This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

plastictowel's Profile

plastictowel's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by plastictowel

More Discussions by plastictowel

Latest Comments by plastictowel

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

plastictowel's Avatar Jump to comment 158 by plastictowel

"I believe you have to lose a war or something to be a war criminal. Otherwise you'd be a liberator...

Remember what happened at the Nuremburg trials. Were any Allied commanders tried at the dock for atrocities (Dresden, Hiroshima, etc)? "

Regardless, I personally like the principles, winner, or loser. No, no one was tired for Hiroshima, or Dresden, but that does not make it right, nor does it mean conduct of that nature should be shrugged off lightly, and then allowed to continue - as you seem to be suggesting. By your own reasoning, we might as well have no courts at all, people will commit the same crime again, so who cares, let it be. Your method of arguing is bizarre, and inconsistent.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:25:00 UTC | #375220

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

plastictowel's Avatar Jump to comment 157 by plastictowel

In the case of middle-eastern war recently, it's true of how anyone interrupts them. You are not safe under principle IV & VII. And Principle VI marks the US as guilty. I personally like the principles, and wish the UN had more power to ensure they were enforced.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. "I was following orders", is not an excuse.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or 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.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane 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 Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:30:00 UTC | #375210

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

plastictowel's Avatar Jump to comment 155 by plastictowel

Goldy, I have consistently said self-defense is fine. I have also consistently said the US military, as an institution (in its present structure), is not such an institution (since it presently violates many aspects of international law the security council was initially designed to uphold, and overwhelmingly used for aggression over self-defense). If you want to call a Security Council resolution, that employs armed troops, a military - fine. I still do not support the present US military institution. And if the security council was taken as it was intended, then the present US military institution could not exist, a reformed model would have to replace it.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:01:00 UTC | #375204

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

plastictowel's Avatar Jump to comment 152 by plastictowel

"Oh? So you are just accusing me of a crime for doing my job of following the orders of ultimately elected civilian authorities?"

I already answered this. Maybe you forgot. The Nuremburg Principles, of which we promised as a Nation to uphold, call you a criminal. I personally think the Nuremberg Principles are rather upstanding, and wish nations would uphold them. Unfortunately we are not being consistent as a nation.

"I’ll try to remember that the next time someone accuses me of being a murderer, war criminal, Nazi, rapist or what have you."

Nazi and rapist? You're making stuff up now.

"This may all seem very academic and sanitary to you. It isn’t. How do you not see how accusing someone of war crimes is not personal?"

Again, I said the Nuremberg Principles, that we promised to uphold, call you a war criminal. I even pasted those principles a few pages back. None of this is my fault.

"I am thankful the military already has systems in place for dealing with their own."

Like that rule where you cannot resign without jail...

"There’s no question I would not want to be judged by a jury of people who are not my peers (people like you). This is also why I am outright rejecting your judgmental statements of soldiers WRT your suggestion that they should desert."

Why do you desire to not be reviewed by an outside jury? If this a country for the people, by the people, I do not see a problem with the legal institution you fall under being consistent with that measure. By this peculiar reasoning of insider trial the law would almost be entirely ineffective. Let drug dealers be tried by drug dealers, corporate defrauders by fellow businessmen, etc.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:52:00 UTC | #375201

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

plastictowel's Avatar Jump to comment 151 by plastictowel

"Love bombs? And are you suggesting the fragmentation of a sovereign country by force, albeit a love force? "

Don't be puerile. That's not how the Security Council was initially designed, and therefore it is not what I meant.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:46:00 UTC | #375200

More Comments by plastictowel