Posted on 05/18/2022 11:27:03 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Such stupidity
NYT sux and this bill sux
not our monkeys,not our circus
#1. From the article, it looks like this proposal codifies case law into federal law. Those accused of war crimes in wars the U.S. was not involved, who reside in the U.S., can get deported to countries that have jurisdiction. Codifying case law into law is a common legislative process.
That’s not the impression the article gives, because it specifically references the ‘96 War Crimes Act as follows: “The 1996 [House committee] report also said that restricting the War Crimes Act to situations involving Americans would not mean that a foreign war criminal discovered in the United States would have impunity, since that person could be extradited to a foreign court with proper jurisdiction for prosecution.”
The current state of affairs is that alleged war criminals outside of America’s jurisdiction can still be deported to places that do have such.
The draft bill under consideration in the Senate, at least going by the reporting of the Times, would remove that requirement entirely, allowing the DOJ to prosecute alleged war criminals even if the alleged war crime(s) in question did not involve anyone within America’s jurisdiction.
That’s my point regarding the idea stipulated in the article. What is good for a goose is good for a gander. War crime is a flexible definition, the Americans participate in a lot of wars. The idea that a national court in country A is going to prosecute troops of country B allegedly committed war crimes in country C is going to hit American nationals in the first place.
You are playing stupid, aren’t you? The war crime was committed, the government admitted, but said mistargeting and didn’t prosecute anyone. Go shoot a mole in the backyard and mistarget killing the neighbor, his wife and granddaughter. I’d like to see where the mistargeting defense is going to bring you.
I cannot wrap my brain around this insanity. I don't remember any difficulties in the prosecution and conviction of Lieutenant William Calley.
Because William Calley was an American citizen and an American soldier fighting under America’s colors in the Vietnam War, and thus fell under America’s jurisdiction by default.
This article is talking about expanding America’s jurisdiction so that non-American individuals who allegedly commit war crimes against other non-Americans in a warzone that America is not formally involved in can nonetheless be prosecuted by America.
“You are playing stupid, aren’t you?”
Go back and read the thread. Hell, I’ll post it for you (in pertinent part):
You: Was anyone convicted and sent to prison? I mean Afghan prison.
Me: Did anyone bring charges in a recognized court with jurisdiction? No. So, absent that, how the hell can one be convicted, much less sent to prison?
You: Why it didn’t take place?
Me: A trial? Never heard that one did. Link please.
Your question, “Why it didn’t take place?” is phrased in the same manner as, “Why, the sun didn’t rise in the east?”
In other words, you are asking in the same manner and phrasing as one would pose a question about a known event that has happened. You just forgot the punctuation (which happens to all of us at one time or another). If you had wanted to ask why something DIDN’T take place, you would have asked, “Why didn’t it take place?”
It is far more common to forget punctuation than it is to ask a question in a dyslexic manner, unless one is dyslexic. Are you dyslexic?
As it is, you asked, as I read and interpreted it, “Why, it didn’t take place?” IT being a trial, or some legal proceeding which would lead to conviction and imprisonment.
To which I understandably responded, “A trial? Never heard that one did. Link please.”
Or, maybe English is not your native language.
Leading senators of both parties have struck a deal over a draft bill that would expand a 1996 war crimes law to give American courts jurisdiction over cases involving atrocities committed abroad even if neither party is a U.S. citizen, in the latest response to Russia’s apparent targeting of civilians in Ukraine.We have Senators who want to give themselves the civil authority to bring war crime charges on a foreigner in foreign lands. We didn't need this insanity with Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein. How would these fools propose to enforce this crazy legislation? That's all we need now is Deputy Sheriff Senators. /s
I saw that when I read the first line. So we would have to send a Combined Joint Task Force in country to apprehend the accused to present him to trial? LOL Who comes up with this crazy malarkey? Does anybody think of the consequences? Would we allow any other nation to do the same to us? No way Jose!
I know, we would send the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate to arrest the perp! She can do it, no doubt!
Why did the government fail to file charges was the question.
“The war crime was committed...”
It was an accidental killing; meaning, the killing of THESE particular persons was UNINTENTIONAL; what WAS intentional was killing a terrorist target. This was a mis-identification, a mis-targeting; an accident, unless gross negligence can be established (a very tough burden to meet). Look it up.
“Go shoot a mole in the backyard and mistarget killing the neighbor, his wife and granddaughter. I’d like to see where the mistargeting defense is going to bring you.”
One of the stupidest comparisons I’ve seen yet.
First off, there is absolutely no comparison between a mole and a human being.
But if you want to make the mole analogy, you’d have to say that I shot the mole I THOUGHT had been damaging my lawn; but the one I actually did shoot was not really the guilty mole, but his twin brother. I didn’t INTEND to kill the twin brother, I had INTENDED to kill the mole who was damaging my lawn.
Thus, the killing of the mole I DID shoot was UNINTENTIONAL. For a valid war crime to have been committed there would have had to be an INTENT to commit that crime AGAINST the party that was, in fact, harmed.
Learn the concept of negligent homicide. In the example the intent is to kill the mole as well.
Although in the discussed scenario our considerations are meaningless.
If we are about to accept the notion of extraterritorial judiciary against foreign nationals by a national court then you’d have to accept that one day the Iranian courts are going to decide the fate of the Americans over things that take place outside Iran and America. You’d have to accept what they think war crimes are.
“Why did the government fail to file charges was the question.”
You have been making the argument for WAR CRIMES. And as I explained previously, there were no WAR CRIMES in this incident. So there could not be WAR CRIMES charges brought against anyone.
If you are wondering if the US Army (or whatever branch was actually conducting the mission) could have brought up some OTHER, lesser charges, you’d have to ask them. But knowing the US government, if it could have found a scapegoat to hang this on it would have done so. But it apparently concluded that no charges would stand (and the government would rather this matter end like that than bring up some E-3 on charges for which he or she would be acquitted, and be publically embarrassed).
Wow, given how justice is meted out these days federally, and locally, by political affiliation, can you imagine how war crimes would be handled?
“You dared to oppose me, perhaps its because you are a “war criminal”?
Or perhaps a properly placed donation can cleanse all hints of “war crimes”?
“Learn the concept of negligent homicide.”
I know what negligent homicide is, because before I retired I handled multiple cases involving wrongful death (which is the civil version of negligent homicide).
“If we are about to accept the notion of extraterritorial judiciary against foreign nationals by a national court then you’d have to accept that one day the Iranian courts are going to decide the fate of the Americans over things that take place outside Iran and America. You’d have to accept what they think war crimes are.”
If Iran is a signatory to international agreements re: war crimes (which it is) then it is bound by those definitions and terms and conditions, and cannot legally make up its own.
It is not about international agreements, there is ICC for that, the US for some reason doesn’t recognize the jurisdiction of and even banned its officials from entry.
It is blatant expansion of US jurisdiction into the rest of the world.
Why should Iran be a signatory if it wants to try the American for things it considers war crimes, committed in Iraq?
They should just pass the bill saying they can.
Sure, the definition of war crimes are universal. What fits into the definition is up to the judges to decide. Either American or Iranian judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.