War crimes and criminals

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

Much to Himmler's disgust, a substantial portion of the SS were actually regular church goers. I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by James Langham

I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

You only have to justify your acts before god and god forgives everything may be.

[Mohoender]

I have written something false. You had no specific offices at the vatican taking care of war criminals. However, evidences have revealed that various high ranking clerics within the catholic church heading various offices (including the most influencials) had been involved (that would probably include one or two popes).

What I'm going to write is not politically correct. I have never been chocked by the Catholic Church hiding war criminals. As it did that it fullfilled one of its commitment which is to protect and shelter whoever seeks it. I'm more stunned by their official declarations, sign of support to nazi Germany and by the general silence that characterized the Vatican during this troubled time. Finally, I'm outraged by the fact that their higher leadership didn't offer the same protection to Jews, Roms... seeking refuge. For them, the support was purely individualistic. In Germany it came from the higher clergy while many among the lower clergy spied for the nazis, in France shelter was given by the lower clergy as the higher clergy was mostly supporting Vichy (to note out of 72,000 jewish children in France, 60,000 escaped deportation hided by among french families and religious institutions), in Italy, in the city of Rome, 80% of the jews escaped protected mostly by religious while Pie XII remained silent.

[dragoon500ly]

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

[dragoon500ly]

Funny how that works out...no?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Funny how that works out...no?

To be honest it makes sense in a coldly logical way. Imagine the propoganda anti-American nations could make out of an American soldier being in the hague?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

US signed them in 1955. It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines. Moreover, in the 1980's the ICJ ruled US to be guilty of Terrorism (Among those condemning US for this was the US judge, funny). Then, US court ruled that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case (basically ruling that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear any case against US). Later, it vetoed any action in the UN. Still, to days, US remains the only western terrorist country. Whatever, what US did is worse than what you states. US signed these treaties but ruled that it is not entitled to follow them.

The power of a tribunal only resides within this tribunal and US has enough atomic bomb to escape any condamnation (especially as it remains the only country which has proven the world that it will willingly use them).

US tribunals also ruled against the federal state during the Civil War, it didn't change anything. US tribunals ruled the japanese internment camps to be illegal, it didn't change S...t. On the other hand, while Guantanamo was set up to escape international law, US courts and supreme courts ruled repetedly against that. At last, this is to the honor of the USA.

To make things easier, France had also been guilty of terrorist actions: possible implication in the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (1 dead) for exemple (more can be found). Of course, this is all "Raison d'Etat". What amaze me is that people remain confident in their governments.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines.

That is one thing the US government really needs to get on board with.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

That was my point about Japan.

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Vietnam signed them in 1957. When, it fought the Vietnam War, most troops involved were irregulars who are not concerned by this convention. Moreover, it won the war and the USA never declared war. As a result, there is little legal ground to charge any soldier from the north. If any ground existed, it would probably be against US troops.