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.


Excuse me while I point out that the US isn't part of this :D
Irrelevant. Your correct arguement would be that Israel isn't a part of this.

But since you wanted to talk about the US, here you go:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

Well when asked if everyone who used artillery or dropped bombs from aircraft, two activities that tend to cause collateral damage, should be charged with war crimes you said no. In your earlier posts you claimed that Israel should be charged with war crimes partly because of the collateral damage it's actions have caused. Now you say that nations shouldn't be judged for what they did fifty years ago. So what about the US collateral damage in Iraq? What about any collateral damage caused when France recently atttacked Cote d'Ivor's airfields? Clearly you're singling out Israel among all other nations.
Hold up... Have I said anything about Israel, and that Israel should be charged with war crimes? You've got a link for this, because that is either a misunderstanding on your part or an inaccuracy by me.

Noone will ever have the balls to try and convict the israelis. They are #2 in the middle east power wise and are a HUGE ally of the US and take care of terrorism in their part of the world.

Or maybe they are defending themselves and havent done anything that any other nation wouldnt do under the same circumstances

Also as we have further pointed out, this action is not nessecaryly directly Isralie. It could be insobordination or an unexploded shell detonating by accident with children playing near it. It wouldnt be the first time either of those have occured.

Hold up... Have I said anything about Israel, and that Israel should be charged with war crimes? You've got a link for this, because that is either a misunderstanding on your part or an inaccuracy by me.
Misunderstanding on my part. Had you confused with another poster. I'm sorry.

Misunderstanding on my part. Had you confused with another poster. I'm sorry.
It's all good :)

The US isn't part of it because? Paranoia, essentially, that it will be bigger than the US.

Does that amount to handing over Americans to the world court?

Bah, over my dead body.

Or maybe they are defending themselves and havent done anything that any other nation wouldnt do under the same circumstances

Also as we have further pointed out, this action is not nessecaryly directly Isralie. It could be insobordination or an unexploded shell detonating by accident with children playing near it. It wouldnt be the first time either of those have occured.

Perhaps a pali terrorist making a bomb?

Because, the US is scared that the international community will adjudge as criminals those that the US might wish to protect.

It's understandable, just not admirable.

Oh go on and believe your dillusions.

Does that amount to handing over Americans to the world court?

Bah, over my dead body.


We are not immune to just punishment. If an American ever commited a war crime, than they should be justly punished, no?

So... am I anti-semitic yet?


You Jew hating nazi!:rolleyes: :p

A war crime is a punishable offense, under international (criminal) law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts don't necessarily amount to war crimes.
Palestine is not a state. I don't think that part of the geneva conventions applies.

*snip*

Seems to me that this is talking about carpet bombing. Since the US hasn't done any carpetbombing since vietnam....they do not apply.

We are not immune to just punishment. If an American ever commited a war crime, than they should be justly punished, no?

Not by a world court. We prosecute our own garbage.

Not by a world court. We prosecute our own garbage.


I don't understand why we shouldn't be held to follow the same procedures as other nations have to. Could someone explain this to me?

You Jew hating nazi!:rolleyes: :p
Meh...


:eek:
OH MY GOD! Did I just say that?? You know what that means!

Collateral damage is not a war crime. The Israelis can always claim they were shelling a known location of Hamas insurgents.

Too bad they already lost the ability to use that.

Not by a world court. We prosecute our own garbage.
Because the people in charge of a military action can fairly and objectively judge people carrying it out. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why we shouldn't be held to follow the same procedures as other nations have to. Could someone explain this to me?

You see we have this thing called the UCMJ which is the uniform code of military justice. We follow it and when people violate it, they get punished for it in accordance with the UCMJ. We do not hesitate to prosecute our own trash provided the JAG (Judge Advocate General) thinks there's enough evidence to prosecute.

Seems to me that this is talking about carpet bombing. Since the US hasn't done any carpetbombing since vietnam....they do not apply.
:rolleyes:

*sigh*

Where do you get only carpet bombing from?
an attack by bombardment by any methods or means

And what of the US? I thought the focus in this thread was on Israel?

:rolleyes:

*sigh*

Where do you get only carpet bombing from?

I want you to look at what you just posted. The target was legally a military target.

And what of the US? I thought the focus in this thread was on Israel?

And yet you said you weren't singling out Israel and yet you made a thread purely about Israel.

I'll repeat myself: Collateral damage might be a war crime. It's all about proportionality.

Nuke the city because you observed one man with a gun: You got the soldier, and the thousands of dead civilians were collateral damage. This might be a war crime.

I see no nuclear explosion. No firestorm. No carpet bombing of civilians en masse.

There isn't even evidence that it's Israeli ordinance.

Palestinians have fabricated evidence before. The classic recent example is the incident in which the young woman was crushed by a bulldozer - they photoshopped quite a bit extra, turning an accident into an intentional killing.

I want you to look at what you just posted. The target was legally a military target.
What are you talking about? :confused: The Gaza beach or something else?


And yet you said you weren't singling out Israel and yet you made a thread purely about Israel.
Okay, and what thread would that be?

Now, for all of you who were so SURE Israel did it....

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1149572653727

A Palestinian rocket that went off prematurely caused an explosion Saturday in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian security officials said.

Initially, the officials said the explosion was caused by an Israeli air strike, but later recanted their statement. The army said it had not carried out a missile strike in Gaza.

What are you talking about? :confused: The Gaza beach or something else?

With the beach, I believe it was just an unexploded shell that just happen to explode while they were there. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Okay, and what thread would that be?

You really have no idea what you are typing do you?

