| Grex > Agora47 > #108: US war crimes in Vietnam |
| US war crimes in Vietnam | 
Oct 21 18:20 UTC 2003 |
US shuns Vietnam war claims http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3206180.stm According to an investigation by the Ohio-based Toledo Blade newspaper, the elite Tiger Force unit of the Army's 101st Airborne Division killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967. Soldiers told the newspaper they had severed ears from the dead, stringing them on shoelaces to wear around their necks, and had dropped grenades into bunkers where children and women were taking refuge. But a Pentagon statement said the case was more than 30 years old and there was no new or compelling evidence to justify reopening it. An earlier investigation had been closed in 1975, even though it had established that members of the unit had committed war crimes.
| response 1 of 19: |
Oct 21 18:27 UTC 2003 |
8D
| response 2 of 19: |
Oct 21 19:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 3 of 19: |
Oct 22 05:28 UTC 2003 |
Now we know why the US has been shunning the International Criminal Court. The first to get sued would be Bush for his illegal war on Iraq and then other war crimes.
| response 4 of 19: |
Oct 22 06:16 UTC 2003 |
Speaking of double standards, treaties/conventions not signed/ratified/implemented by the US: 1. Convention on the Rights of the Child 2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (The US has been avoiding this for 20 years) 3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 4. American Convention on Human Rights 5. UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol 6. CTBT 7. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty 8. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and Draft Proposal 9. Chemical Weapons Convention 10.Mine ban treaty 11.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2003/treatytable.htm
| response 5 of 19: |
Oct 22 07:36 UTC 2003 |
cry me a RIVER!
| response 6 of 19: |
Oct 22 16:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 7 of 19: |
Oct 22 17:27 UTC 2003 |
We've had our own atrocities with nuclear testing (and even more so in war). Then there are our colonial aspirations viz-a-viz the Native Americans. I don't see why the pot should go after the kettle.
| response 8 of 19: |
Oct 22 17:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 9 of 19: |
Oct 22 18:03 UTC 2003 |
I think this all just reinforces the main argument *against* the ICC -- that it would just be used for political retribution.
| response 10 of 19: |
Oct 22 18:13 UTC 2003 |
My position on that is that the US could go its own way *afterwards* if justice was really misplaced, but that it should enter into these international agreements on the basis of trust - ultimately the only basis for international cooperation.
| response 11 of 19: |
Oct 22 19:14 UTC 2003 |
A bunch of nations are trying to undermine the ICC. The US is signing treaties with these countries that forbids both parties from sending citizens of either nations to the ICC or any other international tribunal for trial. Most of these nations are third-world/poor nations including India. The 49 countries reported to have signed U.S. bilateral immunity agreements, listed according to date of reporting of signature, are: Romania, Israel, East Timor, Tajikistan, Marshall Islands, Dominican Republic, Palau, Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Honduras, Afghanistan, Micronesia, Gambia, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Djibouti, Tuvalu, Bahrain, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Nauru, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tonga, Sierra Leone, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar, Maldives, Albania, Bhutan, Philippines, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Egypt, Thailand, Uganda, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Tunisia, Seychelles, Togo, Mauritius, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Panama and Macedonia.
| response 12 of 19: |
Oct 22 21:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 13 of 19: |
Oct 22 22:22 UTC 2003 |
Re #10: Yes.
| response 14 of 19: |
Oct 30 17:41 UTC 2003 |
yes, but they are imperialist pigs that own the world, so they can do whatever they want. slobodan milosevic my ass...
| response 15 of 19: |
Nov 4 07:32 UTC 2003 |
re #12 .. dittos
| response 16 of 19: |
Nov 4 18:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 17 of 19: |
Nov 9 09:30 UTC 2003 |
re 6: Cross, why go after anyone *first*? Going after anyone "first" just reinforces the impression that whoever is doing the going after is biased, or that some are more guilty than others, or that some are more equal than others. Is there ANY country in the world where none aof its citizens could POSSIBLY be accused of warcrimes according to any reasonable definition of "warcrime" that could be thought up? I doubt it, unless you include Luxembourg and Liechtenstein - and the Vatican probably wouldn't be guiltless, either.
| response 18 of 19: |
Nov 9 16:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
| response 19 of 19: |
Nov 27 08:15 UTC 2003 |
whore.