Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

The US Department of Defense has released a book of instructions on the rules of war, detailing acceptable ways of killing the enemy and says that journalists also can be terrorists.

Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

This blatantly breaks the Geneva convention protocols and as a result is a war crime.

Didn't you know that the Geneva Convention is for all nations but the U.S, the U.K, China, Russia & Israel...

Only all the other countries are to be held accountable to International Law.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Didn't you know that the Geneva Convention is for all nations but the U.S, the U.K, China, Russia & Israel...

Only all the other countries are to be held accountable to International Law.

Correct, the UN Security Council is not actually responsible for following ANY international laws. Since they can just Veto anything the UN tries to put up against them.

An odd system to say the least.

~Tenth

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Didn't you know that the Geneva Convention is for all nations but the U.S, the U.K, China, Russia & Israel...

Only all the other countries are to be held accountable to International Law.

It's a case of 'do as we say', not 'do as we do'. Disgusting hypocrites.

War is a crime. Those that wage aggressive war on hapless nations for no just cause are criminals.

a reply to: newsaddict

Yeah the war crimes commission can do nothing to any us war criminal seeong the nus doesn't recognise them.

originally posted by: intrptr
War is a crime. Those that wage aggressive war on hapless nations for no just cause are criminals.

You're goddamn right.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: newsaddict

Yeah the war crimes commission can do nothing to any us war criminal seeong the nus doesn't recognise them.

Convenient... heh.

Right?

It's almost like the system is.. I dunno.. rigged?

@Tenth & @NewsAddict;


It's simply a global governance version of a parenthetical relationship...

"You'll do as you're told when you're under my roof"...

All the while not following their own rules.

originally posted by: intrptr
War is a crime. Those that wage aggressive war on hapless nations for no just cause are criminals.

This. /thread

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

parenthetical

Word police?

I must admit I like that one.

originally posted by: newsaddict

The US Department of Defense has released a book of instructions on the rules of war, detailing acceptable ways of killing the enemy and says that journalists also can be terrorists.

Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

This blatantly breaks the Geneva convention protocols and as a result is a war crime.

The US has committed war crimes since WWII. The Iraq War, as a preemptive war of aggression, constituted a war crime. The torture during the Bush regime also was a war crime.

So too was the mass bombing of Laos and Cambodia, which was covert and illegal.

Let's be honest, so too were the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So why would it surprise anyone that the US supports war crimes and doesn't follow international law?

The BIGGEST sign and proof that the majority of western citizens are totally brainwashed and unaware of reality is the fact that they still think the US/Western allies are forces for justice, fight for freedom, support democracy, are innocent, are attacked for their freedoms, etc. Meanwhile the track record might be the opposite.

a reply to: newsaddict

If I remember correctly they would have joined if their troops were exempt.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Didn't you know that the Geneva Convention is for all nations but the U.S, the U.K, China, Russia & Israel...

Only all the other countries are to be held accountable to International Law.

This is how it is applied. The big powers are not held accountable, only the weak and tin pot dictators. When law is used to oppress weaker powers and competitors, it becomes not a tool of justice but power and injustice.

www.theguardian.com...

People do speak out about it, but nothing ever happens. ALL leaders and nations need to be held accountable for violation of international law and human rights.

"Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be hauled before the international criminal court in The Hague and delivered a damning critique of the physical and moral devastation caused by the Iraq war.

Tutu, a Nobel peace prize winner and hero of the anti-apartheid movement, accuses the former British and US leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction and says the invasion left the world more destabilised and divided "than any other conflict in history".

Writing in the Observer, Tutu also suggests the controversial US and UK-led action to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 created the backdrop for the civil war in Syria and a possible wider Middle East conflict involving Iran.

"The then leaders of the United States and Great Britain," Tutu argues, "fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us."

Advertisement

But it is Tutu's call for Blair and Bush to face justice in The Hague that is most startling. Claiming that different standards appear to be set for prosecuting African leaders and western ones, he says the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict is sufficient on its own for Blair and Bush to be tried at the ICC.

"On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague," he says."

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Didn't you know that the Geneva Convention is for all nations but the U.S, the U.K, China, Russia & Israel...

Only all the other countries are to be held accountable to International Law.

Correct, the UN Security Council is not actually responsible for following ANY international laws. Since they can just Veto anything the UN tries to put up against them.

An odd system to say the least.

~Tenth

They do follow international laws when applied to enemies, tin pot dictators, and minor powers, not the big powers. The P-5 veto any resolutions affecting their interests or key allies.

First, we need to get rid of all veto power and permanent status for five nations on the SC. That is inherently undemocratic.

Second, unless we have an independent body that has the power to enforce these laws, with ALL nations being held accountable, we will not see justice. The law of the jungle therefore prevails, as we see now. The UN was supposed to be that. However, most people don't want to give up the sovereignty necessary nor give a supernational power the ability to enforce these laws. Then they complain about the UN "doing nothing."

the conventions only apply to SOLDIERS in ARMIES. EXCEPT for NON UNIFORMED COMBATANTS which If a journalist is in a WAR ZONE they can be legally held as a enemy combatant and or sumarrily executed as a spy. IF they are not in uniform.

a reply to: newsaddict

journalists also can be terrorists.

And I guess cameras and newspapers are now weapons of mass destruction (distraction).

The 1,176-page book states that journalists can be labeled “unprivileged belligerents,” an obscure term that replaced “unlawful enemy combatant” that was first used during the administration of President George W. Bush.

“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,” the manual states.

WOW. This basically says that journalists embedded within the military are therefore acceptable targets.

That's huge.

Surprise attacks and killing retreating troops are also permitted in the Pentagon manual.

Wow, they're not leaving anything out. Journalists, retreating troops, all are fair killing game as long as poison or strangling is not used.

SICK.

This is PressTV, an Iranian propaganda outlet that is interpreting what an military book means without actually quoting context or explanation. Has anyone a link to the "1,176-page book"?

Just pointing this out for balance, as if the Iranians would say anything about their arch enemy. I am always a bit cautious of this type of very "light on detail, heavy on accusation" type of story.

a reply to: paraphi

Crickey, here you go. Read it and weep. Is this a manual that contravenes the Geneva Convention?

4.2.3.3 Unprivileged Belligerents. Unprivileged belligerents generally are subject to the liabilities of both combatant and civilian status, and include:
• persons engaging in spying, sabotage, and similar acts behind enemy lines; and
• private persons engaging in hostilities.

Look to 103. Makes sense to me.

Source opens in a PDF

“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,”

That's exactly what the documents says... So are you all going to continue foaming at the mouth over nothing or actually read the doc and use your minds. Some people really do believe anything they're told don't they, LOL.