The problem is easier to understand if you have worn the uniform.
American forces have fallen under the command of our allies (think World War 2) and things have worked out fine. Will those things work out fine again if the UN decides to put American troops under the command of officers from a country that we do not share such close ties to?
Do you want American troops serving under a Russian officer?
Why not? If they are properly disciplined, they will follow the orders of whatever legal command they are placed under. If they don't, then court martial them. What would be wrong with serving under a Russian officer?
I detect a not-so-subtle hint of nationalism clouding your judgement, my son.
It is. Nationalism is a macroscopic form of prejudice, and you seem to be reveling in a bog of nationalistic xenophobia. OH NOES! NOT RUSSIANS! HOW COULD WE SERVE UNDER THE RUSSIANS!? Those dirty commies er.....!
Just tell me what would be wrong serving under a Russian officer.
Would you want American troops serving under an Iranian officer?
If they are a UN officer, they are not members of the Iranian army, they represent the UN. The only difference between an American and Iranian officer is where they are from, not where their loyalties are. Besides, you avoided Jason's question.
Would you want American troops serving under an Iranian officer?
If we share a common goal, and you serve under them on a mission to achieve that common goal, what does it matter what country they are a citizen of? Of course it's a problem if we do not share a common goal, but in that case you won't be serving under them! If you have a problem with working together with someone simply because they differ from you on which plot of land on earth to call "home", I don't know if I can call that anything other than racist.
I do not want them under the command of a foreign officer because that also puts them under the purview of a certain international court.
We should be under the purview of the international court of which you speak. The only reason you would have to avoid that court is if you were committing international crimes. Are you in favor of committing war crimes?
The only reason you would have to avoid that court is if you were committing international crimes. Are you in favor of committing war crimes?The only reason you have to not allow the police free right to search your home is if you are commiting crimes. Are you in favour of committing crimes?
^_~
The only reason you have to not allow the police free right to search your home is if you are commiting crimes. Are you in favour of committing crimes?
This is different. This is a court, not a police. They pass judgment based on known evidence. If we were talking about an international police force coming to search the CIA for evidence of crimes, I would obviously be against that. However, let's say that some of our soldiers commit a crime on an international level. Maybe they raid an embassy and kill innocent people. Also, we have the whole episode on video tape. Why shouldn't that international crime fall under the jurisdiction of an international court?
I think this falls under a section of the Uniform code of Military Justice. I'm not sure but I think there is some form of protection in there for troops to stop them from being tried in a non-American court.
It depends on the crime and the circumstances. When something happens in the course of a military action the higher ups get tried and the average soldier gets to avoid most of the trouble. Some things just have to be that way. If they were not that way you would have soldiers that were scared to fight because they might get sent to jail because of some collateral damage issue.
Some things just have to be that way. If they were not that way you would have soldiers that were scared to fight because they might get sent to jail because of some collateral damage issue.
I tend to agree that something along those lines is the best option we have.
Officer gives illegal order: officer is punished instead of soldier carrying it out.
Soldier carries out illegal act despite or without orders from above: soldier is punished rather than officer who did not order it.
Of course, I would expect any soldier to refuse orders that are clearly, undeniably, and inescapably illegal where following them would cause great harm or suffering.
As a soldier you are expected to only follow legal orders given by those of a higher rank. Sometimes things go wrong...
What do you do when a kid points a gun at you? What do you do if a crowd of "unarmed" people approach you?
I've read some people use terms like "unnecessary force" being used at a time of war. There is no such thing! If all you have is a .50 cal with armor-piercing bullets (anti-vehicle weapon) and you are being attacked you will use that weapon!
There are certain rules of engagement that are more of a guideline than a rule. You would not normally target a person with a tank shell. For one reason it is a waste of money to use such an expensive round to kill one person. With that said, if you are out of small arms ammunition and you need that target dead then you fire the tank round and kill them.
War crimes are not as cut and dried as many people think.
War crimes are not as cut and dried as many people think.If only we had some way of determing whether or not a soldier reacted reasonably to a given situation. Say, some form of court that could evaluate the circumstances, the orders, and the actions taken in order to come to some conclusion as to his conduct. Maybe we could have a person who would evaluate all of this and think about it. Since it's military-based, it would have to be some sort of martial court.
If only we had such a thing...
^_~
Even if such a court was said to exist I don't think the American soldier would trust it to be fair. One need only look as far as the UN to be scared of an international body having power over a US citizen.
That is the big issue here. Why would an American (a citizen of the most powerful nation on Earth) want to allow himself to be tried in a non-American court? It's not always about the crime (Libby), sometimes you get caught up in the process and screw yourself. Even if you did not do the crime (Armitage admitted to leaking Plame's name early on) sometimes a prosecutor just wants to make a name for themselves.
The UCMJ is good enough, we don't need an international court to deal with the American military.
No one really ever wants to go to trail (unless they want to look like a martyr). I know this part is going to sound idealistic but still. If there was a court that was for all soldiers that followed the same code for all militarys it would then treat all groups as equal. This would then lead to general equality internationally which would work better if people want peace. If both groups don't treat their enemies with equality then peace will never begin and if one side treats the other without equality then it goes from a peace mission to a conquest. While it is a cliche peace as to start on one side.
Comments
American forces have fallen under the command of our allies (think World War 2) and things have worked out fine. Will those things work out fine again if the UN decides to put American troops under the command of officers from a country that we do not share such close ties to?
Do you want American troops serving under a Russian officer?
I detect a not-so-subtle hint of nationalism clouding your judgement, my son.
Just tell me what would be wrong serving under a Russian officer.
Would you want American troops serving under an Iranian officer?
This might also be a Constitutional or Military Law issue.
There is also the mercenary side of things in that we do not want American soldiers to be seen as mercenaries that can be rented.
I do not want them under the command of a foreign officer because that also puts them under the purview of a certain international court.
^_~
It depends on the crime and the circumstances. When something happens in the course of a military action the higher ups get tried and the average soldier gets to avoid most of the trouble. Some things just have to be that way. If they were not that way you would have soldiers that were scared to fight because they might get sent to jail because of some collateral damage issue.
I tend to agree that something along those lines is the best option we have.
Officer gives illegal order: officer is punished instead of soldier carrying it out.
Soldier carries out illegal act despite or without orders from above: soldier is punished rather than officer who did not order it.
Of course, I would expect any soldier to refuse orders that are clearly, undeniably, and inescapably illegal where following them would cause great harm or suffering.
What do you do when a kid points a gun at you? What do you do if a crowd of "unarmed" people approach you?
I've read some people use terms like "unnecessary force" being used at a time of war. There is no such thing! If all you have is a .50 cal with armor-piercing bullets (anti-vehicle weapon) and you are being attacked you will use that weapon!
There are certain rules of engagement that are more of a guideline than a rule. You would not normally target a person with a tank shell. For one reason it is a waste of money to use such an expensive round to kill one person. With that said, if you are out of small arms ammunition and you need that target dead then you fire the tank round and kill them.
War crimes are not as cut and dried as many people think.
If only we had such a thing...
^_~
That is the big issue here. Why would an American (a citizen of the most powerful nation on Earth) want to allow himself to be tried in a non-American court? It's not always about the crime (Libby), sometimes you get caught up in the process and screw yourself. Even if you did not do the crime (Armitage admitted to leaking Plame's name early on) sometimes a prosecutor just wants to make a name for themselves.
The UCMJ is good enough, we don't need an international court to deal with the American military.