I see no nuclear explosion. No firestorm. No carpet bombing of civilians en masse.

There isn't even evidence that it's Israeli ordinance.

Palestinians have fabricated evidence before. The classic recent example is the incident in which the young woman was crushed by a bulldozer - they photoshopped quite a bit extra, turning an accident into an intentional killing.
And I'm not saying that it is a war crime in this case, either. Only that causing collateral damage may be classified as a war crime.

Now, for all of you who were so SURE Israel did it....

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1149572653727

It's been done.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487028

(Two different stories, it seems)

You really have no idea what you are typing do you?
Oh, I have some idea, most of the time. I'm getting a bit worried about your ability to read, though, so you may enlighten me on what thread I am supposed to have made.

Can someone or some nation(s) act and commence hearings against the israli military and political leaders to the international war commitee, as former countrys were tried and found guilty of aggresoins over the geneva conventions so to should this nation be acountable for it attrocitys, mind you this applies to both palestein leaders and israli leaders.


Never more has so much stupidity been depicted by so few men who define the laws set down by former allies and enemys.
Wow, atrocities-accidently killing civilians while trying to kill terrorists. Yes, I know the Isrealis have had troops who have done some...bad things, targetting civilians, but seriously, the Palenstianians target civilians a whole of a hell lot more. Oh, and I guess if we do this, we'll have to put Bush on trial (Je Suis Loving that I idea!) for war crimes...like that'll happen (I wish it would!). Seriously, the big name west leaders have commited unneeded attrocities. I'm not saying Middle East atrocities are justifiable, but when you're literally fighting for your country's survival, the rules are a little different.

And yet you said you weren't singling out Israel and yet you made a thread purely about Israel.
So, let's see:

Three inmates die at Guantanamo
And the winners are... Razzie Awards 2006
'Why I Published Those Cartoons' by Flemming Rose
New Abu Ghraib images

These are the threads I've made. Little about Israel here.

And should you mean this thread, then you are mistaken. I haven't talked about Israel, only how "collateral damage" can fall under the category "war crime" as well.

I think you need some sleep, mate ;)

Does that amount to handing over Americans to the world court?

Bah, over my dead body.

Precisely the attitude I was pointing out; thanks for proving my point :p

Oh go on and believe your dillusions.

If you can explain what my 'delusions' are, feel free...

You see we have this thing called the UCMJ which is the uniform code of military justice. We follow it and when people violate it, they get punished for it in accordance with the UCMJ. We do not hesitate to prosecute our own trash provided the JAG (Judge Advocate General) thinks there's enough evidence to prosecute.

Britain has military justice also; Britain's military justice is arguably stricter than American, at least in application; Britain is part of the ICC.

The USA claiming exception and standing aloof, begs the question - even amongst US allies - what are they afraid of?

Hmm no because no one has ever been charged because of Collateral Damage.
Are you sure? source please.
Even if true, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Take the firebombing of Dresden, for example. That was a delibrate war crime that went unpunished because it was on our side, and the huge number of innocents killed were 'collateral damage'.

No? Then why single out Israel? I don't often accuse people of this, but could it be that you're an antisemite? Certainly the collateral damage caused by Israel is less than that caused by the US to Japan or the allies to numerous German cities including Dresden.

Dresden was hardly collateral. The US burned it down so it would be easier for the Soviets to march through.

Are you sure? source please.
Even if true, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Take the firebombing of Dresden, for example. That was a delibrate war crime that went unpunished because it was on our side, and the huge number of innocents killed were 'collateral damage'.

It was a deliberate atrocity, considered necessary for victory by the eventual victors. The example of Dresden is one (of many) reasons for setting up the ICC - have something more than victors' justice.

These are the threads I've made. Little about Israel here.

Oh brother. And yet you have done nothing but go after Israel and then when the discussion moves on to other things, you continue to talk about Israel and only Israel. Yep "little" about Israel here.

Britain has military justice also; Britain's military justice is arguably stricter than American, at least in application; Britain is part of the ICC.

And we are not Britain. Not to mention, this would be considered unconstitutional because of our Constitution. Anyways, we prosecute our own trash so there is no need for us to be a member of the ICC. That's the key TI.

The USA claiming exception and standing aloof, begs the question - even amongst US allies - what are they afraid of?

Nothing. We have our own justice system.

Dresden was hardly collateral. The US burned it down so it would be easier for the Soviets to march through.

You forgot Great Britain in this diatribe.

Oh brother. And yet you have done nothing but go after Israel and then when the discussion moves on to other things, you continue to talk about Israel and only Israel. Yep "little" about Israel here.
So you keep saying, but you don't seem to bother quoting. So when you qoute a specific qoute, I'll gladly respond. However, you'll have to forgive me if I think that debating unfounded accusations is a pointless waste of time.

But you go right ahead, and have fun. (I mean, it's not like not backing up your arguments is something new, is it?) :rolleyes:

And we are not Britain. Not to mention, this would be considered unconstitutional because of our Constitution. Anyways, we prosecute our own trash so there is no need for us to be a member of the ICC. That's the key TI.



Nothing. We have our own justice system.

How is it unconstitutional for the USA to permit an international body to try US citizens, as long as the permission to do so is given via due process - the treaty properly ratified etc; and once there they are given a fair trial?

I am no constitutional lawyer, but I don't see what in the US constitution prevents that.

What is more while the USA does "prosecute its own trash" as you term it, do you expect other countries to trust that an American soldier, tried by an American court martial, hasn't got off lightly?
For obvious reasons, trial by an international, criminal court would not face the same problem.