What if the United States Committed a War Crime?

Religions > Atheism > What if the United States Committed a War Crime?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 13 of 20

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	15 Aug 2005 05:35:49 PM
Object:	What if the United States Committed a War Crime?

Is the US military capable of committing a war crime? No matter what
comes up, like My Lai, Abu Ghraib, Guatonomo Bay, the firebombing of
Dresden and Tokyo, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, people will argue that it's not a war crime and the senior
leadership of the American regime is never held accountable like the
Allies held the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Are things like this not
a war crime only because the United States did it? Does the US have a
double standard when it comes to what is/what isn't a warcrime? Let's
take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were both a war
crime and a crime against humanity when one looks at the language of
what the Nazis were tried for. Mainly because civilians were the prime
target since both cities were militarily irrelevant. It could also be
called a crime against peace since the plan to drop the atomic bombs
prolonged the war when Japan would have surrendered if the United
States would promise to leave the Emperor in power. What if the United
States government followed the principles they set in Nuremberg and
formerly apologized for the war crimes it committed in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki? Every other participant in WWII has had to officially admit
wrongdoing. Why not the US? What if the US paid reparations for
destroying Vietnam, which was also a war crime? Would people like Bush
be able to use such noble rhetoric to start wars for "humanitarian"
reasons?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
by Ralph Raico
This excerpt from Ralph Raico's "Harry S. Truman: Advancing the
Revolution in John V. Denson, ed., Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise
of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom (Auburn, Alabama:
Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2001), is reprinted with permission. (The
notes are numbered as they are because this is an excerpt. Read the
whole article.)
The most spectacular episode of Truman's presidency will never be
forgotten, but will be forever linked to his name: the atomic bombings
of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later.
Probably around two hundred thousand persons were killed in the attacks
and through radiation poisoning; the vast majority were civilians,
including several thousand Korean workers. Twelve U.S. Navy fliers
incarcerated in a Hiroshima jail were also among the dead.87
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman
insisted on from the start: The decision to use the bombs, and the
responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different,
and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that
he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him,
Truman responded, testily:
Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I
was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on
Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only
language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to
bombard them.88
Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the
brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation
against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware
of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9,
1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in
this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of
civilians."89
This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima
was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which
contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined
and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around
Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively
neutralized.
On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it
was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing
Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the
city - and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of
the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed
is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his
reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another
100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of
killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand
people . . . all those kids.
Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial
center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained
untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home
islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary
targets.92
Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a
single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that
they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American
lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in
the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out
invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the
worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home
islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.93 The ridiculously
inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll -
nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World
War - is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks
and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize
for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush,
who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American
lives."94
Still, Truman's multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are
understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally
understandable that the U.S. occupation authorities censored reports
from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of
the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to
reach the public.95 Otherwise, Americans - and the rest of the world
- might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to
light from the Nazi concentration camps.
The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high
American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.96 The
view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was
typical:
the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no
material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was
that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard
common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make
wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and
children.97
The political elite implicated in the atomic bombings feared a backlash
that would aid and abet the rebirth of horrid prewar "isolationism."
Apologias were rushed into print, lest public disgust at the sickening
war crime result in erosion of enthusiasm for the globalist project.98
No need to worry. A sea-change had taken place in the attitudes of the
American people. Then and ever after, all surveys have shown that the
great majority supported Truman, believing that the bombs were required
to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, or
more likely, not really caring one way or the other.
Those who may still be troubled by such a grisly exercise in
cost-benefit analysis - innocent Japanese lives balanced against the
lives of Allied servicemen - might reflect on the judgment of the
Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe, who insisted on the supremacy of
moral rules.99 When, in June 1956, Truman was awarded an honorary
degree by her university, Oxford, Anscombe protested.100 Truman was a
war criminal, she contended, for what is the difference between the
U=2ES. government massacring civilians from the air, as at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and the Nazis wiping out the inhabitants of some Czech or
Polish village?
Anscombe's point is worth following up. Suppose that, when we invaded
Germany in early 1945, our leaders had believed that executing all the
inhabitants of Aachen, or Trier, or some other Rhineland city would
finally break the will of the Germans and lead them to surrender. In
this way, the war might have ended quickly, saving the lives of many
Allied soldiers. Would that then have justified shooting tens of
thousands of German civilians, including women and children? Yet how is
that different from the atomic bombings?
By early summer 1945, the Japanese fully realized that they were
beaten. Why did they nonetheless fight on? As Anscombe wrote: "It was
the insistence on unconditional surrender that was the root of all
evil."101
That mad formula was coined by Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference,
and, with Churchill's enthusiastic concurrence, it became the Allied
shibboleth. After prolonging the war in Europe, it did its work in the
Pacific. At the Potsdam conference, in July 1945, Truman issued a
proclamation to the Japanese, threatening them with the "utter
devastation" of their homeland unless they surrendered unconditionally.
Among the Allied terms, to which "there are no alternatives," was that
there be "eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those
who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on
world conquest [sic]." "Stern justice," the proclamation warned, "would
be meted out to all war criminals."102
To the Japanese, this meant that the emperor - regarded by them to be
divine, the direct descendent of the goddess of the sun - would
certainly be dethroned and probably put on trial as a war criminal and
hanged, perhaps in front of his palace.103 It was not, in fact, the
U=2ES. intention to dethrone or punish the emperor. But this implicit
modification of unconditional surrender was never communicated to the
Japanese. In the end, after Nagasaki, Washington acceded to the
Japanese desire to keep the dynasty and even to retain Hirohito as
emperor.
For months before, Truman had been pressed to clarify the U.S. position
by many high officials within the administration, and outside of it, as
well. In May 1945, at the president's request, Herbert Hoover
prepared a memorandum stressing the urgent need to end the war as soon
as possible. The Japanese should be informed that we would in no way
interfere with the emperor or their chosen form of government. He even
raised the possibility that, as part of the terms, Japan might be
allowed to hold on to Formosa (Taiwan) and Korea. After meeting with
Truman, Hoover dined with Taft and other Republican leaders, and
outlined his proposals.104
Establishment writers on World War II often like to deal in lurid
speculations. For instance: if the United States had not entered the
war, then Hitler would have "conquered the world" (a sad undervaluation
of the Red Army, it would appear; moreover, wasn't it Japan that was
trying to "conquer the world"?) and killed untold millions. Now,
applying conjectural history in this case: assume that the Pacific war
had ended in the way wars customarily do - through negotiation of the
terms of surrender. And assume the worst - that the Japanese had
adamantly insisted on preserving part of their empire, say, Korea and
Formosa, even Manchuria. In that event, it is quite possible that Japan
would have been in a position to prevent the Communists from coming to
power in China. And that could have meant that the thirty or forty
million deaths now attributed to the Maoist regime would not have
occurred.
But even remaining within the limits of feasible diplomacy in 1945, it
is clear that Truman in no way exhausted the possibilities of ending
the war without recourse to the atomic bomb. The Japanese were not
informed that they would be the victims of by far the most lethal
weapon ever invented (one with "more than two thousand times the blast
power of the British 'Grand Slam,' which is the largest bomb ever
yet used in the history of warfare," as Truman boasted in his
announcement of the Hiroshima attack). Nor were they told that the
Soviet Union was set to declare war on Japan, an event that shocked
some in Tokyo more than the bombings.105 Pleas by some of the
scientists involved in the project to demonstrate the power of the bomb
in some uninhabited or evacuated area were rebuffed. All that mattered
was to formally preserve the unconditional surrender formula and save
the servicemen's lives that might have been lost in the effort to
enforce it. Yet, as Major General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the century's
great military historians, wrote in connection with the atomic
bombings:
Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment
of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs
of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and
of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified.106
Isn't this obviously true? And isn't this the reason that rational
and humane men, over generations, developed rules of warfare in the
first place?
While the mass media parroted the government line in praising the
atomic incinerations, prominent conservatives denounced them as
unspeakable war crimes. Felix Morley, constitutional scholar and one of
the founders of Human Events, drew attention to the horror of
Hiroshima, including the "thousands of children trapped in the
thirty-three schools that were destroyed." He called on his compatriots
to atone for what had been done in their name, and proposed that groups
of Americans be sent to Hiroshima, as Germans were sent to witness what
had been done in the Nazi camps. The Paulist priest, Father James
Gillis, editor of The Catholic World and another stalwart of the Old
Right, castigated the bombings as "the most powerful blow ever
delivered against Christian civilization and the moral law." David
Lawrence, conservative owner of U.S. News and World Report, continued
to denounce them for years.107 The distinguished conservative
philosopher Richard Weaver was revolted by
the spectacle of young boys fresh out of Kansas and Texas turning
nonmilitary Dresden into a holocaust . . . pulverizing ancient shrines
like Monte Cassino and Nuremberg, and bringing atomic annihilation to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Weaver considered such atrocities as deeply "inimical to the
foundations on which civilization is built."108
Today, self-styled conservatives slander as "anti-American" anyone who
is in the least troubled by Truman's massacre of so many tens of
thousands of Japanese innocents from the air. This shows as well as
anything the difference between today's "conservatives" and those who
