babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Not ONE US officer held accountable for abuse in Abu Gharib

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Not ONE US officer held accountable for abuse in Abu Gharib
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 January 2008 01:17 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
After a week-long court martial in August, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, 51, who oversaw the Abu Ghraib interrogations centre from September to December 2003, was acquitted of the most serious charges of mistreating prisoners and dereliction of duty.

He walked free with just a fine and a judicial reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss the scandal with any colleague.

On Tuesday, however, General Richard Rowe, commanding general of the US Army Military District of Washington, who headed the court martial of Jordan, "disapproved the guilty finding and the sentence," an Army statement said.



Why is the ICC in Sudan and not Iraq?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 January 2008 03:12 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why? Because neither Iraq nor the U.S. are signatories to the Rome Statute. Jordan is the only state in the Middle East to sign the agreement, but they haven't fully ratified it, yet.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 January 2008 05:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It didn't prevent stooges of the vicious empire from hanging Saddam or murdering Slobberdog Milosovic.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 19 January 2008 10:31 AM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Canada shows it has no guts

as it caves in to Israel and the United States

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ChicagoLoopDweller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14097

posted 19 January 2008 11:46 AM      Profile for ChicagoLoopDweller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The signatory issue is not the only roadblock to the ICC being involved in Iraq. There is also the matter of the party State being unwilling or unable to try its own nationals for crimes. Here the US put this guy on trial...whether it was legitimate or not is another matter...but by itself, giving him a trial may be enough to preclude investigation by the ICC.
From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 January 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The United States has demonstrated, quite adequately, that is either unwilling or unable to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hell, the entire war is illegal.

And I don't accept the signatory BS. Is Sudan a signatory? Yugoslavia? Rwanda? If the ICC can investigate and prosecute crimes in Sudan it can investigate and prosecute crimes in Iraq. If the ICC can investigate and try Slobodon, it can investigate and try Dick and George.

The fact it doesn't proves the ICC is just a political tool.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 January 2008 12:31 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ICTY and ICTR were not the ICC, but ad hoc tribunals convened for specific purposes. Their jurisdiction was granted by way of Security Council Resolutions, and were convened under the auspice of the SC's powers, specifically Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The resolutions (and thus the jurisdiction of the tribunals) were binding by virtue of Yugoslavia and Rwanda being member nations of the UN.

The ICC was created by the Rome Statute (a mutilateral treaty) and is not part of Chapter VII powers granted to the Security Council, though the Security Council can refer cases to the ICC. The jurisdictional issues are a different kettle of wax...

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 January 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for clearing that up. So what is the chances, do you think, the security council will authorize investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Let me ask you another question then, if a nation is not a signatory to the ICC, their nationals can't be held to account under the ICC?

ETA: You will have to help me out here. Why do the cases here, http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.html, fall under ICC jurisdiction including Sudan?

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 January 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[QB]Thank you for clearing that up. So what is the chances, do you think, the security council will authorize investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Highly unlikely since both the U.S. and U.K. hold veto power on the Security Council. Chances are, no one would even table a draft resolution to that end. It's a crappy system.

quote:
Let me ask you another question then, if a nation is not a signatory to the ICC, their nationals can't be held to account under the ICC?

ETA: You will have to help me out here. Why do the cases here, http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.html, fall under ICC jurisdiction including Sudan?


Well, that's the thing with the ICC in Sudan. Strictly speaking, the ICC isn't to have authority over non-member states, but the Security Council (lead by France) were able to pass a resolution (with the U.S. abstaining) to get the ICC involved essentially on the premise that because genocide was under way, jurisdictional issues weren't as important as the diktat to do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, I've never seen a convincing black-letter legal argument for the ICC's jurisdiction in Sudan, but morally, well, I don't see a problem with someone looking into that mess. The other issue is that the government of Sudan are thought to be complicit in the crimes, so their attempts to prosecute their own (and thus stave off the ICC) seem a little cynical.

