Now US dont want some Iraq prisioners as POWs 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927044,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927044,00.html
Guantanamo Bay
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
I dont see where the Coalition has decided one way or another what to do. I would however support sending terrorists caught in iraq to guantanamo.
later,
no it is not a crime, what statue has been broken by taking the terrorist into guantanamo. The geneva convetion to the best of my knowledge does not deal with terrorists.
BTW I dont see a divergince between the British or the Americans, I watched the CENTCOM briefing and no one has made up any decisions as to what will happen. I do believe if we find al quaeda terrorist we should take them in to custody and hold them in cuba.
later,
BTW I dont see a divergince between the British or the Americans, I watched the CENTCOM briefing and no one has made up any decisions as to what will happen. I do believe if we find al quaeda terrorist we should take them in to custody and hold them in cuba.
later,
No but the British did.nutball said:
edited, more about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2905479.stm
There has already been talk in the UK of the potential of Tony Blair standing trial at the ICC, which it why he has to tread very carefully with what the Brits do in this war.
DaveBaumann said:
For what?
War crimes.
Even the basis for war can be interpretted both ways from the wording of the current UN resolutions. Obviously Parliments legal counsil say they have a solid case, but should someone wish to argue it they probably could bring it up at the ICC.
I can't remember the exact context for how a case could be broiught against Tony as these discussion occured before the break out of hostilities (although, they may bubble back to the surface when its over), but as I said these things have already been discussed over here.
Even the basis for war can be interpretted both ways from the wording of the current UN resolutions. Obviously Parliments legal counsil say they have a solid case, but should someone wish to argue it they probably could bring it up at the ICC.
I can't remember the exact context for how a case could be broiught against Tony as these discussion occured before the break out of hostilities (although, they may bubble back to the surface when its over), but as I said these things have already been discussed over here.
Im not familiar with how someone brings charges against someone at the ICC. But I dont think it will happen, since the ICC needs to establish legitamicy. For this reason I think they will go after people in Iraq (like Saddam, his sons, Chemical Ali,...). BTW the US wants a war crimes tribunal so this might be a route that the US can use to polish their image in europe.
later,
later,
epicstruggle said:
Establish legitamacy with whom? It clearly doesn't have any with the US, otherwise Bush would have signed up to it. As I recall Bushs' problem with the ICC proposal was a) that US servicemen might be hauled before it and b) it might be used for political ends by Americas' enemies (or opponents) in time of a disputable war (read: the siutation right now).
Assuming it's not run by the French, Russians and Iranians.
In other words he doesn't trust the ICC on the grounds that it might be anti-American and dominated by nations other than the US and its' friends, and wants to form an alternative ICC which is more aligned with the US view of the world.
So all in all from the point-of-view of avoiding being roasted in an International Court of Law, Buish made the right decision and Blair made the wrong one.
The real crux comes if the US commits what is deemed by the ICC as a "war crime" (whatever that might be, perhaps shooting up a car-load of innocent women and children?). I wonder if Blair could be prosecuted for being an accomplice?
nutball you are smart enough, because you can turn a computer on, to know that the US cannot be brought up on war crimes for shooting civilians, the soldiers who did it might be able too, but Bush did not say go shoot up civillians, and obviously even the soldiers are innocent of any intentional wrong doing.
Saddam has ordered war criems, dressing as civillians, killing civillians, operating from schools hospitals, threatening soldiers families to make them fight, the list goes on and on, shooting civilians who flee on orders, I think everyone is bright enough to see the difference.
Saddam has ordered war criems, dressing as civillians, killing civillians, operating from schools hospitals, threatening soldiers families to make them fight, the list goes on and on, shooting civilians who flee on orders, I think everyone is bright enough to see the difference.
The ICC is shaping up to be a Kangaroo Court already. I thought the purpose was to get people who commit real war crimes, like genocide. Any talk of Blair being even REMOTELY eligable for prosecution there shows what a sham it is. The allies are fighting with both hands behind their back, taking extraordinary measures not seen in history to avoid loss of life of all the parties in involved. Blair should be given a noble prize.
DemoCoder said:
I have heard some talk that these tribunals would be used on mass to put on trial anyone whom wages war..... and that was a long time ago. In some interview it was suggested that this court would first be used against people whom have committed real atrocities and then have the mechanism "snowball" to the larger scope of putting whom ever conducts war. Essentially this would be used against anyone whom engages in military action without the concent of the UN. To bad this was supposed to be used for prosecution of real war criminals now it has simply turned into a political tool.
This organization will loose all credibility and power to be effective. One step forward two steps back.
horvendile
Regular
antlers4 said:
As far as I recall from my military service, in this case you do not need a uniform. You do however need to mark yourself in a way so that it can be seen that you are a combatant. An armband may be enough, but it must be visible.
Concerning the ICC and rumoured prosecution of Blair: Wouldn't it be better to wait and see what happens before dismissing the court? It's not as if the ICC has responded or even been given a formal request, as I read it. The mere fact that someone threatens with the ICC probably says more about that person than about ICC.
I mean, if I threatened to sue Bush for assault (or whatever) in USA, it would hardly be fair to dismiss the US legal system just because I can generate noise about it.
