Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

Alcerus fascist
11/10/17 2:05 pm

In order for you to be guilty of a war crime, you must first be a member of an official military force. Then you must be in a declared war against another conventional military. Then you must intentionally break the rules of the Geneva Conventions or other rules of warfare. It's all very official and bureaucratic

4boot LaTrineodeur, MN
11/09/17 10:34 pm

Maybe. Have to wonder how much was invented by our government...wouldn't put anything past them.

fmm Philadelphia suburb
11/09/17 8:39 pm

yes - meets the definition set by the Nuremberg Principles

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
11/09/17 7:53 pm

War criminal is a far too dignified label for that man. He was a savage beast who deserved every bullet that punctured through his hell-bound carcass.

Reply
SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/10/17 8:50 am

I wonder if we’re thinking along the same lines... first: “war criminal” sounds right to most people, but implies that Bin Laden would have had the right to trial in some form of formal international tribunal. Second: it’s academic, especially now, what we call that bastard and his cronies. We now have a no safe haven doctrine for terrorists like him. We will relentlessly hunt them down. Third: in “war” the convention is to not specifically target leaders, but hold them accountable for any war crimes after the fact. For terrorists, we do consider the leaders to be fair game and targeted individually.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 3:58 pm

No. You have to be part of an organized government that agreed to the rules of war in order to be a war criminal.

Reply
ReligiousCommie No Longer Active
11/09/17 4:10 pm

I don't agree with society's rules. Can I go on a murder rampage now?

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:30 pm

You're a citizen of the U.S. inside US jurisdiction. It's different for sovereign nations.

For example, the Soviet Union never signed the Geneva Convention. For this reason, the Germans could put soviet prisoners into work camps and essentially work them to death. The Soviets did the same to the Germans. The Germans and the Americans signed the Geneva convention though, so they have to follow the rules when capturing prisoners, and they even have to provide sporting facilities for each other's POWS. The Germans treated American POWs very well for this reason.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:30 pm

That's how international law works. If you don't agree then you don't have to follow it, but that also means that other countries don't have to follow those rules when they're fighting you.

ReligiousCommie No Longer Active
11/09/17 7:28 pm

Interesting point, but I think international law should be more strongly enforced. You're just talking in terms of what is.

fmm Philadelphia suburb
11/09/17 8:42 pm

you don’t have to be a part of an organized government - that is not a criteria. here’s the definition:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/09/17 2:04 pm

Doubt it. Otherwise the Bush administration would have been able to give some proof to the Taliban when they asked why the US was bombing their country. They offered to hand him over if proof could be demonstrated.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/09/17 1:57 pm

Oh man, I was expecting something better than a cheap shot at the USA and UK leadership. Just because you accuse those leaders of war crimes, it doesn’t make it true.

ReligiousCommie No Longer Active
11/09/17 1:30 pm

Just you wait. I'm going somewhere with this.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
11/09/17 1:44 pm

Something something deserved a trial bc war criminal?

ComradeJames nationalism
11/09/17 1:49 pm

If he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, he deserved to be executed, just like any war criminal. The same applies to George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, the Clintons, Reagan, Tony Blair, David Cameron, &c.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 3:59 pm

I hold the contrary belief. War crimes shouldn't exist at all, and we shouldn't have executed any of the innocent men at Nuremburg.

bower8899 ...
11/09/17 4:08 pm

You are disgusting.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:09 pm

No, the allies were disgusting for torturing false confessions out of people. That's why the first American judge resigned: out of disgust.

ComradeJames nationalism
11/09/17 4:26 pm

Then China should be able to nuke the US without consequences. War crimes are bullshit, and China has enough manpower to hold us off.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:27 pm

Without consequence? MAD is the consequence, mongoloid. Otherwise the U.S. would have nuked anyone they wanted. We clearly aren't beholden to the laws of war because we are the only ones enforcing them.

ComradeJames nationalism
11/09/17 4:28 pm

I said they should be able to, not that than can.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:33 pm

Well your statement was idiotic. I tried to make you seem a little bit smarter by changing it slightly but I guess you're hell bent on looking stupid.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 4:33 pm

"China has a wed fwag, they must be the goodies!"

ComradeJames nationalism
11/09/17 4:36 pm

Yep, that's always the goal. 🙄

You don't believe in war crimes. If the DPRK was capable of nuking the US and slaughtering American refugees, and war crimes are bullshit, what would be stopping them?

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 6:29 pm

Our military and our NATO allies. We don't need a piece of paper legislation in order to fight back. We'd be the ones enforcing the laws anyway.

Carcano Luke 10 19
11/09/17 6:29 pm

What is stopping them now? You think they're afraid of being labelled war criminals?