Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites
The UCMJ covers crime. Soldiers are charged under the UCMJ. The UCMJ does not have an article charging a war crime. The articles cover crime. Soldiers are charged with UCMJ articles in peace time or in time of war. Why is this so hard for you to understand, asswipe?
A soldier captures a dozen enemy they become POW's. Another soldier kills all 12 of the POW's. Is the soldier charged with a war crime. No. He is charged with murder. The UCMJ is the same in time of peace or time of war.
|
Do you think you enhance your posts by pathetic attempts to by offensive by using your stupid cliches? It says a lot about you.
I already said - it matters little what the UCMJ says or what legal basis prosecutions are carried out. I'd be more concerned about child rape and killings than technicalities over legal isssues.
Basically we have a nation who likes to play with words and stuff up any defence to war crimes. I think, assuming you have described this clearly - namely that the US is unable to prosecute it's own personnel for war crimes.
Any soldier who kills 12 of the POW's (assuming it is as simple as that) - has just committed a war crime. Any group of soldiers in a war zone who, with premeditation, agree to embark on the wholesale murder/shootings of innocent civilians (their admission) and in the process rape children have committed a war crime.
If the US govt ever formally expresses anything to the contrary and suggest such incidents are not war crimes deserves total contempt and disgust from other nations.
War crimes are defined by the Geneva Convention and the US claims to be a signatory. It never was up to internal politics or the UCMJ as to what is a war crime.