once deserved the name.
Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original
letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan
Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another
obvious truth:
If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we
would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war
crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this
crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.109
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than
any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If
Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.
Notes
On the atomic bombings, see Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the
Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth (New York: Knopf,
1995); and idem, "Was Harry Truman a Revisionist on Hiroshima?" Society
for Historians of American Foreign Relations Newsletter 29, no. 2 (June
1998); also Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and
the Grand Alliance (New York: Vintage, 1977); and Dennis D. Wainstock,
The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996).
Alperovitz, Decision, p. 563. Truman added: "When you deal with a beast
you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but
nevertheless true." For similar statements by Truman, see ibid., p.
564. Alperovitz's monumental work is the end-product of four decades
of study of the atomic bombings and is indispensable for comprehending
the often complex argumentation on the issue.
Ibid., p. 521.
Ibid., p. 523.
Barton J. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese
Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and
Modern Memory," Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 257.
General Carl Spaatz, commander of U.S. strategic bombing operations in
the Pacific, was so shaken by the destruction at Hiroshima that he
telephoned his superiors in Washington, proposing that the next bomb be
dropped on a less populated area, so that it "would not be as
devastating to the city and the people." His suggestion was rejected.
Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.
This is true also of Nagasaki.
See Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved,"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 42, no. 6 (June-July 1986):
38-40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," The Independent Monthly (July
1995): 41-44.
J=2E Samuel Walker, "History, Collective Memory, and the Decision to Use
the Bomb," Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 320, 323-25.
Walker details the frantic evasions of Truman's biographer, David
McCullough, when confronted with the unambiguous record.
Paul Boyer, "Exotic Resonances: Hiroshima in American Memory,"
Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 299. On the fate of the
bombings' victims and the public's restricted knowledge of them,
see John W. Dower, "The Bombed: Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in Japanese
Memory," in ibid., pp. 275-95.
Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 320-65. On MacArthur and Eisenhower, see
ibid., pp. 352 and 355-56.
William D. Leahy, I Was There (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 441.
Leahy compared the use of the atomic bomb to the treatment of civilians
by Genghis Khan, and termed it "not worthy of Christian man." Ibid., p.
442. Curiously, Truman himself supplied the foreword to Leahy's book.
In a private letter written just before he left the White House, Truman
referred to the use of the atomic bomb as "murder," stating that the
bomb "is far worse than gas and biological warfare because it affects
the civilian population and murders them wholesale." Barton J.
Bernstein, "Origins of the U.S. Biological Warfare Program," Preventing
a Biological Arms Race, Susan Wright, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1990), p. 9.
Barton J. Bernstein, "Seizing the Contested Terrain of Early Nuclear
History: Stimson, Conant, and Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use
the Bomb," Diplomatic History 17, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 35-72.
One writer in no way troubled by the sacrifice of innocent Japanese to
save Allied servicemen - indeed, just to save him - is Paul
Fussell; see his Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (New
York: Summit, 1988). The reason for Fussell's little Te Deum is, as
he states, that he was among those scheduled to take part in the
invasion of Japan, and might very well have been killed. It is a
mystery why Fussell takes out his easily understandable terror, rather
unchivalrously, on Japanese women and children instead of on the men in
Washington who conscripted him to fight in the Pacific in the first
place.
G=2EE.M. Anscombe, "Mr. Truman's Degree," in idem, Collected
Philosophical Papers, vol. 3, Ethics, Religion and Politics
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), pp. 62-71.
Anscombe, "Mr. Truman's Degree," p. 62.
Hans Adolf Jacobsen and Arthur S. Smith, Jr., eds., World War II:
Policy and Strategy. Selected Documents with Commentary (Santa Barbara,
Calif.: ABC-Clio, 1979), pp. 345-46.
For some Japanese leaders, another reason for keeping the emperor was
as a bulwark against a possible postwar communist takeover. See also
Sherwin, A World Destroyed, p. 236: "the [Potsdam] proclamation offered
the military die-hards in the Japanese government more ammunition to
continue the war than it offered their opponents to end it."
Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 44-45.
Cf. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb," p. 254: "it does seem
very likely, though certainly not definite, that a synergistic
combination of guaranteeing the emperor, awaiting Soviet entry, and
continuing the siege strategy would have ended the war in time to avoid
the November invasion." Bernstein, an excellent and scrupulously
objective scholar, nonetheless disagrees with Alperovitz and the
revisionist school on several key points.
J=2EF.C. Fuller, The Second World War, 1939-45: A Strategical and
Tactical History (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1948), p. 392. Fuller,
who was similarly scathing on the terror-bombing of the German cities,
characterized the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "a type of war
that would have disgraced Tamerlane." Cf. Barton J. Bernstein, who
concludes, in "Understanding the Atomic Bomb," p. 235:
In 1945, American leaders were not seeking to avoid the use of the
A-bomb. Its use did not create ethical or political problems for them.
Thus, they easily rejected or never considered most of the so-called
alternatives to the bomb.
Felix Morley, "The Return to Nothingness," Human Events (August 29,
1945) reprinted in Hiroshima's Shadow, Kai Bird and Lawrence
Lifschultz, eds. (Stony Creek, Conn.: Pamphleteer's Press, 1998), pp.
272-74; James Martin Gillis, "Nothing But Nihilism," The Catholic
World, September 1945, reprinted in ibid., pp. 278-80; Alperovitz,
Decision, pp. 438-40.
Richard M. Weaver, "A Dialectic on Total War," in idem, Visions of
Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1964), pp. 98-99.
Wainstock, Decision, p. 122.
August 6, 2004
Ralph Raico [send him mail] is a senior scholar of the Mises Institute.
Copyright =A9 2001 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 05:10:42 AM

