US Army Shoot Unborn Baby in the Womb

[Neo]

Thread is moderated, please stay on topic now.
Thanks!

 

[dabong1]

This incedent will be waved day in day out this is a good tool for the Taleban to dictate their motive and recruit more and more people show this to any uneducated and he will believe your cause.

So having the US running things in afghanistan has bought us security has it...?
No matter how much you cling to the hope that the US is doing the "right thing" they are our enemy are will always be until the real americans take back there country.

 

[burton]

I don't think this sounds like a deliberate 'war crime' but still, it is a dreadfully tragic incident...

Also, it seems as if there isn't going to be an actual investigation from the US side. I mean, they have concluded it was a mistake, an accident - but that's not the same thing.

And I'm not sure there shouldn't be one...

 

[Beskar]

I don't think this sounds like a deliberate 'war crime' but still, it is a dreadfully tragic incident...

Also, it seems as if there isn't going to be an actual investigation from the US side. I mean, they have concluded it was a mistake, an accident - but that's not the same thing.

And I'm not sure there shouldn't be one...

If U.S army is successful in finding out WHO committed this hideous act, they will try their best to charge that particular soldier with an offence. Frankly speaking, they don't need these events to happen in the first place because that hurts the credibility of their entire operation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Vietnam war, soldiers returning home were being spat on by the public for war crimes. Even on the ones who didn't even deserve to be spat on. The PR department of U.S military always convicts the ones responsible for war crimes because if they don't, how are they going to gain their public's trust and respect? Not saying that they have a lot of it anyway.

 

[qsaark]

If U.S army is successful in finding out WHO committed this hideous act, they will try their best to charge that particular soldier with an offence. Frankly speaking, they don't need these events to happen in the first place because that hurts the credibility of their entire operation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Vietnam war, soldiers returning home were being spat on by the public for war crimes. Even on the ones who didn't even deserve to be spat on. The PR department of U.S military always convicts the ones responsible for war crimes because if they don't, how are they going to gain their public's trust and respect? Not saying that they have a lot of it anyway.

How many US/NATO soldiers have been prosecuted for the war crimes during the period of 2001-2009? I'll be grateful to you if you provide us with the figures so we could believe in your above mentioned good faith.

Following is a New York Times editorial, a bit old though but an interesting read.

December 31, 2007
EDITORIAL

Looking at America

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in the Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.
It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001. The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review. Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress. These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America. ENDS

 

[Beskar]

I was talking about the standard operating procedure which is followed by every military in the world. No need to get cocky, you just have to read between the lines my friend.

Secondly, I was also giving my reason as to why they SHOULD prosecute ANYONE who's acting more than just a soldier. Which is, committing war crimes. There's tons of examples about the prosecuted U.S military personnel but the reason why most of them aren't brought to justice is because of the code of 'Loyalty' that is served in every armed forces in the world. Once you're a soldier, the only family you have is the other soldiers around you.

War is hell and frankly, since the history of 'conflicts', atrocities have been committed on each side. And it's a trend that will just not stop any time soon. Speaking from experience, I've known veterans from three different army's who've told me about their stories from war. It gets bloody my friend. You wouldn't want to be in their shoes just as much as I wouldn't want to be.

This act of killing an unborn baby is horrible and beyond a 'lawful' punishment. If only you would've understood my original post, I wouldn't have been here telling you that professionalism in military's STILL exist. It BENEFITS them and that's exactly why you can't say that they wouldn't prosecute a petty PFC to save their face in front of their public.

 

[qsaark]

I was talking about the standard operating procedure............ It BENEFITS them and that's exactly why you can't say that they wouldn't prosecute a petty PFC to save their face in front of their public.

Nice verbose Bezerk. I wonder why there was a need for the fourth Geneva convention relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any military occupation by a foreign power?

 

[S-2]

So do I have this correct that these soldiers were seen by the villagers while on rooftops and in the act of surrounding a militant? Thinking that they were bandits, the villagers charged out and opened fire on the Americans who RETURNED fire or so the article has reported.

I presume this to be night and only the silhouettes of men with M-4 carbines or just any weapon were visible. That would also help to explain how the mother was shot.

Of course, we get our kicks by shooting pregnant women so I wouldn't accept any other explanation or possibility were I you.

Well, we know that this action wasn't initiated by the Americans. We don't know if it was mistaken identity or if the villagers were intentionally attacking the Americans to protect the target. In Khost that is entirely possible.

Sad but the consequence of an armed society, I suppose.

I sure hope it doesn't happen again.

Thanks.

 

[qsaark]

These are the consequences of an armed society? Not too long ago we saw the consequences of an un-armed society, Bosnia. Where the UN troops collected self-defense arms from each and every civilian, and left them unprotected and un-armed only to be slaughtered by the Serbs.

 

[Beskar]

Nice verbose Bezerk. I wonder why there was a need for the fourth Geneva convention relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any military occupation by a foreign power?

You'd perceive my post as a verbose simply because I HAD to explain everything to you step by step because apparently you have a problem trying to comprehend a simple and straight forward post.

* A proven 'GUILTY' soldier accused of committing war-crimes in a war, is subject to prosecution. We're living in the 21st century my friend, there's no escape from a fiasco created by a military personnel these days. Remember what happened when pictures from Abu-gharaib started to surface the Internet? You think those people are still out there defecating on Iraqi prisoners? Point is, if proven guilty, it's in U.S Military's OWN interest to charge that officer for a misconduct. If only you would've know -this- much about how PR departments in Military's around the world work, I wouldn't be wasting my time here with you.

You missed the entire meaning of my first post here. And the last time you did that was when you only had about 50 posts. I guess I was right after all. Not much has changed I suppose

Have a good one.

 

[DarkStar]

please, stop trying to antagonise each other...I'm enjoying reading the posts, but the asides leave a bad taste...

 

[qsaark]

You'd perceive my post as a verbose simply because I HAD to explain everything to you step by step because apparently you have a problem trying to comprehend a simple and straight forward post. If only you would've know -this- much about how PR departments in Military's around the world work, I wouldn't be wasting my time here with you.

You missed the entire meaning of my first post here. And the last time you did that was when you only had about 50 posts. I guess I was right after all. Not much has changed I suppose

Have a good one.

Not much has changed, has it? You attacked me personally than, you are attacking me personally now. At any rate, I don’t want to get myself confused by 'administrative gimmicks'. My questions are straight forward:

How many US/NATO soldiers been prosecuted and punished?

Whether Geneva Convention is being applied to the so-called WoT?

Why Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act 1996?

 

[qsaark]

Bush confesses to war crimes

By Nicolas J S Davies

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.

His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.

The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.

Bush asked Congress to do three things in these amendments. “First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”

One prong of the U.S. government’s attack on the Geneva Conventions has been the assertion that they do not provide a laundry list of what techniques of treatment and interrogation are permitted or prohibited. This is, of course, because the Geneva Conventions instead contain blanket prohibitions on torture, cruelty and humiliation. It has only been the efforts of U.S. officials to encroach on these prohibitions that may have raised doubt among U.S. personnel as to what is and is not permitted.

Captain Ian Fishback, the military interrogator who blew the whistle on Camp Nama (Nasty Assed Military Area) in Iraq, has contrasted his orders in Iraq with the rules he had been taught, "My feelings were that it clearly violated what I had learned as the appropriate way to treat detainees at West Point. . . . You don't force them to give you any information other than name, rank, and serial number. That's the gist of the Geneva Conventions." Captain Fishback’s account of the war crimes he was involved in at Camp Nama is in the latest edition of Esquire magazine.

