Is this a War Crime ?

[transparant]

Marines deliver toys to Iraqi tots
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Spc. Derron A. Dickinson
28th Public Affairs Detachment


Marine Col. Robin Whitters hands out toys to Iraqi children as part of the Toys for Tots program. U.S. Army photo.CAMP VICTORY — Victory Base Complex servicemembers brought smiles to Iraqi children by delivering toys as part of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots program Jan. 9.

The initiative, lead by Marine Col. Robert Whitters, deputy to the deputy chief of staff for coalition operations, Multi-National Force - Iraq, handed out toys mailed from many people in the United States and distributed them at Radwaniyah Clinic at Camp Stryker.

“Toys for Tots started by a Marine lieutenant colonel in Los Angeles about 30 years ago,” Whitters said. “It was a local thing. Now it’s the highlight of the Marine Corps Reserve year.”

Whitters said he first got involved in Toys for Tots in 1985 when he was a captain.

“It was kind of cool to see some big ol’ gunnery sergeant sitting on the floor playing with toys,” he said.

Whitters described how his father and people from his church collected toys for the effort.

“There really isn’t much difference in a toy drive in theater and one back in the States,” he said. “It’s basically the same thing.”

Marine Staff Sgt. Jaclyn Fernandez, a foreign disclosure officer for MNF-I and a signals intelligence analyst with the 1st Radio Battalion at Camp Pendelton, Calif., volunteered her efforts when Whitters called for assistance.

“It’s a Marine thing to do,” she said. “You think of your family. It hits home when you’ve got families like this in need. That’s what people don’t ordinarily see.”

Fernandez described the work as fun.

“The looks on the children’s faces made it worth it,” she added.

Whitters agreed with Fernandez’s assessment.

“It was fun,” he said as he handed out the last of the toys.

“Kids are kids everywhere,” he added. “They all like the same things. Right now they could care less if someone’s Sunni, Shia, Jewish, Christian or whatever. They just want to be kids and have fun.”

 

[pearlieq]

I don't deny a lot of good happens, but what bugs me is that we're not held to the same standards as everyone else, in a practical sense.

Sure, talking heads will light up the US like a Christmas tree, but in the sense of any meaningful recourse we're exempt from international justice and I find that shameful.

I guess the REAL golden rule is true!

 

[yo-ho-yo-ho]

Yeah thats very good but why won't the President sign up to the International Criminal Court ?


If we are only talking about a few cases whats the problem with these rotten apples being tried in an International Criminal Court ?

 

[transparant]

I don't deny a lot of good happens,

But are those stories as much a priority to share with others as the bad ones are? No.

I hate to say it - but I hardly see anyone posting ANY good stories on this board about our troops. And if someone does - it's pathetic to see that it will only get a handful of responses if that. Or it's labeled as "fluff". That is pathetic.

 

[DawnCt1]

Seems the same to me as Saddam - he was in uniform and he killed Iraqi's




Really why won't the U.S sign up to The Military International Criminal Court. And don't start me on POW'S and how the U.S ingored the Geneva Conventions


As for Military Justice, what a few months in a Military jail


Why won't the President sign up to the International Criminal Court ?

Sounds like Saddam?? And when Saddam was in power who brought him to justice? Absolutely no one. We bring our own soldiers to justice and at this point in time who do not know the outcome of the trial, that every AMERICAN is entitled to, so why would you speculate on the amount of jail time. Why should the President sign up to the ICC? His job is to protect Americans, at home and abroad. We do a very good job policing ourselves.

 

[pearlieq]

But are those stories as much a priority to share with others as the bad ones are? No.

No, you're right. I don't think it's limited to the military though. In general "bad" news gets more attention. That can be confirmed on TV every night at 10:00pm.

Even as humans we remember "bad" things longer and more clearly than "good" things. I agree it's a shame, but I don't think it's a specific campaign to denegrate the miliary.

I actually find in real life, face-to-face reactions military personnel are treated very respectfully. When my cousin comes home off ship, people practically genuflect when they see his uniform or military ID. In fact he may have gotten out of a traffic ticket or two that way...