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vtWMe.2579$r54.432@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

Further, since our going into Iraq, al Queda has diverted it's efforts
agaisnt the US there instead of mounting more attacks on our homeland.

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.
-Michael
.

User: "Robert Kolker"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:02:24 AM

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.

Have there been any attacks on the U.S. at home lately?
Bob Kolker
.

User: "David Thornley"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 09:52:31 AM

In article <H-ednZ2dnZ2STVKInZ2dnXsbmd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.

Have there been any attacks on the U.S. at home lately?

In the past 15 years, there have been, by my count, two - the 1991(?)
failed attempt on the World Trade Center, and the 2001 attack. These
are the only in-the-US al-Qaida successful operations I know of (and
the first WTC attack wasn't all that successful).
This means that they're running about 7 years between US ops, and
so it's far too early to make claims that X or Y is stopping them.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
.

User: "HawkCW4"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	19 Aug 2005 02:50:15 PM

David Thornley wrote:

In article <H-ednZ2dnZ2STVKInZ2dnXsbmd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.

Have there been any attacks on the U.S. at home lately?

In the past 15 years, there have been, by my count, two - the 1991(?)
failed attempt on the World Trade Center, and the 2001 attack. These
are the only in-the-US al-Qaida successful operations I know of (and
the first WTC attack wasn't all that successful).

This means that they're running about 7 years between US ops, and
so it's far too early to make claims that X or Y is stopping them.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

How do you account for the 2 in less than a month in GB?
Ed
USA Ret
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 11:38:59 AM

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:52:31 -0000,

(David Thornley)
wrote:

In article <H-ednZ2dnZ2STVKInZ2dnXsbmd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.

Have there been any attacks on the U.S. at home lately?

In the past 15 years, there have been, by my count, two - the 1991(?)
failed attempt on the World Trade Center, and the 2001 attack. These
are the only in-the-US al-Qaida successful operations I know of (and
the first WTC attack wasn't all that successful).

This means that they're running about 7 years between US ops, and
so it's far too early to make claims that X or Y is stopping them.

You need to look up how many attack attempts we intercepted. AQ was
going after us regularly right up until the point where we gutted
their ability to infiltrate people and conduct attacks across
continents.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "David Thornley"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 02:31:04 PM

In article <p8e9g118srh5c7l0gire78q29haenuovj8@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:52:31 -0000,

(David Thornley)
wrote:

In the past 15 years, there have been, by my count, two - the 1991(?)
failed attempt on the World Trade Center, and the 2001 attack. These
are the only in-the-US al-Qaida successful operations I know of (and
the first WTC attack wasn't all that successful).

This means that they're running about 7 years between US ops, and
so it's far too early to make claims that X or Y is stopping them.

Where do I look this up? It was my impression that this is the sort
of thing that would be kept secret, and would be uncertain evidence
in the first place.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:40:20 PM

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:31:04 -0000,

(David Thornley)
wrote:

Where do I look this up? It was my impression that this is the sort
of thing that would be kept secret, and would be uncertain evidence
in the first place.

It is all available in 'open source.' Most of my stuff is in my
instructors materials for my Level 1 counter terrorism classes.
Here is a link to one attack that was prevented:
http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Jul/EEN42e7f6cb3616e.html
Trivia note: The first terrorist attack involving biological weapons
occurred in the state of Oregon in the 1980s.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 11:36:21 AM

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:42 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vtWMe.2579$r54.432@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

Further, since our going into Iraq, al Queda has diverted it's efforts
agaisnt the US there instead of mounting more attacks on our homeland.

Please don't shovel this particular piece of ***** in public.

What makes you think it is BS?
I have watched a senior AQ member die on a live video feed in Iraq.
And claiming that we are not fighting AQ in Iraq right now displays an
extreme ignorance of who AQ is and their MO. (Translation: read a
newspaper and you should be able to determine which attacks in Iraq
are AQ and which ones are not.)
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:24:55 AM

In article <vtWMe.2579$r54.432@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, "Scott
Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jez" wrote in message

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:N0zMe.2116
$r54.1495@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message

So "No - The U.S. cannot commit a war crime ."

No, the US does not commit war crimes as a matter of policy.

Then explain the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Sure. It is a combat operation as authorised by the United Nations.

There is an interpretation that existing resolutions authorized it, and,
without Security Council debate on them, it's not absolutely clear they
do authorize the nature and extent of the current action. However, that
is moot, because there is no requirement, merely a strong
recommendation, that parties to a dispute bring it before the SC. There
certainly was no explicit SC resolution authorizing the current action,
but there was nothing forbidding it.
Due to the ambiguity of UN authority here, I believe a better approach
to legal justification -- and I note here that I believe the invasion to
have been unwise in its timing and preparation, but it was legal -- is
to examine whether it was legal under US law.

Further, since our going into Iraq, al Queda has diverted it's efforts
agaisnt the US there instead of mounting more attacks on our homeland.

