"little thing" to put in the back of your mind

[Fritz]

Iraqis target Gen. Franks for war crimes trial

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030428-12027619.htm

this "little thing" has the potential tobecome the seed of something much larger. Good to file in brain for later.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
this "little thing" has the potential tobecome the seed of something much larger.

I hope so. Not the prosecution of Franks, which would be ridiculous unless he did something we don't know about, but the actual criminalization of war itself. That would be perhaps the greatest political advancement in world history.

[Fritz]

war has been made criminal before....

[Daimyo]

I read right up until here:

Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.

So Belgium passes a national law that gives them the "power" to pass judgement on noncitizens for acts committed outside of Belgium that in no way directly effect Belgium? Riiiiight.

[Drake]

How does "the failure to prevent mass looting" count as a war crime? If you're going to blame someone for that, shouldn't you blame your local constabulary?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Drake
How does "the failure to prevent mass looting" count as a war crime? If you're going to blame someone for that, shouldn't you blame your local constabulary?

An occupying power has the responsibility for civil administration.

The socialist thirdworld nitwit at the head of the UN has been taking the US to task for not administering well enough. The "charges" seem to stem from the same argument.

[clintl]

It's Kofi Annan's job to speak up when member nations are not living up to their responsibilities under international law, and the fact is that the Pentagon not only had its priorities screwed up after the fall of Baghdad regarding what to protect, but may have actually encouraged some of the looting. At least the British were honest enough to admit that the looting was desired to some extent by the coalition because it helped signal to the rest of the country that Saddam was finished.

I don't think it rises to the level of a war crime, but I don't think there's a great deal of evidence to suggest the U.S. did all that it could to maintain public order, either.

[Drake]

I'd prefer letting folks vent a little steam on banks and assorted public facilities rather than getting harked off at "oppressive" U.S. troops and jumping on the suicide bomber bandwagon.

Looting in Baghdad was only possible because we took the high road and didn't just flatten everything. Sounds to me like somebody should be on their knees thanking Allah for American restraint rather than running to the barristers.

But then again, isn't the freedom to sue and/or counter-sue one of the first signs of budding democracy?

[JonInMiddleGA]

And yet people wonder why I think we should have taken a little more aggressive position?

This is one of the things I've been worried about from the start -- there'll be nothing gained from hanging around after the job is done. Neuter Iraq then come the hell home.