 

[MassJester]

I think it is less a question of whether or not it's a war crime so much as who is culpable.

A war crime is defined as (courtessy of Black's): Conduct that violates international laws governing war. Examples of war crimes are the killing of hostages, abuse of civilians in occupied territories, abuse of prisoners of war, and devestation that is not nustified by military necessity.

I think that this soldiers action is clearly a war crime, and that the soldier seems to have been called to account for his actions.

So indict the military as a whole seems unfair. Although I am unable to provide authoritive sources for my belief, I do believe that American forces in Iraq behave at least as well as forces of other countries who have occupied foreign lands. In fact, I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and find them to be a very professional, dedicated, and principaled fighting force. I doubt I am stretching the turth to say they are the best in the world.

Now that said, none of their good works, acts of heroism, or positive interactions with the local people in Iraq lend justification to our pressence there.

Much is made of the "good things being done" by our soldiers there. I'll tell you, if the French invaded Texas in order to save the population from the horrors of a right wing government that wasn't paying attention to international law and world opinion, and while they were there built lovely hospitals and schools, I'd still want them to get the hell out of my country.

 

[DawnCt1]

I don't deny a lot of good happens, but what bugs me is that we're not held to the same standards as everyone else, in a practical sense.

Sure, talking heads will light up the US like a Christmas tree, but in the sense of any meaningful recourse we're exempt from international justice and I find that shameful.

I guess the REAL golden rule is true!

And what about all of those soldiers who may be wrongfully accused yet face a court from countries who look for any opportunity to hurt the USA? Is that possibility within the realm of your thinking? What about those countries who, like the talking heads on the left, decide that this war is an illegal war so whom ever comes into their custody should be tried as a war criminal? President Bush has made the decision to not join the International Court to protect all Americans.

 

[MassJester]

President Bush has made the decision to not join the International Court to protect all Americans.

Yeah, he's just bringing peace and prosperity everywhere he goes.

 

[yo-ho-yo-ho]

We bring our own soldiers to justice

What a plea bargin

Why should the President sign up to the ICC?

Maybe because it might be the right thing to do

Did you know the the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in


Funny isn't it War Crimnal Saddam singing from the same hymm sheet as the U.S

His job is to protect Americans, at home and abroad. We do a very good job policing ourselves.

Well he's done a great job hasn't he

 

[cardaway]

Much is made of the "good things being done" by our soldiers there. I'll tell you, if the French invaded Texas in order to save the population from the horrors of a right wing government that wasn't paying attention to international law and world opinion, and while they were there built lovely hospitals and schools, I'd still want them to get the hell out of my country.

And building the structure is only a small part of the big picture.

 

[Eega Beeva]

war crime
Function: noun
: an act committed usually during an international war for which individual criminal liability will be imposed by a domestic or international tribunal; specifically : a violation of the laws or customs of war as embodied or recognized by international treaty, court decisions, or established practice —usually used in pl.

NOTE: Following World War II, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg first codified war crimes including crimes against humanity. Also encompassed in the legal concept of war crimes is the crime of planning or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Sounds like this might be considered a war crime according to Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law.

 

[transparant]

And what about all of those soldiers who may be wrongfully accused yet face a court from countries who look for any opportunity to hurt the USA? Is that possibility within the realm of your thinking? What about those countries who, like the talking heads on the left, decide that this war is an illegal war so whom ever comes into their custody should be tried as a war criminal? President Bush has made the decision to not join the International Court to protect all Americans.

Exactly.

 

[LuvDuke]

A US Marine pleaded guilty today to shooting a defenceless Iraqi grandfather dragged from his house in the middle of the night in what his squad informally called "Operation Vigilante."


Cpl Trent Thomas was charged with murder, kidnapping and other offences in the April 2006 death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania, Iraq. According to earlier testimony in the case, Thomas shot the man up to 10 times. Awad was a neighbour of a man Marines had sought to kidnap and kill as a suspected terrorist.

