Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Marines charged...

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Marines charged...

    Eight US marines have been charged over the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha last year.
    Four are accused of unpremeditated murder and four others are charged with attempting to cover up the incident.

    Men, women and children were killed by marines who said they were under attack from insurgents at the time.

    The US military initially said the civilians died in unrest. If found guilty of second-degree murder, the marines could face life imprisonment.

    Squad leader Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich has been charged with the unpremeditated murder of 12 Iraqis and ordering his troops to kill six people, his lawyer Neal Puckett said.

    Lance Cpl Justin Sharratt has also been charged with three such counts, his legal representatives say.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 198947.stm

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I was thinking about the concept of war crimes yesterday, and I can't decide how I feel about their prosecution. In theory, obviously I'm entirely in favour. However in practice, it seems to be a continuation of the concept of 'to the winner go the spoils'.

    In other words, the victor in a war captures the leaders of the losing nation, and sticks them on trial for some war crime or other, leading to their execution. Meanwhile, the leaders of the victor nation get away scot-free. In Bosnia, most of the war crimes were committed by paramilitary and irregular units, yet Milosevic - the president of Serbia, not Yugoslavia, was labelled responsible for these actions.

    The shelling of an urban areas (Sarajevo, Dubrovnik, Mostar) was claimed to be a war crime during the Bosnian wars. The Hague wishes to try colonels, generals, and heads of government for such actions. However, of course, American colonels, generals and George Bush himself will not be tried for the shelling of Fallujah. Again in Vietnam, war crimes were held to be the responsiblity of junior officers, not senior staff or elected officials in the US.

    I suppose it could be argued that senior Serbs were held responsible for the actions of junior commanders because they failed to take steps to stop those commanders committing acts of violence and rape, whereas the US administration has - to a degree - prosecuted troops who committed war crimes, but usually only because of political/media pressure. If Abu Ghraib hadn't become a major scandal, would anyone have been prosecuted?

    I accept the political reality that no US President is ever going to be convicted in the Hague for war crimes. However, is it better to have the West's "enemies" convicted for their war crimes, despite the blatant hypocrisy of it, or to prosecute no-one to avoid the double standard?

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    322
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Look at the initial American statement. This kind of statement has been heard hundreds of times since the conflict began.."Soldier and several civiliand killed in blast." The intention of these statements is to hide the American crime and slap a bit of black propaganda against the resistance groups. Only by luck in Haditha lived an Iraqi journalist, who as well as having a video camera, and a bit of savvy, also had a contact in _Time magazine.
    How many hidden "Hadithas" have their been?
    Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Irish republicans, especially supporters of the Real IRA are in no position to lecture anyone about killing civilians

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It seems a lieutenant colonel is being charged with dereliction of duty.

    I know its a leap, but if a battaltion commander can be charged with dereliction of duty over this incident, surely the same principle applies to the White House's duty to ensure prisons such as Abu Ghraib do not involve prisoner abuse

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin NSide and Belfast 15
    Posts
    1,250
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nimrod
    Irish republicans, especially supporters of the Real IRA are in no position to lecture anyone about killing civilians
    What about the rest of us? Are we permitted to complain about the murder of Iraqi civilians by US and British forces?
    Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
    United Irishmen Day Petition
    Skinflicks blog
    Rep abuse illustrated

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    322
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nimrod
    Irish republicans, especially supporters of the Real IRA are in no position to lecture anyone about killing civilians
    And can supporters of the British Labour Party, Fianna Fail or U.S Government lecture the RIRA about killing civilians?
    Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    10,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    I was thinking about the concept of war crimes yesterday, and I can't decide how I feel about their prosecution. In theory, obviously I'm entirely in favour. However in practice, it seems to be a continuation of the concept of 'to the winner go the spoils'.

    In other words, the victor in a war captures the leaders of the losing nation, and sticks them on trial for some war crime or other, leading to their execution. Meanwhile, the leaders of the victor nation get away scot-free. In Bosnia, most of the war crimes were committed by paramilitary and irregular units, yet Milosevic - the president of Serbia, not Yugoslavia, was labelled responsible for these actions.

    The shelling of an urban areas (Sarajevo, Dubrovnik, Mostar) was claimed to be a war crime during the Bosnian wars. The Hague wishes to try colonels, generals, and heads of government for such actions. However, of course, American colonels, generals and George Bush himself will not be tried for the shelling of Fallujah. Again in Vietnam, war crimes were held to be the responsiblity of junior officers, not senior staff or elected officials in the US.

    I suppose it could be argued that senior Serbs were held responsible for the actions of junior commanders because they failed to take steps to stop those commanders committing acts of violence and rape, whereas the US administration has - to a degree - prosecuted troops who committed war crimes, but usually only because of political/media pressure. If Abu Ghraib hadn't become a major scandal, would anyone have been prosecuted?

