|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2005 : 13:01:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
International law says that this is an illegal act.
I'll challenge you again, Gorgo: given that it is an illegal war, where in international law does it state that it is a crime to be a soldier in an illegal war? You seemed to accept that it is not a crime on page four of this discussion, but now you appear to reject it. Why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 13:06:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Well, again, they are just questions and I have not "blamed" anyone for anything. I have said that George Bush is a criminal, but even that itself is not "blaming" it is statement of fact.
Telling me that the UCMJ says that this is not illegal does not answer my question. It says that the U.S. considers itself above international law. My question is why do we not consider this illegal?
Negative. It says that the unit was given marching orders by the Commander in Chief. The military obeyed those orders. The invasion of an aggressor nation or the defense of an invaded nation are not illegal under international law. It is also absurd to believe that the UN has any real substantive authority to impose their will upon a superpower. Under international law, the invasion of Iraq was illegal as it was unprovoked. The penalty has been and continues to be a lessening of respect within the international community and removal from many key committees.
Even under the Geneva Convention and the Nurmberg trials, the conduct of the men was not considered illegal unless they violated certian rules of warfare. The President declared war (as was his perview when the Congress abdicated that Constitutional responsibility) and by such made any order which conformed to the rules of warfare legal.
quote:
International law says that this is an illegal act. Nuremberg has shown that "just following orders" is not an excuse. Ignorance is not an excuse. Soldiers have a duty to defy illegal orders. It is not a legal order to illegally attack another country.
It is a legal order to illegally attack another country. By declaring war, Bush made any order to invade Iraq legal. The international community may yet hold Bush accountable for his illegal declaration of war, but never the troops. The troops are held blameless under the Geneva Convention as long as they did not commit overt criminal actions as outlined in the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ.
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 10/10/2005 13:11:49 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 15:55:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll challenge you again, Gorgo: given that it is an illegal war, where in international law does it state that it is a crime to be a soldier in an illegal war? You seemed to accept that it is not a crime on page four of this discussion, but now you appear to reject it. Why?
I think lawyers will disagree on this. Some will say that it is illegal, but no one took the time and expense to prosecute, and some will say that it isn't and could dig up a certain amount of material, but that isn't my point. My point is why aren't they considered criminals? I am asking a question, not making a statement - except to say that the war is illegal, that it is a fact that "just following orders" is not a defense, and generally speaking, ignorance is not an excuse. All those things may be factors when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and what kind of sentence is imposed, but it is not saying that it is not a crime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/10/2005 15:58:53 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 16:02:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
My point is why aren't they considered criminals? I am asking a question, not making a statement - except to say that the war is illegal, that it is a fact that "just following orders" is not a defense, and generally speaking, ignorance is not an excuse. All those things may be factors when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and what kind of sentence is imposed, but it is not saying that it is not a crime.
Legal and illegal where? Who do you want to impose sentences? On whose authority would these prosecutions be carried out? In the US, it is illegal to refuse to fight in Iraq if you are in the military. Who do you want to find them criminals? US courts? How, when the US doesn't recognize the current war as an illegal war?
You are making quite a few assumptions, not the least of which is that everyone is in agreement that invading Iraq was in fact illegal. That is far from being the case.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/10/2005 16:07:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 16:20:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think lawyers will disagree on this. Some will say that it is illegal, but no one took the time and expense to prosecute, and some will say that it isn't and could dig up a certain amount of material, but that isn't my point. My point is why aren't they considered criminals? I am asking a question, not making a statement - except to say that the war is illegal, that it is a fact that "just following orders" is not a defense, and generally speaking, ignorance is not an excuse. All those things may be factors when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and what kind of sentence is imposed, but it is not saying that it is not a crime.
You failed to answer the question: where in international law does it state that soldiers fighting in an illegal war are committing a crime?
The defense is not that they're "just following orders" or that they're ignorant of the legality of the war, the defense is that no international body has declared that being a soldier in an illegal war is itself a criminal act. No prosection of these soldiers will be made because they have committed no crimes.
Everything I've read over the past few days regarding this acknowledges that wars (both legal and illegal) will occur, and that soldiers are expected to fight in them. Individual soldiers are responsible for not purposefully harming civilians, for treating captured enemy soldiers with a modicum of respect, etc. In other words, it is a crime for them to violate the "laws of war," but not a crime for them to be in a war.
I can't find a single sentence in any international treaty signed by the U.S. which makes a distinction between a soldier's actions in a legal war and a soldier's actions in an illegal war. Based on that, it seems that it's expected that the parties responsible for sending the soldiers to war will be the ones held liable for the crime of starting an illegal war.
And before you "ask a question" about it, this doesn't make the U.S. above international law, since by international law if some other country were to illegally attack the U.S., we wouldn't be able to charge their soldiers with war crimes just for being soldiers attacking us. On the other hand, it's clear that Bush thinks he is above international law, but the UN and other international bodies seem to be too wussified to actually label him a criminal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 16:54:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On the other hand, it's clear that Bush thinks he is above international law, but the UN and other international bodies seem to be too wussified to actually label him a criminal.
Well, we do not seem to be able to communicate, but we do agree on the last. Kofi Annan even said it was illegal, but pulled up short of calling Bush a criminal.
