Re: War Crime

[jericson@xxxxxxxxxx]

You can always charge, even if you don't have jurisdiction. The
trouble is in enforcing your decision. (People get tried and convicted
in absentia all over the world every day. If whatever court can't get
a hold of them, it can't do much to enforce its decision.)


Of course, one real question is, who decides what the court will do,
and how are they held accountable? (Are they any less a despot than
who they are supposedly trying?)


> >De : "Robert J. Hansen" <rjhansen@inav.net>
>
> /SNIP/
> >  3.  The definition of a `war crime' is a construct of law, and
war
> > crimes are tried in courts of law.
> /SNIP
> > 5.  The US never signed the Geneva Accords anyway, so the point is
> > moot.  But never forget that the Pentagon has hordes of lawyers.
> /Snip/
>
> Well, I have heard that point before, but rumor (my humble 0,02$ of
urban
> myth) say that the concept of "war crime" can easely be changed in "
crime
> against humanity - forgive me the literal translation :/
> and thus US troops could be chargeable.
>
> No troll please  :)
>
> Damien
>
> --
> Millennium's End list: mail millenniums-end-l-request@firedrake.org
with
> subject "unsubscribe" to leave
>
>