Bush continued, “Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”

This is the crucial change that Bush wants in the law. The War Crimes Act currently criminalizes murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, humiliating and degrading treatment, and arbitrary punishment of prisoners, based on the prohibitions in Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Bush is asking Congress to replace the straightforward prohibitions in Common Article 3 with the provisions of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which includes extraordinary protections for U.S. officials.

These protections are clearly designed to undermine the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act and even the Nuremberg Principles. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act states that, in the case of “operational practices . . . that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary good sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful.”

This would shift the legal standard from the clear one defined by the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act as it is presently written to one of who knew what when, requiring courts to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator knew his actions were unlawful. Even if opinions written by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith and David Addington were found to have no legal basis at all, they could suffice to cast doubt on Bush and his colleagues’ knowledge of their crimes, which would be crucial under the amended law.

“Third," Bush said, "I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and the women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.”

This would protect U.S. officials from civil liability for human rights violations. Prisoners released from Guantanamo have already filed such lawsuits against the U.S. government, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials, which might help to explain why these amendments are Bush’s “top priority.”

The central myth of the War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.

Bush framed his justification of torture in a classic use of this mistaken logic: “And in this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed and knowledge about what plots are under way. This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.”

The context Bush did not provide is that this applies equally to all prisoners of war. Captured soldiers usually do possess information that would be valuable to their captors, and the Geneva Conventions do constrain the ability to extract this information from them, but this is by design. Based on bitter experience, the people and governments of the world have decided that torture is so abhorrent that it must be completely outlawed, even though this results in the loss of information that might save lives or even alert captors to an existential threat to their country.

The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.

For five years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide is turning, Bush and his associates are behaving like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they have left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.

 

[S-2]

Yes. However sad this story, we now know that the Americans did return fire. Because we believe half the story, we believe ALL of the story. Bosnia dissembles the reality of the consequences arriving from THIS incident involving armed civilians either defending their homes from bandits or assisting a targeted suspect.

Fact: Four people died.

Fact: The Americans didn't initiate the fire.

What Human Rights Watch has proven, roadrunner, is that bombings too often specifically TARGET civilians so, yes, while those instances where NATO soldiers are targeted might pass the test of attacking legitimate targets, the instances arising from the targeted attack of civilians are impossible to ignore.

That's never been suggested about any of NATO's forces willfully target innocent civilians as the sole focus of their fires-in any reported instance. Zero.

OTOH, where choices can be made in regions under militant control, the consequences to the innocent are horrifying...

Here's a story from yesterday that I've posted elsewhere on this board but has received little interest. You see, according to Survivor's reply, this incident likely arises from culture.

I agree. A taliban culture prescribing a harsh and remorseless perversion of Islam's dignity.

I suggest that the provincial governor's comments to the writ of state defines that the gov't of Afghanistan may not fully concur with the outcome. Still, it gives us (like Buner and SWAT) true insight to the judgements arrived by the militants in those areas under their control.

It isn't a happy story at all. Please read-

Taliban Execute Eloping Couple-AP

Thanks.

 

[Beskar]

Not much has changed, has it? You attacked me personally than, you are attacking me personally now. At any rate, I don’t want to get myself confused by 'administrative gimmicks'. My questions are straight forward:

How many US/NATO soldiers been prosecuted and punished?

Whether Geneva Convention is being applied to the so-called WoT?

Why Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act 1996?

Instead of using your head, you're getting emotional on this subject. Is it a new 'Fad' on the forum these days to use 'Fashion Statements'?!? Been seeing a lot of those lately.

I don't work for the U.S army so I can't exactly give you a detailed list of U.S army personnel court-martial(ed) for war crimes. What you CAN do is do a general google search and see how man articles and news clipping's you'd find about convicted and sentenced U.S army personnel. I can assure you, there's quite a lot of them.

You've tactically derailed this thread into 'Twenty Questions'. I haven't attacked you personally, but rather your flawed skills at comprehension. Go back to my first post and try to understand it. Until that time, you're only wasting my time and bandwidth.