So I guess it comes down to this: do we agree that the "international community" (basically a condominium of Great Powers) have the right to intervene in cases of genocide when the state in control is either unwilling and/or unable to do so, or cannot do so with a reasonable expectation of fairness and objectivity. Should the international community stay out of the Sudan mess because they can't also prosecute George Bush for aggression against Iraq? I guess it's the same as asking, do you stop prosecuting mafia henchmen, just because the Don is too well connected and there are some dirty cops?

I've never made my mind up on that one, actually - i.e. the old conundrum between states' rights (sovereignty) and the commands of "justice" as voiced through international bodies. Honestly, I don't know.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ChicagoLoopDweller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14097

posted 19 January 2008 02:07 PM      Profile for ChicagoLoopDweller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the State is unwilling to do anything about genocide that presents the larger problem. If a State is unable to do anything about the genocide, does sovereignty still exist? In theory, aren't States supposed to have control over the internal workings of the country? Isn't that part of what defines a state?
From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 January 2008 02:33 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What if a state is involved in genocide? Because if Darfur is a genocide, so is Iraq. Which returns me to my earlier conclusion which is that it is all about politics. The ICC is as much a political tools as is the security council.

ChicagoLoopDweller, why is it Americans have less tolerance for the murderous proclivities of other nations than their own?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 January 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sami al-Haj's letter from Guantánamo, December 27, 2007


It is with great pleasure that I pass on my warmest greetings and gratitude for all your efforts in regards to the case of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay. Also I would like to pass on our wishes for the New Year and asking God to make it a successful and prosperous one.

As for our news, we remain here for more than six years, and we still seek to proclaim truth, freedom and world peace.

All of this takes place in a world which knows what is happening but remains silent and does little more than watch this sorry theatre.

By now, surely everyone knows that truth. The U.S. was the country that prided itself by bringing peace; now, sadly, instead it rains down violence and discord. Guantánamo is the most obvious example of this.

We prisoners entered Guantánamo alive, many have left it alive, and some of us remain in it, seemingly alive ourselves. However, those who remain die every second of every day that we are here. Each of us suffers new physical pain, and our injured hearts suffer from a psychological pain that can not be described.

All of this happens and the world remains silent. And, as it has been written, it is true of us:

I am alive and will listen if you call
But there will soon be no life for us who you call;
And if you blew at the embers now they would light up
But wait and you will find that you blow into ashes

Sami al-Haj



Read about what Amerca, home of the brave, does to a guy who commited the crime of being a real journalist.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChicagoLoopDweller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14097

posted 19 January 2008 06:13 PM      Profile for ChicagoLoopDweller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well speaking for all Americans, I have no idea. I would imagine it is for the same reason that in a hockey game some people are blind to the penalties committed by their own team, but pick up on even the smallest infraction committed by the opposition.

On another note, I would have to disagree with you that what is happening in Iraq is genocide. War crimes have been, and continue to be, committed, but I believe the atrocities committed constitute genocide.


From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 January 2008 06:59 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well speaking for all Americans, I have no idea. I would imagine it is for the same reason that in a hockey game some people are blind to the penalties committed by their own team, but pick up on even the smallest infraction committed by the opposition.

If you would place professional sports on the same scale as mass human death, the destruction of a culture including historical, cultural and religious artifacts, the collective emotional and social trauma of an entire nation, the total waste of blood and resources, and the uranium salting of the earth and Arab DNA, I suppose you are right.

quote:

On another note, I would have to disagree with you that what is happening in Iraq is genocide. War crimes have been, and continue to be, committed, but I believe the atrocities committed constitute genocide.

It is not me you are disagreeing with. You are disagreeing with the logic and criteria for declaring Darfur a genocide.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChicagoLoopDweller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14097

posted 19 January 2008 09:13 PM      Profile for ChicagoLoopDweller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And yet I did not place professional sports on the same level as the human misery. But people tend to be blind to that which they don't want to see. This happens to people all over the place and in all situations. You see it on this board all the time. Most people are willing to put on the blinders when it suits their needs.
From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca