The Hague Invasion Act - Page 6

Saint Marcus · June 17, 2002, 16:35

Quote:

We undertook the bombing of German cities in order to shorten the war and save lives, particularly the lives of Allied soldiers and Jewish prisoners. Similarly we undertook the bombing of Japanese cities to shorten the war and save lives, particularly the lives of U.S. soldiers.

The end justifies all means huh?

And you do know that the fallout of nuclear bombs kills people decades after the war ended? Barbaric. But those were different days I guess.

Saint Marcus · June 17, 2002, 16:37

Quote:

People in the US work more hours than most

Quote:

Care to try again?

If an American warcriminal would ever set foot in Belgium, he'd be arrested and tried before a Belgian court. Same thing.

Ned · June 17, 2002, 17:36

Saint Marcus, I invite you to be president of the United States for at least one day. Put your thinkink cap on, Saint Marcus, and step into the shoes of president Roosevelt or president Truman and tell us what you would have done.

Can you really tell us, honestly, that you would have decided to do things differently than those gentlemen did under the same circumstances?

War, under the best of circumstances, is hell. WWII was worse than that. It was the worst nightmare imaginable. For gods sake, I hope we never have another one like it.

But if one is in such a conflict, doesn't one feel some moral obligation to end the suffering and dying as quickly as possible?

Saint Marcus · June 17, 2002, 17:42

But like I said, those were different days. People then didn't know the long term effect of the a-bomb. Ignorance is an excuse in matters like this.

However, know we know how horrible those weapons are. Using them, for any reason other than retaliation against a nation who used the weapons against you first, is barbaric. Any kind of bio/chem/nuclear first strike is barbaric.

Or don't you agree?

Panag · June 17, 2002, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Saint Marcus, I invite you to be president of the United States for at least one day. Put your thinkink cap on, Saint Marcus, and step into the shoes of president Roosevelt or president Truman and tell us what you would have done.

Can you really tell us, honestly, that you would have decided to do things differently than those gentlemen did under the same circumstances?

War, under the best of circumstances, is hell. WWII was worse than that. It was the worst nightmare imaginable. For gods sake, I hope we never have another one like it.

But if one is in such a conflict, doesn't one feel some moral obligation to end the suffering and dying as quickly as possible?

hi ,

well Ned , you put it nice , .....

sometime people forget what it is to have a war or conflict , ....
and back then there where other fields of view , other things we did not know , that we know now , ...

have a nice day

Panag · June 17, 2002, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

If an American warcriminal would ever set foot in Belgium, he'd be arrested and tried before a Belgian court. Same thing.

hi ,

wrong , ......; unfortunatly , .....

have a nice day

Ned · June 17, 2002, 17:59

Saint Marcus, in principle I agree with you that no nation today is justified in using weapons of mass destruction in a so-called "first strike." However, that is not the circumstances to America found itself in during the closing days of World War II. It seems by your last post that you now agree that what America did then was justified because it was effective in ending the war quickly, and because the long-term damage caused by radiation was not than well understood.

Panag · June 17, 2002, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Saint Marcus, in principle I agree with you that no nation today is justified in using weapons of mass destruction in a so-called "first strike." However, that is not the circumstances to America found itself in during the closing days of World War II. It seems by your last post that you now agree that what America did then was justified because it was effective in ending the war quickly, and because the long-term damage caused by radiation was not than well understood.

hi ,

imagine when US troops would land on the mainland , and would be given a surprise with other types of WMD , ...

have a nice day

Saint Marcus · June 17, 2002, 18:31

Quote:

It seems by your last post that you now agree that what America did then was justified because it was effective in ending the war quickly, and because the long-term damage caused by radiation was not than well understood.

Yes.

And ONLY because the long term damage wasn't fully understood.

If the decision makers then had the same knowledge of the effect of nuclear weapons we have today, the act would never have been justified.

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 18:35

sorry but did anyone heard about the video with americans torturing taliban and executing thousands of them in trucks?

the european parliement has allegendly pushing for the creation of an international enquiry squad to go and look this thing up.

if someone has a link (an english link), i'd appreciate it if he could post it so we all know what we are talking about.

these, if proven, may well constitute war crimes.

DinoDoc · June 17, 2002, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
sorry but did anyone heard about the video with americans torturing taliban and executing thousands of them in trucks?

Northern Alliance troops were the ones alleged to have done that. No evidence has been provided of involvement by American troops.

