Originally Posted by psoper

Far be it from my range of expertise to "define war crimes"; I just rely on the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950;

more specifically;

Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

But Alberto says W is above all law, domestic and international law, so who really cares what anyone thinks is a war crime?

Originally Posted by psoper

To be quite frank, I wouldn't let myself get into Lt Col West's shoes.

Originally Posted by psoper

Being a pawn in an illegal war is not a situation I would knowingly volunteer to place myself in.



And how do you know that the "priority intelligence" he gathered by shooting over heads actually meant anything?

Originally Posted by psoper

Its his word against others, and apparently those that served with him felt it was inappropriate enough that they raised it to command.

Originally Posted by psoper

The fact that criminal charges were dropped, yet administrative discipline was still rendered shows that his commanders also felt his actions were inappropriate, even if they felt they did not have a criminal case against him.

Originally Posted by psoper

Another likely scenario is that they had plenty of evidence to convict, but did not want to set the precedent, since after all Councellor Rodriguez wrote his opinion that W is above all this legal crap, and anyone following his orders is thereby exhonerated.

Originally Posted by psoper

Yeah, JA's gone, and boy am I excited about his replacement!

Alberto Gonzales is the man who advised the White House that they should build a defense in advance against someday being charged with war crimes.

He advised that we should declare the Geneva conventions as inapplicable, so as to be free to commit actions that would otherwise be considered war crimes.

He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a valid defense.

Originally Posted by Salty

Set the precedent!? Like this type of situation had never been addressed in past American wars? LMFAO!

Originally Posted by psoper

Gee, its great to know that you guys know me so well you totally understand my thinking and of course you know how little I've studied international law.

I'll be getting back to google now.....

Originally Posted by psoper

Well, for your part- you have yet to make one coherent argument disproving any point I've ever brought up, so I don't give you much credibility either.

Originally Posted by psoper

My point was that he made these assertions which taken prima facia are counter to the covenants and principles of international law.

Your counter was to give excuses, essentially "he's a lawyer, he was just doing his job"

I would state that a laywer that makes position statements counter to international law isn't a very good laywer.

I think we should have a good lawyer as Attorney General.

Originally Posted by subaruguru

Yeah, that was my point. A lawyer's job is to WORK FOR HIS CLIENT. If Bush says "we're doing this, now defend us", that's what you do. You don't set policy as whitehouse counsel. You act just like anyone else's lawyer; you give advice, and do the best you can with what your client gives you.