Now, a homework assignment for you. Go learn what the Laws of War
actually say. You will find that even without the UN, the US presence in
Iraq is Legal under the laws that exists. Prove me wrong by citing
chapter
and verse, if you can. (Trick question - you cannot.)

From a legal standpoint, I think it's far better to stay with these, as
well as the US Congressional action by which it was authorized, and the
constitutional authority for doing so. It's also worth looking at
things such as the War Powers Act of 1973.
It's important to distinguish between legality and wisdom. I cannot
find anything illegal about the Congressional authorization. In spite of
that, I believe the Congress acted irresponsibly, giving a rubber stamp
to the President's request without adequate examination and debate.
Such debate can be in closed session to protect military security.

You can find the relevant laws at the Avalon Project at Yale
University's
website. They have virtually EVERY international treaty of significance
of
the last 200 years there for you to read.

There are also good collections at mtholyoke.edu, which go more to
documents. For example, they have the full Pentagon Papers online, and,
IIRC, all the Nuremburg published records.

Oh, by the way, since there is always confusion on the part of you
kiddies when you come here talking about war crimes, you need to look at
the
HAGUE conventions as to proscribed reasons for making war as well as
proscribed methods. The Geneva Convention only applies to POWs, civilain
detainees, and the responsibilities of the detaining power.

One of the interesting challenges is looking at the Kellogg-Briand pact,
and determining if it meets the international law rule of customary usage

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 11:32:53 AM

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:08:11 GMT, "Scott Hann"
<velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Oh, by the way, since there is always confusion on the part of you
kiddies when you come here talking about war crimes, you need to look at the
HAGUE conventions as to proscribed reasons for making war as well as
proscribed methods. The Geneva Convention only applies to POWs, civilain
detainees, and the responsibilities of the detaining power.

Come on - it is too much fun laughing at these clowns for talking
about topics they do not understand. Besides - they are probably
wearing their clue-proof armor anyway.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:58:43 PM

In article <itd9g1d00hl4668kpc9rsr05su9untpagl@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:08:11 GMT, "Scott Hann"
<velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Oh, by the way, since there is always confusion on the part of you
kiddies when you come here talking about war crimes, you need to look at the
HAGUE conventions as to proscribed reasons for making war as well as
proscribed methods. The Geneva Convention only applies to POWs, civilain
detainees, and the responsibilities of the detaining power.

Come on - it is too much fun laughing at these clowns for talking
about topics they do not understand. Besides - they are probably
wearing their clue-proof armor anyway.

Whoops, you agreed with the wrong idiot. There goes your credibility
again.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 09:01:26 PM

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:58:43 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <itd9g1d00hl4668kpc9rsr05su9untpagl@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:08:11 GMT, "Scott Hann"
<velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Oh, by the way, since there is always confusion on the part of you
kiddies when you come here talking about war crimes, you need to look at the
HAGUE conventions as to proscribed reasons for making war as well as
proscribed methods. The Geneva Convention only applies to POWs, civilain
detainees, and the responsibilities of the detaining power.

Come on - it is too much fun laughing at these clowns for talking
about topics they do not understand. Besides - they are probably
wearing their clue-proof armor anyway.

Whoops, you agreed with the wrong idiot. There goes your credibility
again.

He was right.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	19 Aug 2005 02:38:07 AM

In article <v9fag1t66b3g16fursaqdudlqsge65f06j@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:58:43 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <itd9g1d00hl4668kpc9rsr05su9untpagl@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:08:11 GMT, "Scott Hann"
<velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Come on - it is too much fun laughing at these clowns for talking
about topics they do not understand. Besides - they are probably
wearing their clue-proof armor anyway.

Whoops, you agreed with the wrong idiot. There goes your credibility
again.

He was right.

You are forgetting, you have no credibility.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	17 Aug 2005 09:00:10 AM

In article <Xns96B58F2E29ADEhellward@216.196.109.145>, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:N0zMe.2116
$r54.1495@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message

So "No - The U.S. cannot commit a war crime ."

No, the US does not commit war crimes as a matter of policy.

Then explain the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I would have hoped anyone reading the bulk of rational and detailed
posts to this thread might have read some of the relevant legal
citations. Personally, I did not support the invasion for strategic
reasons as well as the apparent lack of operational-level preparation
for the occupation. I did not, however, regard it as illegal under any
agreements in force and respected by custom. If anyone paid attention to
Kellogg-Briand, it's the only thing I see as technically relevant. The
action was authorized by the US Congress, with constitutional authority
to declare war, now interpreted (especially by the War Powers Act) to
allow it to approve operations-other-than-war.
Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law applies.
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	17 Aug 2005 11:37:34 AM

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in
news:hcb-203FA9.10001017082005@newsgroups.comcast.net:

In article <Xns96B58F2E29ADEhellward@216.196.109.145>, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:N0zMe.2116
$r54.1495@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message

So "No - The U.S. cannot commit a war crime ."

No, the US does not commit war crimes as a matter of policy.

Then explain the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I would have hoped anyone reading the bulk of rational and detailed
posts to this thread might have read some of the relevant legal
citations. Personally, I did not support the invasion for strategic
reasons as well as the apparent lack of operational-level preparation
for the occupation. I did not, however, regard it as illegal under
any agreements in force and respected by custom. If anyone paid
attention to Kellogg-Briand, it's the only thing I see as technically
relevant. The action was authorized by the US Congress, with
constitutional authority to declare war, now interpreted (especially
by the War Powers Act) to allow it to approve
operations-other-than-war.

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn

.

User: "Scott Hann"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 02:10:41 AM

"Jez" wrote in message

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?

Nice dodge. You did NOT state what document, what treaty, what
international law, supported your claim. People that are honest in their
debate back up their statements with facts and supporting information.
Last I heard, even in Britian, "memos" do not constitute international
law.

--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 03:53:42 AM

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:RvWMe.2580
$r54.2307@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

"Jez" wrote in message

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the

competent

tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?

Nice dodge. You did NOT state what document, what treaty, what
international law, supported your claim.

Go read my posts from the build up to the war, and during, and since.

People that are honest in their
debate back up their statements with facts and supporting information.
Last I heard, even in Britian, "memos" do not constitute

international

law.

'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn

.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:52:06 AM

In article <RvWMe.2580$r54.2307@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jez" wrote in message

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?

Do you realise that what you are asking is akin to "Show me the exact
law that says murder is illegal! Show me exactly where it says that! I
won't believe you unless you show me with links and cites and
everything!"?
It is not too hard to fulfil such a request, but doing so would be
pandering to a complete fucking idiot with absolutely no clue at all
about the subject they have chosen to blither on about.
You are not allowed to invade your neighbours, overthrow their
government and install a new one of your choosing. Unless you have a
specific *UN* mandate to do so. Which the USA didn't. No, the GW1
ceasefire did not say that the USA could conquer, overthrow, install
etc. if the USA decided that the ceasefire had been broken either.
(I just put that in because idiots of your caliber are entirely
predictable, and I thought I would save myself some time).
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 10:08:44 AM

In article <me-5E231C.23442518082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <RvWMe.2580$r54.2307@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jez" wrote in message

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the
competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?

Nice dodge. You did NOT state what document, what treaty, what
international law, supported your claim. People that are honest in
their
debate back up their statements with facts and supporting information.
Last I heard, even in Britian, "memos" do not constitute
international
law.

Do you realise that what you are asking is akin to "Show me the exact
law that says murder is illegal! Show me exactly where it says that! I
won't believe you unless you show me with links and cites and
everything!"?

It is not too hard to fulfil such a request, but doing so would be
pandering to a complete fucking idiot with absolutely no clue at all
about the subject they have chosen to blither on about.

You are not allowed to invade your neighbours, overthrow their
government and install a new one of your choosing. Unless you have a
specific *UN* mandate to do so. Which the USA didn't. No, the GW1
ceasefire did not say that the USA could conquer, overthrow, install
etc. if the USA decided that the ceasefire had been broken either.

I agree that it's a messy legal situation, and you are making some
reasonable comments. To me, it's quite a stretch for the US to use the
GW1 justifications without a new SC resolution. Nevertheless, I see no
UN Charter language that overrides a decision, approved legally under
the US constitution, for the US to take military action.
Where I respectfully disagree is that the UN does not "allow" unilateral
invasion and regime change. I cannot find language in the UN Charter
that specifically forbids war without UN approval. Were you citing the
essentially obsolete Kellogg-Briand pact, I would agree that it
definitely forbids such.
The UN Charter strongly suggests matters be brought to the SC, and a
reasonable interpretation is that the SC can make a determination of
illegality on matters brought before it. Neither Iraq nor the US brought
the current situation to the SC.
There are GA resolutions that may apply more to the issue of opening
warfare, but the GA does not have the authority of the SC.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 11:28:22 AM

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:52:06 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

Do you realise that what you are asking is akin to "Show me the exact
law that says murder is illegal!

Here is the 'exact law' that says murder is illegal for members of the
US military:
"�Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or
excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he��
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous to another and
evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of
burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of
murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may
direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall
suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct."
Article 118 Uniform Code of Military Justice.
This took me all of 20 seconds to look up.
Now, we challenge you to provide a similar cite supporting your
claims. (The reason we keep asking is because so far - nobody has
been able to provide a cite showing that the Iraq war is "illegal."
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	17 Aug 2005 12:35:09 PM

In article <Xns96B5B356455E4hellward@216.196.109.145>, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in
news:hcb-203FA9.10001017082005@newsgroups.comcast.net:

In article <Xns96B58F2E29ADEhellward@216.196.109.145>, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

"Scott Hann" <velovich1965@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:N0zMe.2116
$r54.1495@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message

So "No - The U.S. cannot commit a war crime ."