    I accept the political reality that no US President is ever going to be convicted in the Hague for war crimes. However, is it better to have the West's "enemies" convicted for their war crimes, despite the blatant hypocrisy of it, or to prosecute no-one to avoid the double standard?
    TBH I always took those reports of 'War Crimes' in the Yugoslav Wars with a grain of salt. Not that they didn't take place but that the reporting of who was doing to what was so slanted. Namely the Serbs were blamed for being the major culprits primarily because they were the most independently minded people in eastern Europe.

    A proud and independent people were crushed for daring to oppose in arms the attempts by the western Powers to dismember the Yugoslav State.


    As for Iraq if there was Justice then Bush,Blair & Co. would be in the dock but it will never happen. Their punisment will be to see them remembered as two politicians who failed in a spectacular fashion due to hubris and ignorance in their handling of foreign policy.

    Idiots! :x

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member merle haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catalpa
    TBH I always took those reports of 'War Crimes' in the Yugoslav Wars with a grain of salt. Not that they didn't take place but that the reporting of who was doing to what was so slanted. Namely the Serbs were blamed for being the major culprits primarily because they were the most independently minded people in eastern Europe.

    A proud and independent people were crushed for daring to oppose in arms the attempts by the western Powers to dismember the Yugoslav State.


    As for Iraq if there was Justice then Bush,Blair & Co. would be in the dock but it will never happen. Their punisment will be to see them remembered as two politicians who failed in a spectacular fashion due to hubris and ignorance in their handling of foreign policy.

    Idiots! :x
    I agree . The same people who had the world petrified about Saddams WMD demonised the serbs from the beginning of the Yugoslavian conflict and before theyd even fored a shot . There were supposed to be mass graves piled to the brim with tens of 1000s of the blood thirsty serbs innocent victims. Later on they told us they couldnt find the mass graves because the dastardly serbs were routinely digging up the thousands of bodies and hiding them again . Utter nonsense in my opinion , just like the non existant WMD in Iraq .
    The world media broadcast pictures of what they called the horror of Srebrinica . Horrific pictures of Ratko Mladic ...erm....escorting civilians to safety...the swine !!! And these Bosnian muslim refugees sought refuge from the rampaging baby eating serbs.....in Serbia !!!! The destabilisation of that country was greatly aided by lies and propaganda by the very same serial liars and mass killers who engineered the Iraq invasion . They did not let up until they had placed a CIA puppet in control, a handy serb businessman whod been educated and lived in America for 20 years . Just like the puppets they placed in charge of Iraq .
    War criminals like Madeleine Albright openly justified the horrific sanctions against Iraq as a means of destabilising the Iraqi state . How many millions , mostly children , the elderly , the disabled and the infirm suffered and died over that period to allow the US and Britain to ultimately invade once the country had been sufficiently weakened . What purpose can sanctions which ban the importation of childrens medicine and even toys have only than to target children deliberately .
    Its no surprise at all that the very people who demanded a war crimes tribunal be set up in the Hague also demanded that US citizens will have immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity . That is simply twisted and warped , completely unjust .

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    It seems a lieutenant colonel is being charged with dereliction of duty.

    I know its a leap, but if a battaltion commander can be charged with dereliction of duty over this incident, surely the same principle applies to the White House's duty to ensure prisons such as Abu Ghraib do not involve prisoner abuse
    Haven't they already said that they engage in torture? I mean Cheney came out brazenly in an interview to approve of 'waterboarding' recently. Why are the Gulags 'secret'? Makes you think what goes on there.

    And how long before the justifying 'logic' behind this horror becomes acceptable at home? Maybe a few more series of 24 - now with extra torture scenes would do it...

    Btw up until recently I considered the worst form of torture to involve say something with the genitalia, (say that scene in Casino Royale) either that or being boiled alive, or the stuff in 1984, that was until I read this,

    The Darkest Corner of the Mind

    ....Last week, defence lawyers acting for Jose Padilla, a US citizen detained as an “enemy combatant”, released a video showing a mission fraught with deadly risk – taking him to the prison dentist. A group of masked guards in riot gear shackled his legs and hands, blindfolded him with black-out goggles and shut off his hearing with headphones, then marched him down the prison corridor(1).

    Is Padilla really that dangerous? Far from it: his warders describe him as so docile and inactive that he could be mistaken for “a piece of furniture”.The purpose of these measures appeared to be to sustain the regime under which he had lived for over three years: total sensory deprivation. He had been kept in a blacked-out cell, unable to see or hear anything beyond it. Most importantly, he had no human contact, except for being bounced off the walls from time to time by his interrogators. As a result, he appears to have lost his mind. I don’t mean this metaphorically. I mean that his mind is no longer there....

    There's really nothing left after they take your mind. And to think someone subjected to that could have been transported through Shannon....

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •