Are U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq war crimes?

[Wetzelbill]

I would like to know if there is an official definition that would consider these actions criminal.

Again, I get arguments from people like this:

"Not having UN approval does not make something a war crime.....NATO has been involved in several actions that did not have UN approval including Bosnia. The act of war itself is not a war crime.....The US is also not subject to some war crimes laws due to the fact they did not sign when the world court was founded. They have exemption at this time... Every war in the history of the world has involved civilian deaths, they are impossible to totally avoid."

I get bombarded with so much mail sometimes it's tough to counter every argument that every single person has. By any rationale, the U.S. gets away with actions that would constitute severe consequences if it were nearly any other country. Are we exempt by some sort of law or just because we say so? I'd be grateful if you all could help me clarify all of this.

[ixion]

1. invading a soverign nation and killing civillians

violates international law. I think this is a pretty clear case.

"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
-- World Court Digest


"Dropping bombs from a safe height on an already hard-pressed people, whose infrastructure is in chaos from years of sanctions and who live under an oppressive regime, isn't a 'war'. It's a turkey shoot. "
-- Terry Jones

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. In the Nuremberg trials, counts one and two of the indictments

were:

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes.
The concept of conspiracy was not a part of continental law, and remained controversial throughout the trial.
Some historians have argued that this count caused prosecutors to over-emphasize the coherence of Nazi policymaking. It also gave the defense an additional reason to emphasize the confused Nazi command structure and allowed the defendants to buttress their contentions of ignorance of the regime's brutality.
Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace" This evidence was presented by the British prosecutors and was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Nuremberg_Indictments.html

In the case of Afghanistan, I believe there would be a pretty good case to say that it was not an aggressive war, but a response to the 9-11 attacks.

The conquest of Iraq, IMHO, clearly fits the case of 'Waging Aggressive War' -- but that's what trials are for. Will the criminals in this case ever be brought to trial? I don't think so.

[HereSince1628]

3. There are international treaties, violation of these may be criminal

Checkout the following:

WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, INCLUDING GENOCIDE

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, entered into force Jan. 12, 1951.

Current ratifications available by U.N. subscription
Nuremberg Rules, in Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.

Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, 3 Official Gazette Control Council for Germany 50-55 (1946).

Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, G.A. res. 2391 (XXIII), annex, 23 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 18) at 40, U.N. Doc. A/7218 (1968).

Current ratifications available by U.N. subscription
Principles of International Co-Operation in the Detection, Arrest, Extradition and Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, G.A. res. 3074 (XXVIII), 28 U.N. GAOR Supp. (30A) at 78, U.N. Doc. A/9030/Add.1 (1973).

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. ITR/3/REV.1 (1995), entered into force 29 June 1995.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998). ratification information

Check out the link
http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/instree/auox.htm

[aneerkoinos]

4. Kosovo was a crime too

no matter it was supposedly committed to prevent even bigger crime. It had no SC blessing, simple as that. But as crimes go, many of them ar not punished...

Second, it is my understanding that US is not exempt from ICC, but in case of Iraq it is because neither were signatories to the treaty. Under ICC aggression is a crime, but that will come to force only after seven years, if then.

[Djinn]

5. only the losers get prosecuted

The US isn't exempt from the ICC as such - it's just that they have refused to ratify it unless ALL US personnel are immune from prosecution (funny if it wasn't so sad)

Many US acts of aggression have been war crimes, but unless there is a stronger nation/group of nations willing to hold them to account the arguments as to the precise definition of "war crime" is all just semantics

[RH]

6. to clarify

Hitler called it 'real politik'.

'Might is right' is another phrase that often crops up.

[LastDemInIdaho]

7. Some think so

Others don't

[Darranar]

9. That isn't an answer. n/t

n/t

[LastDemInIdaho]

10. I don't know

I am not there and at the mercy of "new" sent my way.

[Darranar]

8. YES!

n/t