 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
I agree. And Americans should be outraged over the atrocities Bush & co. have carried out. I know they will never face international justice for there war crimes, but they should at least be punished in the US.
After all, isn't it general protocol to punish the leaders of soldiers who commit atrocities ? Did Hitler ever pull a trigger ? Did Milosovich do any of the torturing or shooting himself ? |
There is a difference. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Sanchez, or anyone else in the chain of command actually gave orders to commit unlawful acts, then they are liable under the UCMJ if they would reasonably know those orders were unlawful. For example, if you randomly order the execution of prisoners, or set a policy where that is standard procedure, you are liable as if you'd pulled the trigger.
If there are no actual orders or ordered policy, then the question becomes whether or not you are negligent, or even criminally negligent (dereliction of duty). General Karpinski is an example where this seems to apply. As you get further up the chain of command, negligence gets more tenuous - Rumsfeld is so many levels removed from Karpinski, with no direct contact with her or any similar command level, that there's no way Rumsfeld can actually (legally) be negligent if he's not informed what's going on. Being informed that there are allegations and an ongoing investigation doesn't count. He would have to know precise facts about specific unlawful conduct, know that it's not being handled through the chain of command, and do nothing.
The closer you get to the actions, the more likely the negligence and dereliction of duty issues come into play, but even that isn't likely to go real far up the line, because people like Abizaid and Sanchez have a lot of things to deal with, and rely on information from their staffs and subordinate commanders.
It's a totally different ballgame if it can be shown that they set policy, but if it's just a lack of control, then the buck most likely stops around Karpinski's level.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Uncle Sparky
|
 |
Winnipeg
Jan 1970
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
There is a difference. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Sanchez, or anyone else in the chain of command actually gave orders to commit unlawful acts, then they are liable under the UCMJ if they would reasonably know those orders were unlawful. For example, if you randomly order the execution of prisoners, or set a policy where that is standard procedure, you are liable as if you'd pulled the trigger. |
1)Bush gave the order to invade Iraq an invasion that violates international law.
2)They sent in American soldiers untrained in peacekeeping and interrogation to do those jobs.
3)Evidence is mounting that someone high up, probably Rumsfeld, ordered a general rounding up of Baathist members and sympathizers and ordered that the untrained soldiers interrogate them.
In a parliamentary system, a Minister in charge of a department would be expected to resign and the Prime Minister might resign if the cause were sufficient; of course you have a republican system which is different, but does that negate their culpability?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
1)Bush gave the order to invade Iraq an invasion that violates international law.
|
What provision? The earlier gulf war was terminated only by a cease fire, which incorporated in it's terms Iraq's compliance with all relevant UNSCRs.
quote:
2)They sent in American soldiers untrained in peacekeeping and interrogation to do those jobs.
|
There isn't "peacekeeping" to be done, there's occupation, and MI types are trained in interrogation methods.
quote:
3)Evidence is mounting that someone high up, probably Rumsfeld, ordered a general rounding up of Baathist members and sympathizers and ordered that the untrained soldiers interrogate them.
|
Ever see that deck of cards? Of course it was policy to detain members of the Baath party, and of course they were interrogated. There are no "untrained" soldiers, you're just grasping at straws, using "untrained" as a euphemism for "not doing things the way I think they should be done."
quote:
In a parliamentary system, a Minister in charge of a department would be expected to resign and the Prime Minister might resign if the cause were sufficient; of course you have a republican system which is different, but does that negate their culpability? |
Resignations are political and symbolic. Culpability is legal. Two different matters entirely.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2004 13:48
Attachment: 
|
|
