Jedi_Monk Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Most everyone practicing international law agrees that war with Iraq, without the passage of a new UN Resolution that explicitly permits military action, will be illegal (including the law firm that Tony Blair's own wife works for). If any Iraqi civilians are killed in this attack, it's a war crime. Okay, now, according to the precident set at the Nuremburg Trials, individual soldiers can be held responsible and tried for war crimes--even if they were just following the orders of their superiors. So, which is supporting the troops more: Allowing them to be sent into an illegal, unjust war, that will make them liable to face war-crimes charges; or to end this madness and bring them home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Well, the men and women serving took an oath to follow orders and to do their duty and part of this is giving up some of their constitutional rights. They did this in peace time most likely and could not predict they might be put in this position. I think their civilian leaders should be held responsible for any excess. I think we should support our military. But it is strange that since the Bush admin, the US is the only civilized nation refusing to take part in international standards for warcrime prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 War crimes only apply to those who lose the war. If you honestly believe that the US will lose in a war against Iraq, then being tried for war crimes would be the least of worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.