But then Bush is no different than the other Bush and Clinton and Reagan and Carter and..... |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 17:22:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Kofi Annan even said it was illegal, but pulled up short of calling Bush a criminal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Annan said that to a reporter as a personal opinion. As far as I know, the UN hasn't officially declared the Iraq invasion an illegal war.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 18:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Well, we do not seem to be able to communicate...
Yes, because you refuse to do so. Whether it's because you're failing to articulate your points well, or because I don't understand your points, doesn't matter - they're your points, and I can't be expected to read your mind. Either try to help me understand you correctly, or tell me that you won't (so I can stop wasting my time). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 19:25:44 [Permalink]
|
It just occured to me, Gorgo, where your confusion might be stemming from. Specifically, you say:
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
My point is why aren't they considered criminals? I am asking a question, not making a statement - except to say that the war is illegal, that it is a fact that "just following orders" is not a defense, and generally speaking, ignorance is not an excuse.
"Just following orders" is in fact a very good defense for most military actions a soldier might engage in. The exception is war crimes.
A soldier has no way of knowing what information his superiors are basing a command on. If he is told to fight, he must fight. It is impossible to expect a soldier to know the legality of the orders he is given. In almost all cases, soldiers are held blameless for "just following orders." An exception would be to follow an order such as "rape that woman," since there is no conceivable circumstance where that could ever be a legal order.
No lawyer would ever attempt to try a soldier for just following orders that did not appear to be obviously illegal on their face. If the orders were somehow illegal, he would only try those who were in a position to know that they were. One cannot expect someone who was kept in the dark to be held accountable.
Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking a law which you didn't know existed. In this case, the soldiers are not breaking any laws by following orders, so ignorance is a valid excuse if the orders were illegal unbeknownst to them.
There are laws they can break by refusing to follow orders, which again stresses why you can't expect individual soldiers to do anything other but follow the orders given them, with the exception being very specific war crimes.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/10/2005 19:36:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 19:49:54 [Permalink]
|
| Gorgo's point seems to be that if the war itself is illegal, then following the order to go and fight ought to be considered an illegal act of its own. But due to the failure to communicate, I have no idea if this is actually what Gorgo means or not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 20:11:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Gorgo's point seems to be that if the war itself is illegal, then following the order to go and fight ought to be considered an illegal act of its own. But due to the failure to communicate, I have no idea if this is actually what Gorgo means or not.
Yes, so I thought I'd try to explain to him why most people consider holding soldiers accountable for every order they're given is an extreme and unreasonable opinion. I think too many of us were taking it for granted that it was obviously so. (I know I was) But perhaps it is not obvious to Gorgo. At a minimum, he is misapplying several legal rulings, which leads me to believe he doesn't understand what they mean or how they were arrived at.
He also seems to be under the impression that the current war in Iraq has already been officially declared "illegal," when that isn't the case at all. But that's a separate issue. Most have been using "if/then" statements in an attempt to further the conversation.
BTW, I thought your last longish post was perfectly clear and, as usual, much better put than anything I could say.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/10/2005 20:18:50 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 05:14:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, because you refuse to do so. Whether it's because you're failing to articulate your points well, or because I don't understand your points, doesn't matter - they're your points, and I can't be expected to read your mind. Either try to help me understand you correctly, or tell me that you won't (so I can stop wasting my time).
Just don't assume that because you don't understand something that that makes someone else an idiot. I have repeatedly and in various ways stated what I think and you seem to all be unable to read the words on the page. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/11/2005 05:22:16 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 05:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Annan said that to a reporter as a personal opinion. As far as I know, the UN hasn't officially declared the Iraq invasion an illegal war.
What UN body is likely to do that? None of this makes it any more legal.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 16:49:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Just don't assume that because you don't understand something that that makes someone else an idiot.
I didn't assume that you're an idiot, Gorgo. I simply suggested that the communication problem is on your end of things.quote:
I have repeatedly and in various ways stated what I think and you seem to all be unable to read the words on the page.
And history has shown that if one person says something, and a whole bunch of people don't understand, the problem usually exists with the one person making the statement.
Besides which, I understood your three statements just fine. You've also told us what you are not stating, and I get that, too. No, the problem exists with those "questions" you kept "asking." Why don't you try to actually state whatever it is you're trying to convey to us?
Because it seems clear that no amount of questions, or of telling us what you don't mean, is going to allow us to understand what you do mean. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 04:11:17 [Permalink]
|
I have stated exactly what the question was, and exactly the information behind the question.
The question is:
Why are soldiers who take part in an illegal war not considered criminals.
The answers:
1. It's not an illegal war.
Response: That's your opinion. I reference the link placed earlier in the thread. Assuming that it is an illegal war, why aren't soldiers who participate in it considered criminals.
2. The UCMJ and Supreme Court (or you disagree that international law does not consider them criminals) do not agree that they are criminals.
Response: The question isn't are they considered criminals, the question is why aren't they considered criminals.
3. They aren't considered criminals because then no one would fight a war.
Response: That's a reasonable response, but all that's saying is that there is no international body to decide such a thing. Why isn't there? Because the United States doesn't want it. Why? Because the people don't want it because they are misinformed, or there is just no reason for it. Which means, basically, that they don't consider participants in an illegal war criminals. Why is that? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
