Hi Samuel!
17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them.
>> THIS is the question.
>> As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court.
SH> The US law will not allow a US servicemember to get dragged into
SH> an international court. The US law protects them from that. It is
SH> for American courts to determine whether US servicemembers are
SH> following the UCMJ. International courts do not have the authority to
SH> make rulings on such matters. Even if they were to be so high-handed
SH> as to assert such authority, their rulings would not count because
SH> they could not enforce them.
SAM ... you _still_ haven't got the point.
The UCMJ is irrelevant for the world. The UCMJ is AMERICAN law.
If Iraq has ICMJ, than it is OK for Iraq to march into Kuwait ?
If yes, than we have a HUGE problem, because this means that everybody can do
everything, as long as he makes a national law first, which allows it.
If no, than US's UCMJ is absolutely irrelevant, and law breakings have to be
punished by an authority standing above any single country.
And the secons case is the true.
>> SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a
>> SH> weapon does not mean that he has been given the right to kill
>> SH> anybody he wants.
>> Sure not ...
>> but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this
>> weapon. This is a murder, and has to be punished.
SH> There is a current executive order prohibiting the assassination of
SH> political leaders. Anyone violating this order will be punished
SH> accordingly.
don't make me laugh. (PS: killing non political leaders is OK ??)
Bush himself expressed how much he would like if somebody managed to kill
Saddam.
>> And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him
>> (breaking law and UCMJ) to kill the person ??
SH> It is an unlawful order.
Which has been given many times in the US. (Castro, Saddam, .......)
SH> The person receiving the order has the duty to disobey it.
yes, but many soldiers are too well indoctrinated to do so.
Maybe they received home schooling ?? (sorry ... just a joke ...
but here you have the general problem of why I prefer public schools much,
much, much more)
SH> If he obeys an unlawful order he will be subject to prosecution and
SH> punishment under the UCMJ.
When he does a crime in another country, than the AMERICAN UCMJ IS IRRELEVANT.
You can't extend american laws to the whole world.
>> But what if Bush illegally starts war ??
>> Will he than be punished by american law ??
SH> Yes.
soon we will see.
>>>> Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ...
>>>> and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ...
>>>> than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ...
>> SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are
>> SH> given a fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed
>> SH> in the UCMJ.
>> This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared.
SH> Well, you have said yourself that Austrian soldiers should be tried in
SH> their own military courts for alleged violations of their military
SH> laws, and I agree with that.
only if they commit crimes on where no third party (country) is involved.
a ... austria, b ... belgium
a kills a (an intra austrian crime ... austrian law)
a kills b in country of b (NO !!! austrian law is to be applied)
SH> What is wrong with my thinking that US soldiers should be tried in
SH> their military courts for alleged violations of their military laws?
The problem is not the violation of military laws, but the violation of
international law.
International law (law of nations, "Völkerrecht") stands above the law of any
single country.
>> So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america
>> illegally hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!!
SH> Hitting an illegal target is prohibited by US law.
I know ...
but this doesn't mean anything.
Steve has already pointed out how often this happens, and if Saddam doesn't go
to exile, than it will happen again.
Simply listen to the "speech"es of W.
>> Iraq may has mass destruction weapons.
>> UN sent inspectors to find and destroy them.
>> US says they know where they are.
>> Hans Blix (boss of the insepctors) said that this information would
>> tremendously help.
>> US does *NOT* say where they are, because they *WANT* to shoot.
SH> No, the US, for security-related reasons (see above), just wants Hans
SH> Blix to find them himself.
this is ridicolous.
Your above "arguments" are soooooo false.
They want a reason why they attacked.
And if Hans Blix et al find no, they can still say ... hey WE know where they
are, so it's OK to start a war.
But if they tell him, hey, we haven't any proofs, we just want the OIL, than
this doesn't look good.
>> Somebody points a gun at you, police comes and wants to take away
>> the gun from tha attacker, but you don't tell the police where the
>> gun is, because you want to shoot the attacker, and take his
>> pointing the gun at you as an alibi.
SH> Not "alibi". "Excuse" or "justifiction" is the word you should use
SH> here.
exactly.
>> THIS is the current situation.
SH> This is not the current situation. The current situation has evolved
SH> from a very long history of warmongering behaviors on the part of the
SH> perpetrator.
No.
The history is not relevant.
If you see somebody on the street, and he is followed by the police because he
has been to jail 3 times, and there is the possibility (but no proof, or any
evidence) that he may commit yet another crime. Is that OK ?
He is an innocent person, as long as nobody proofs otherwise.
And as long as he is innocent, you can't do anything about it.
>>>> There are no arguments for starting a war ...
>> SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument.
>> A war can't prevent the starting of a war.
>> Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one.
>> QED.
SH> Who starts a war is just a matter of opinion in many cases.
SH> Most cases aren't so simple and cut-and-dried.
WHO starts is _very_ simple.
The one who's troops go to the other countries terretory, or whos bombs hit the
other countries ground.
The question is why they started it.
>> Hitler lets kill millions of jews.
>> German court says OK ... so for you this is OK ???
>> Or what ?
SH> No. This is not OK. The US and its allies put the Nazi leaders
SH> on trial, found most all of them guilty, and hanged them.
But according to your reasoning, the US and its allies has no right to do so !
It would suffice if the germans follow their UCMJ, and if the UCMJ says it's OK
to kill jews, than Hitler is free.
As you mentioned this was not the case.
>> The international law describes also policies, not following them
>> will lead to prosecution of the international comunity.
SH> Unless a nation gives its permission to be prosecuted by the
SH> international community, there will be no such prosecutions except
SH> against those nations that lose wars. I know that is not fair, but
SH> that is the reality.
If Germany in WW2 said, no prosecution by the int. community.
Would the allies than have said, oh sorry, you are right, bye ??
I hope not.
>>>> But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ...
>>>> but a WORLD ISSUE ...
>> SH> America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable
>> SH> to the great majority of Americans.
>> I DON NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.
>> Hitler asked "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg". And Germans said YES
>> Do you want the total war.
>> Germans said yes.
>> So the majority of germans agreed, so it was OK to start WW2.
SH> No it was not OK.
So it is not OK if germans majority justifies war.
But it is OK if american majority justifies war ??
WHY ?
>> America has no right to install anything outside america !!!!!!
SH> The US has been setting up governments in trouble spots all over
SH> the world for well over a century.
EXACTLY this is the problem.
And exactly this is why america has sooooo many terrorism problems.
SH> When the situation stabilizes the people will choose their own leaders
So it is OK, if I intervene into most inner american things, by kicking out
Bush, and setting up another person ?
Hey after this silly bubbling about war has ended, than you can vote another
president ??
I think not.
I don't have the right to do so.
SH> See above. I described the case as a "hypothetical" scenario
SH> involving nations at war.
we are nor speaking about war scenarios.
Until now no war has been declared to anybody.
>>>> Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the
>>>> whole world. And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. American law is for
>>>> america.
>> SH> I did not say that.
>> You did, and you did it again.
SH> I said, and as you have quoted me below, US policy is to respect the
SH> local culture and their laws and religious taboos.
US policy is irrelevant, if they break the international law.
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Trek excuse#1: The Prime Directive clearly forbids it <=-
