Yes it does try people. But looking at some of the Abu Grahib trials, you get the feeling there is a political element involved there anyway. I wander what was the highest ranking member of the US military to be tried for war crimes? Also some might question how seriously these trials are taken given the example of the judicial process following Mylai.
Yes it does try people. But looking at some of the Abu Grahib trials, you get the feeling there is a political element involved there anyway. I wander what was the highest ranking member of the US military to be tried for war crimes? Also some might question how seriously these trials are taken given the example of the judicial process following Mylai.[/quote]
I believe that the commandant of the Anderson POW camp (Civil War) might be the highest ranked American to be tried and executed for war crimes. I’m not sure though.
Technically, he might perhaps be labelled a Confederate, rather than an American, for the purposes of this discussion.
Yes it does try people. But looking at some of the Abu Grahib trials, you get the feeling there is a political element involved there anyway. I wander what was the highest ranking member of the US military to be tried for war crimes? Also some might question how seriously these trials are taken given the example of the judicial process following Mylai.[/quote]
There are laws and there is the application of the laws. There are burdons of proof. We cannot convict people, regardless of how high or low they are based on mere speculation.
Don’t know if he was the highest ranking… but on 11 October 1867, at Fort Leavenworth, a court martial found Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer, Lieutenant Colonel, 7 th U.S. Cavalry guilty and sentenced him to suspension from rank and command for one year, and forfeiture of his pay for the same time.
But I don’t believe Custer was tried for “war crimes”.
Edited: I believe his crime was AWOL.
But I don’t believe Custer was tried for “war crimes”.
Edited: I believe his crime was AWOL.[/quote]
You’re correct.
Curious: Are you referring to the same Custer of LBH fame? Why did he go AWOL? Enlighten me.
For Broon Ale:
I suggest not enlightening him (an impossible task) but showing him instead…
Yes, Custer of LBH fame. He went to visit his sister or wife or something like that.
:offtopic: yes, yes , I know…I have Reno’s autograph (he was the officer whose command was pinned down by the river. That’s why he wasn’t slaughtered)
[quote=“Durins Bane”]Yes, Custer of LBH fame. He went to visit his sister or wife or something like that.
[/quote]
Thank you. Was it his wife or his sister or the same? Different values out there in them days…just curious.
[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Durins Bane”]Yes, Custer of LBH fame. He went to visit his sister or wife or something like that.
[/quote]
Thank you. Was it his wife or his sister or the same? Different values out there in them days…just curious.[/quote]
Wife.
He was also accused of murder… don’t know whether that was charged in the Court Martial… anyway, he was relieved of command for one year.
Wife and sister were different…Custer was not French. 
[quote=“Durins Bane”]
Wife and sister were different…Custer was not French. 
[/quote]
Ah oui, je comprend.
Vraiment Broon Ale? Vraiment? I am sure that you do understand Broon Ale. Oh yes, I am sure that you understand all too well.
[quote=“BroonAle”]Finally the Bushist regime has caved in with regard to its attempts to put their own above international law and thus allow the Abu Ghraib-type thugs to please themselves. This blatant attempt by the US to demand immunity from prosecution for war crimes for its military personel had always been a disgusting attempt to put themselves above the law and now they have given up trying. Hoorah!
Who do they think they are, thinking they can just go around pleasing themselves? One law for the US, another for the rest? Bullshit!
Another nail in the coffin for Adolf Bush’s foreign policy…HAH![/quote]
Good. It’s funny how the Bushies are forever whining about “accountability”, but when it comes to their OWN actions, the Bushies refuse to be held accountable.
Chris:
How are the Bushies refusing to be held accountable for their actions? Are not the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib case being prosecuted? What else should the Bushies be held accountable for? The lack of wmds when it was up to Saddam to prove that he did not have them and the whole world believed that he did prior to the invasion and I would still say that the Russians, Germans and French KNEW that he had them. We will find out eventually. What else? That 911 was going to happen? That was a Democratic Attorney General who separated agency sharing of information. So? Who’s not being held accountable?
[quote=“fred smith”]Chris:
How are the Bushies refusing to be held accountable for their actions? Are not the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib case being prosecuted? What else should the Bushies be held accountable for? The lack of wmds when it was up to Saddam to prove that he did not have them and the whole world believed that he did prior to the invasion and I would still say that the Russians, Germans and French KNEW that he had them. We will find out eventually. What else? That 911 was going to happen? That was a Democratic Attorney General who separated agency sharing of information. So? Who’s not being held accountable?[/quote]
You are waffling in extremis, Signore Freddissimo. This thread refers to the US Administration’s abandonment of its attempts to exclude all US military personnel from being brought to trial by an International tribunal. It is not referring to the judicial whitewash/appeasement exercise going on re: Abu Ghraib. Your fears that US personnel will be brought to trial by some third world kangaroo justice system are unjustified. Stop dodging the issue and just accept the fact that where crimes are committed you are the same as everyone else and you are absolutely wrong to make out that somehow you are superior beings and thus exempt. You aren’t.
The fear is justified.[/quote]
The US’s efforts should then be focussed on fine-tuning that which already exists and/or coming up with its own proposals for consideration rather than seeking a blanket exemption for US military and political figures. An International Tribunal worth its salt would be able to distinguish between the fatuous attempts at score-settling and cases truly worthy of further examination and prosecution. Judges can throw cases out if they are without merit can’t they? The US is only afraid of being a position whereby it cannot control or manipulate the outcome. If the US truly believed in the inequities of the ICC now then why doesn’t it cry foul now and leap to the defence of poor little Slobo? Where is the outcry about the tribunals in Arusha? The US simply wants a two-tiered system put in place whereby whatever is done in the name of the US is justified in advance and therefore cannot be considered a crime (when all other standards would deem a crime having taken place) and whoever commits an atrocity but is not a US um…person…is subject to a war crimes investigation. It smack of superiority and is carrying the presumption of innocence to an extreme. Are you saying that the US is the only country in the world capable of exercising justice? Bollocks! Come down a peg or two. It is this arrogance and blanket disregard / disrespect for international institutions, treaties and opinion that is the cause of much (IMO) ire directed towards the US. You are not even willing to try…