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 18:59

do you have a link moneypenny?

Panag · June 17, 2002, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
sorry but did anyone heard about the video with americans torturing taliban and executing thousands of them in trucks?

the european parliement has allegendly pushing for the creation of an international enquiry squad to go and look this thing up.

if someone has a link (an english link), i'd appreciate it if he could post it so we all know what we are talking about.

these, if proven, may well constitute war crimes.

hi ,

its not even worth it , to give that video "attention" , ...
as for the rest , nope it did not happen , but aQ and the tal , did kill lots of people , until right before the arrival of allies , ..

have a nice day

DinoDoc · June 17, 2002, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
do you have a link moneypenny?

Do you have a link to the video that supposedly proves American involvement?

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:14

i can't even find the news on yahoo...
it's like it doesn't exist

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:17

but then again, the world doesn't only have US media

http://www.enet.gr/online/online_p1_...11&id=79182104

will translate when not tired.

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:23

can you spell for me "masar i sarif" in english?

(will help me in my search - it's also in guardian BTW)

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:27

and also reported by deutsche welle

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:29

BTW dont you just love american stronghold on the media?

so hard to find even one mention of the news in a decent time frame

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:37

ah finally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...6324%2C00.html

New film accuses US of war crimes

Kate Connolly in Berlin and Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Thursday June 13, 2002
The Guardian

A former chairman of Amnesty International yesterday called for an independent investigation into claims that US troops tortured Taliban prisoners and assisted in the disappearance of thousands of others in the war in Afghanistan.
Andrew McEntee said that "very credible evidence" in a British documentary film needed to be investigated. He was speaking after the first showing in Berlin of the film, Massacre at Mazar.

"This film raises questions that will not go away," said Mr McEntee, who led Amnesty International UK in the 1990s and is now an international human rights lawyer.

The documentary describes how thousands of Taliban troops were rounded up after the battle of Kunduz in late November and transported in sealed shipping containers to Sheberghan prison, a jail then under US control in northwestern Afghanistan.

The film alleges that large numbers of the prisoners died during the journey. US troops suggested the drivers take the bodies out into the desert at Dasht-i-Leili for burial. Two men said they were forced to drive hundreds of Taliban, many of whom were still alive, into the desert, and said that the living were shot. Footage showed large areas of compact red sand dotted with the traces of bones, including jaw bones, and pieces of clothing.

The filmmakers claim that thousands of Afghans, Pakistanis, Uzbeks, Chechens and Tajiks may now be buried at the mass grave. UN and human rights officials have found the grave but have not estimated the number it contains. Only 15 bodies have been excavated.

A Pentagon spokesman last night denied the allegations: "US Central Command looked into it a few months ago, when allegations first surfaced when there were graves discovered in the area of Sherberghan prison. They looked into it and did not substantiate any knowledge, presence or participation of US service members."

The film's six witnesses have agreed to give evidence at any international war crimes tribunal.

Faeelin · June 17, 2002, 19:45

Hmm. Cat's out of the bag. I"m suprised they didn't catch the rape of kandahar on camera though.

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:49

i find the american pentagon denial hilarious though!

it's like asking the murderer if he was the murderer

and the answer is: errr no?

an international enquiry would do, thank you very much

Bereta_Eder · June 17, 2002, 19:59

search and you will find...

In one sequence, a witness claims he saw a US soldier break an Afghan prisoner’s neck and pour acid on others.

"The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Some prisoners were beaten up, taken outside only to "disappear", the witness said.

Two other witnesses claim they were forced to drive into the desert with hundreds of Taleban prisoners who were in containers. The orders came from the local US commander, they alleged. Prisoners who had not suffocated to death were then shot dead while 30 to 40 US soldiers stood by watching.

In another sequence, a witness admits to having executed prisoners, while another Afghan, said to have been a senior officer under the Northern Alliance’s General Rashid Dostum, was said to have gone into hiding following threats to his life.

The screening of the film at the European Parliament in prompted calls for an international commission to investigate the charges.

Mr Doran told The Scotsman last night: "I took the footage to the European parliament because of a phone call I received from Afghanistan. I have a great fear that the graves may be tampered with. I had to take it to the highest level in Europe." He said that after the screening, MEPs had told him they would approach the Red Cross to ensure the graves were protected.

Mr Doran said his documentary followed closely the findings of a new report by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), which had concluded that there was evidence of the disposal of human remains at two mass grave sites near Mazar-i-Sharif.