No, the US does not commit war crimes as a matter of policy.

Then explain the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I would have hoped anyone reading the bulk of rational and detailed
posts to this thread might have read some of the relevant legal
citations. Personally, I did not support the invasion for strategic
reasons as well as the apparent lack of operational-level preparation
for the occupation. I did not, however, regard it as illegal under
any agreements in force and respected by custom. If anyone paid
attention to Kellogg-Briand, it's the only thing I see as technically
relevant. The action was authorized by the US Congress, with
constitutional authority to declare war, now interpreted (especially
by the War Powers Act) to allow it to approve
operations-other-than-war.

Please state the legal document that made it illegal and the competent
tribunal that has made a determination that the particular law
applies.

Even the British Government thought it was illegal.
Read the so-called 'Downing street memos', yet ?

Yes. I have read them. I would be among the first to say the invasion
was unwise.
Illegality, however, has a specific meaning. It's not a matter of
opinion, but a determination by an appropriate judicial organization,
unless you reject the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or even
the model of the Code Napoleon -- which searches for truth. What the UK
cabinet "thought" may have been advisory, or there may be a violation of
British Law -- I am no authority on their laws.
Turning back to the US, since I can find no UN Charter or treaty
requirement forbidding the US action, I come back to US law as the final
authority regarding the action.
You will note that the US Supreme Court has ruled that certain of the
detention practices are indeed illegal. There has been no such ruling
on the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to take
military action.
I regard the US Congress as supine and irresponsible in approving the
resolution without serious debate, but irresponsibility by legislators,
no matter how much some partisan political operators would like it to be
the case, is not criminal.
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:58:27 AM

In article <hcb-0E228F.13350917082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

Illegality, however, has a specific meaning. It's not a matter of
opinion, but a determination by an appropriate judicial organization,
unless you reject the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or even
the model of the Code Napoleon -- which searches for truth.

You are a moron.
Invading another sovereign nation, conquering it and installing a new
government of your choice is illegal under international law. There is
absolutely no argument about the fact the USA did this. There is no
scope for extenuating circumstances or "he looked at me funny" or "I had
this old cease-fire rattling around, see, and...".
Unless you plan to argue that the USA's evil twin did it, while the real
USA was trapped helplessly in a parallel dimension, you are going
nowhere on this one.

Turning back to the US, since I can find no UN Charter or treaty
requirement forbidding the US action, I come back to US law as the final
authority regarding the action.

I think you might want to try a bit harder to find the rule against
invading other nations. You are bright enough to type, so I imagine you
are bright enough to find it eventually if you apply yourself.

You will note that the US Supreme Court has ruled that certain of the
detention practices are indeed illegal. There has been no such ruling
on the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to take
military action.

Who was talking about the USA? The USA can no more decide what
international law is than you can decide that shoplifting is legal for
you today.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 10:14:24 AM

In article <me-C9E3B5.23504118082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <hcb-0E228F.13350917082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

You are a moron.

Invading another sovereign nation, conquering it and installing a new
government of your choice is illegal under international law.

In that case, you should be able to point to a specific legal document
that does this, rather than wave your hands and offer sarcasm and
insults. The latter don't even make sense, because morons rarely can
type.
?There is

absolutely no argument about the fact the USA did this.

Yes, the US did this.

There is no
scope for extenuating circumstances or "he looked at me funny" or "I had
this old cease-fire rattling around, see, and...".

Unless you plan to argue that the USA's evil twin did it, while the real
USA was trapped helplessly in a parallel dimension, you are going
nowhere on this one.

Turning back to the US, since I can find no UN Charter or treaty
requirement forbidding the US action, I come back to US law as the
final
authority regarding the action.

It is your claim, which puts the responsibility on you to document it. I
have reviewed the UN Charter and found no such language. The
Kellogg-Briand pact does make such things illegal, but virtually all the
signers have abrogated it.
The International Control Commission had no treaty authority, nor does
the UN General Assembly. The GA adopting the IMT criteria is
informative but not normative.

Who was talking about the USA? The USA can no more decide what
international law is than you can decide that shoplifting is legal for
you today.

The point is that you have not yet produced a reference to contemporary
international law that forbids such action. In the absence of such
reference, national law becomes the final authority.
If you wish to discuss specific issues with appropriate citations, I
would enjoy a civil discussion. If you throw up clouds of obscuration
and demand I provide the proof of your claim, welcome to my killfile.
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	22 Aug 2005 08:27:20 AM

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in
news:hcb-913F2A.11142418082005@newsgroups.comcast.net:

In article <me-C9E3B5.23504118082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <hcb-0E228F.13350917082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

Illegality, however, has a specific meaning. It's not a matter of
opinion, but a determination by an appropriate judicial
organization, unless you reject the concept of innocent until
proven guilty, or even the model of the Code Napoleon -- which
searches for truth.

You are a moron.

Invading another sovereign nation, conquering it and installing a new
government of your choice is illegal under international law.

absolutely no argument about the fact the USA did this.

