Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites
In other words you too do not know of a country or a court that legally charges someone with a "war crime". They are charged with crimes that are committed during war time, but the same charges are applied during peace time. So I guess one can say "war crime" and/or "peace crime", as the crime that is charged is one and the same.
|
There is no specific charge of "war crime" - that is clearly laid out under the GC. The difference with the US situation is clearly that the current admin considered the US above all other countries and refused to participate in the ICC where, normally all war crimes issues would be handled.
The fact that there is also, apparently - no provision under whatever US code to prosecute US personnel using these terms (despite the current prosecutor in this case has classified the offense as a war crime) and considering the US is not a party to the ICC - that says volumes.
The fact that the classification normally falls into the category of war crimes and is, least for most participating countries, a more serious issue via the ICC although the actual charges may be similar. (Can't say without checking of the procedures for investigation and prosecution in the ICC instance - it obviously involves a few international agencies)
Despite the Whitehouse idiot knowing better - can't say he did US forces much credit in not participating within the ICC scenario. The standards within ICC are obviously much higher in both defence/prosecution advocacy - basicially the cream of the world's legal representation and highly qualified and impartial judges. (Know one of the first judges to be appointed to the ICC - she is *very* well balanced/impartial and has done everything from peace accords, international boundary conflicts and taken a few govts to courts). The ICC would also not be issuing execution sentences - tho, who knows, when the remaining sad saga of this case is released, perhaps the death sentence is appropriate on conviction.