"Physicians for Human Rights tell me that the interviews we conducted for the documentary were the missing link they needed," Mr Doran said.

In the documentary, the witnesses says they believe the bodies at the site found near the village of Shebarghan included the Taleban prisoners who were transported to the site in the truck containers.

On its website, PHR calls on Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s new leader, and the international community to protect the grave sites. It says it recognises that the government of Afghanistan was not in a position to secure the sites but that the US, Britain and other countries had the capacity - and the responsibility - to ensure that they were protected.

"The examination of bodies and dignified burial of remains will contribute to the truth and accountability process, which is essential for future peace and stability in Afghanistan," PHR said.

Amnesty says responsibility for an inquiry lies with the United States and Britain as US and British special forces helped alliance troops put down the revolt.

Andre Brie, a member of the European Parliament for the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), said he would back any call for an international commission looking into the allegations. He said he had supported Mr Doran financially in what he described as the producer’s "dangerous film activity".

Excerpts of Mr Doran’s documentary are to be screened on television in Britain next week.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=648372002

the only thing missing is a link with the video itself.

Roland · June 18, 2002, 02:53

"Is this what you are referring to Roland?"

Yes, not bad.

"Notice under acceptance and ratifacation, there is NOTHING in the USA box."

Yes.

"Now, I'm no big shot laywer like you, but for an agreement to be binding on the USA, they would have to agree to it, no?"

Yes.

"Care to try again?"

Yes. You refuse to get the simple point that while the US is not bound by the statute, this has nothing to do with territorial jurisdiction over US nationals. If Albania and Belgium are members of the statute, a US citizen can be arrested in Belgium and brought before the ICC for warcrimes committed in Albania. Absent the ICC, US citizen can be arrested in Belgium and (under universal jurisdiction or dedere aut iudicare) tried for warcrimes committed in Albania.
Now explain how the ICC statute is "illegal" under international law. Your point seems to be that it somehow seeks to impose obligations on the US - if so, what are these supposed to be ?

Jack_www · June 18, 2002, 03:11

I went to thomas.loc.gov to try and find this so called bill, I could not find anything. This is the web page for the US congress. If this bill really exists can you plz show me were it is. I would really like to see it and know what scources you are using.

Jack_www · June 18, 2002, 03:34

I did a sreach on cbsnews.com. I found this story about the Hague http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in508124.shtml. It says nothing about US invading holland to get an american out of there. All it says that the US is pulling out of the treaty that formed the court. Were the hell do you people get this stuff???

KrazyHorse · June 18, 2002, 03:44

http://www.endgenocide.org/ceg-icc/dodaspatext.html

The measure was (barely) defeated on the Congress floor, but is expected to pass later this year.

I direct you to Sec. 9006

Saint Marcus · June 18, 2002, 12:06

Quote:

New film accuses US of war crimes

Quote:

The film's six witnesses have agreed to give evidence at any international war crimes tribunal.

I guess we need to prepare our army then. It won't be long now before Americans will be poring into Dutch prisons.

DinoDoc · June 18, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I guess we need to prepare our army then. It won't be long now before Americans will be poring into Dutch prisons.

IIRC, Afghanistan isn't an ICC member.

Chris 62 · June 18, 2002, 12:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
Yes. You refuse to get the simple point that while the US is not bound by the statute, this has nothing to do with territorial jurisdiction over US nationals. If Albania and Belgium are members of the statute, a US citizen can be arrested in Belgium and brought before the ICC for warcrimes committed in Albania. Absent the ICC, US citizen can be arrested in Belgium and (under universal jurisdiction or dedere aut iudicare) tried for warcrimes committed in Albania.
Now explain how the ICC statute is "illegal" under international law. Your point seems to be that it somehow seeks to impose obligations on the US - if so, what are these supposed to be ?

Sorry pal, but your the one not making the connection, we recognize Belgium or Albania, but not an additional layer they are attempting to add, THAT'S the illeagal part.
You should know better, it's like saying the US court sytem has added a a special court where we will try German people he can't stand, and go ahead and sieze people and try them, and Germany must comply because they recognize the US.
See how silly that is?

Paitkiss, if you even believe a tenth of that, you would barely be at an IQ of 70.
AI has been against the USA for years, manufacturing "evidence" is stock in trade for them and their former members.
You can't be this dumb.

Marky, let Belgium try to send US personal before a court we don't agree to and see what happens.
In other words, what have you been smoking boy?