The case is one of a series from the Iraq war in which US military personnel are accused of crimes against Iraqi civilians. Seven Marines and a Navy medic have been charged in the incident.

Thomas said unit leader Sgt Lawrence Hutchins devised a plan to kidnap and murder a suspected terrorist released from prison, but the unit ended up grabbing a neighbour, Awad, instead.

In a strong, confident voice, Thomas matter-of-factly told the military judge how the unit placed the man by the side of a road, retreated and then returned to create the impression they had discovered a man placing an explosive device.

"I fired several rounds into Awad's body and he was already lying on the ground," Thomas said, adding he used his M-16 rifle. "He was still alive and Sgt. Hutchins came up and did a dead check and finished him off."

He said he acted under a lawful order from his squad leader Hutchins, whom Thomas said fired a final three shots to the Iraqi man's head.

Prior to Thomas, three other Marines and a Navy medic have pleaded guilty, getting relatively light prison sentences of 21 months or less in deals in which they agreed to testify against the others.

Thomas, who wore a khaki service uniform, pleaded guilty to seven charges including unpremeditated murder, kidnapping and conspiracy. He will be sentenced next month at Camp Pendleton north of San Diego.

His maximum sentence will be limited to an amount in the plea deal which had not yet been made public. He said the unit informally called the incident "Operation Vigilante."



So is this a War Crime ?


I think it is and Trent Thomas ( sorry i can't call him a Marine - he's a disgrace to the uniform ) should spend the rest of his life in prison.

Also the President should be tried for War Crimes, this isn't the first case involving Troops under his command.

It is obviously a series of crimes, but IMO, it is not a war crime. I think war crimes better defines what was done by Nazi Germany and Japan and not a few soldiers who lost their marbles.

 

[yo-ho-yo-ho]

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilian shields
Using child soldiers
The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy





Seems like a number of breaches we could charge the President with !!!

 

[DawnCt1]

Seems like a number of breaches we could charge the President with !!!

You seem to focus on this theme quite a bit. I have a couple of questions for you;
Do you want the United States to prevail and Iraq to be a peaceful, democratic country?
Do you want American soldiers captured and held as war criminals by any agent of any government who disagrees with American foreign policy?

 

[Eega Beeva]

I think this must qualify as a war crime. The Mi Lai massacre was a war crime. Using an excuse that one was just following orders is invalid. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals held after WWII denied troops the excuse that they were just following orders. The United States executed both Japanese and German troops on that premise.

 

[MassJester]

Seems like a number of breaches we could charge the President with !!!

Although no fan of the Shrub, I don't think he is guilty of war crimes.

He took military action that was authorized by Congress. Now I certainly think that the action was a flagrant violation of international law, but as an individual actor, I can't see how he can be held up as a war criminal.

Actually, I blame Congress -- if you give an idiot child a gun, don't be surprised if he shoots your foot off.

 

[yo-ho-yo-ho]

And only today


The Pentagon's completion of a hefty manual outlining procedures for terror trials has revived debate in Congress on the treatment of captives held by the U.S. military.

Democrats said they were concerned that the manual -- based on a law passed last year in the Republican-run Congress -- tramples on basic legal rights that should be afforded to military prisoners. This, they say, puts U.S. troops at risk of mistreatment if captured.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he is working alongside Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin on a bill addressing flaws in the manual ``that are impediments to the effective and credible prosecution of suspected terrorists.''



Who was it said

I think war crimes better defines what was done by Nazi Germany and Japan and not a few soldiers who lost their marbles.

The Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.


Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.


Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.


Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.


Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Is it a cold day somewhere?? I've never seen Dawn and LuvDuke agree on anything !

sorry back to the bickering that isn't going to change anything and for the record I actually agree with Dawn too. As Americans, we must protect Americans from people who just want to get revenge and use any means necessary. The military people who are breaking law are getting justice by having a court martial and going to prison and some are going for many many years. After they get out, they will have an awful time trying to get any job or have some kind of normal life.