Yes, the US did this.

There is no
scope for extenuating circumstances or "he looked at me funny" or "I
had this old cease-fire rattling around, see, and...".

Unless you plan to argue that the USA's evil twin did it, while the
real USA was trapped helplessly in a parallel dimension, you are
going nowhere on this one.

Turning back to the US, since I can find no UN Charter or treaty
requirement forbidding the US action, I come back to US law as the
final
authority regarding the action.

I think you might want to try a bit harder to find the rule against
invading other nations. You are bright enough to type, so I imagine
you are bright enough to find it eventually if you apply yourself.

It is your claim, which puts the responsibility on you to document it.
I have reviewed the UN Charter and found no such language. The
Kellogg-Briand pact does make such things illegal, but virtually all
the signers have abrogated it.

The International Control Commission had no treaty authority, nor does
the UN General Assembly. The GA adopting the IMT criteria is
informative but not normative.

You will note that the US Supreme Court has ruled that certain of
the detention practices are indeed illegal. There has been no such
ruling on the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to
take military action.

Who was talking about the USA? The USA can no more decide what
international law is than you can decide that shoplifting is legal
for you today.

The point is that you have not yet produced a reference to
contemporary international law that forbids such action. In the
absence of such reference, national law becomes the final authority.

If you wish to discuss specific issues with appropriate citations, I
would enjoy a civil discussion. If you throw up clouds of obscuration
and demand I provide the proof of your claim, welcome to my killfile.

Article 39 UN charter.....
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
UN Charter, as relates to Iraq invasion.....
http://www.lcnp.org/global/UNCharterIraqWar.htm
Protocol 1 Geneva Conventions...
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#preamble
Have fun.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn

.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:47:01 PM

In article <hcb-913F2A.11142418082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <me-C9E3B5.23504118082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
If you wish to discuss specific issues with appropriate citations, I
would enjoy a civil discussion. If you throw up clouds of obscuration
and demand I provide the proof of your claim, welcome to my killfile.

"Show me where murder is illegal! Show me! I'm an expert on law, I am!
If you don't show me I'll stick my fingers in my ears! I will! I
will!".
Go on then.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 09:11:03 PM

In article <me-E265E1.11392519082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

In article <hcb-913F2A.11142418082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <me-C9E3B5.23504118082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

If you wish to discuss specific issues with appropriate citations, I
would enjoy a civil discussion. If you throw up clouds of obscuration
and demand I provide the proof of your claim, welcome to my killfile.

"Show me where murder is illegal! Show me! I'm an expert on law, I am!
If you don't show me I'll stick my fingers in my ears! I will! I
will!".

Go on then.

You really have trouble understanding that law is not a matter of
individual opinions, don't you?
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	19 Aug 2005 02:39:36 AM

In article <hcb-0A8F4B.22110318082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <me-E265E1.11392519082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

"Show me where murder is illegal! Show me! I'm an expert on law, I am!
If you don't show me I'll stick my fingers in my ears! I will! I
will!".

Go on then.

You really have trouble understanding that law is not a matter of
individual opinions, don't you?

Nice try, idiot, but the one trying to present their uninformed opinion
as legal fact is... drum roll please... you.
Anyway, I thought you had your fingers in your ears? How are you seeing
my posts?
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "AUK Registrar"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	21 Aug 2005 05:31:28 PM

In <me-060D63.17315619082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin Lowe
<me@private.net> wrote:

In article <hcb-0A8F4B.22110318082005@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:

In article <me-E265E1.11392519082005@news01.comindico.com.au>, Kevin
Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

"Show me where murder is illegal! Show me! I'm an expert on law, I am!
If you don't show me I'll stick my fingers in my ears! I will! I
will!".

Go on then.

You really have trouble understanding that law is not a matter of
individual opinions, don't you?

Nice try, idiot, but the one trying to present their uninformed opinion
as legal fact is... drum roll please... you.

Anyway, I thought you had your fingers in your ears? How are you seeing
my posts?

Somehow I doubt that Howard see's through his ears. And I should mention
that you were the one who brought up sticking fingers in ears. Howard only
mentioned sticking you in his kill file. That choice, given your approach to
intelligent discussion, seems to be the logical one for him to make.
.

User: "Robert Kolker"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 05:26:30 PM

Kevin Lowe wrote:

Who was talking about the USA? The USA can no more decide what
international law is than you can decide that shoplifting is legal for
you today.

There is no international law since there is no international government
to pass international laws. There are protocols, customs and agreements
but they are not law. Why aren't they law? There is no mechanism for
enforcement.
Bob Kolker
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: What if the United States Committed a War Crime?	18 Aug 2005 08:45:08 PM

In article <85ydnU4nAaGLlpjeRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

Kevin Lowe wrote:

Who was talking about the USA? The USA can no more decide what
international law is than you can decide that shoplifting is legal for
you today.

In your world, what was President Bush on about when he used the phrase
"International Law" then?
I swear these people are straight out of 1984.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.