111–120 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drone strikes of innocents, including US citizens, are an easy one. Illegal kidnapping, detention, and torture, of mostly innocent people at that, is another easy one.
>Drone strikes of innocents They knew the target was innocent civilians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He describes himself as an atheist and a supporter of Amnesty International That's a funny one. Someone should interview him and see how he sees himself and his role, and does he consider himself to be a war criminal.
> Someone should interview him and see how he sees himself and his role, and does he consider himself to be a war criminal. Sacha Baron Cohen. Seriously, Sacha's interview with Dick Cheney where he asked him to sign his waterboarding kit was pure gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUnUoeLSIM
Murat Kurnaz was also held and tortured for four more years at Guantanamo, even after it was clear that he was innocent. The person responsible(²), Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is now Germany's president. There is a repeating pattern here: Governments, officials and people in power are not held accountable. -- (²) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier#Murat_...
The TV series Always Sunny In Philadelphia did a skit on this, its called the DENNIS system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation Such "proposal" is completely irrational. Proposals must be defensible, irrational ideas are not universally defensible. One is not responsible for other people's choices , and cannot be held responsible for other people's (or coinhabiting peoples') choices, nor for the barbaric systemic faults that hinder the ideal implemen…
"Key figures must be held responsible" is the highest rated opinion right now. It's fascinating how nation denies responsibility for the actions of the freely and democratically elected officials, which are the very same key figures that "must be held responsible". For some reason, people with option to choose and change their representative claim that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their represen…
> holding a population responsible for the choices they make
> holding the electorate responsible
That option does not exist for individuals, mrtksn. The "people" on an abstract level do, but the "people" does not exist. John exists. The population does not make any choice; it does not exist: Jane exists. The electorate is not a person.
The irrational way you used is to work on abstractions without having vetted your idea against real reality. To which purpose one may make non existent entities "responsible"? The thought cannot stop there. You kept the idea floating, since having brought it to immediate consequences would have debunked it - it must not have been kept afloat by reason.
If a sensible idea to make this virtual "people / population / electorate" fairly and justly face these mysterious responsibilities, keeping firm that Jack is completely innocent of the choice of his neighbours (nor of the perversions in the established choice itself, nor of the system in which all takes place), exists, I am very curious. To blame it on "all" without blaming it on Jill, still keeping out of the meaningless thin air of ideas - this would be an impressive feat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drone strikes of innocents, including US citizens, are an easy one. Illegal kidnapping, detention, and torture, of mostly innocent people at that, is another easy one.
>Drone strikes of innocents They knew the target was innocent civilians?
Article 51(5)(b) forbids any attack ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’. Such attacks will be classified as a war crime.
https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/hot-topics-80-internation...
Given the fact USA drone strikes have bombed at least a handful weddings, under that definition those actions go very close to being a war crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hague (NL) Invasion Act : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…
Yes I'm intionally not naming names/groups/countries, but we probably know who I'm talking about.
It would not be the first time that a symbolic gesture was made that would appease the victims while not actually punishing those responsible. [ed-spelling]
Actually in this case you have even more interests at play from many sides (since US strength in the middle east - because of oil interests) has been a priority for decades.
Nation building seems to be a total ruse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…
Since you are bringing up NATO, I will just spell out the Hague Invasion Act ELI5 : US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). Disclaimer : I am Dutch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed and ratified) by all industrialized countries except the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
This is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations. Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that…
[1] Except Israel, which essentially never differs from the US in UN voting behaviour.