somebody2
New member
Maybe I don't know how to word it right, but isn't it possible for the United Nations to put some of the people involved in torture on behalf of our country be put on trial or something? I put in genieva convention (sp?)
-
Features
Stupid question...I googled..
- Thread starter somebody2
- Start date
If the UN has a larger army than the U.S., then yes, they can. If they don't, then the U.S. can decide that they're in the right and fuck everybody else.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
the United Nations 
---edit---
Don't think i'm laughing at the CIA torture. IMO it's one of the worst things that the US has done in my lifetime.
---edit---
Don't think i'm laughing at the CIA torture. IMO it's one of the worst things that the US has done in my lifetime.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The US Senate has for decades refused to allow any form of international court to have any ability to try any US citizen for crimes in any official capacity. Imagine Nixon and Kissinger and others being tried for war crimes over the secret bombings in Cambodia.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,637
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The effective founding principle of the UN is 'The five permanent members of the security council can do no wrong'.
The UN is a mechanism whereby the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia (as heir to the USSR) police the rest of the world. The assumption being that by winning WWII, these five have shown themselves to be unarguable paragons of virtue, and the most effective arbiters of what all other nations should be allowed to do.
The UN is a mechanism whereby the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia (as heir to the USSR) police the rest of the world. The assumption being that by winning WWII, these five have shown themselves to be unarguable paragons of virtue, and the most effective arbiters of what all other nations should be allowed to do.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Contrary to what some might think, there's actually very little if anything preventing a UN court from trying an American citizen in the Hague for crimes, so long as there was a warrant for their arrest. These courts operate on the principle of Universal Jurisdiction, so whether the US signed the treaty, is a member of the security council, or is a party to the court in any capacity really doesn't matter; US citizens are as subject to these courts as any other. Assuming this were to actually happen, there's very little the US could do if the court wasn't playing ball with them, unless they were willing to start WW3 over it (a war it couldn't win), which just isn't likely (what country would start a war with an entire continent+its myriad of allies over the issue of one of its citizens getting a fair trial? The US hasn't waged war against countries like N-Korea for imprisoning Americans over nothing, it's certainly not going to start a war with half the world over a soldier being tried for warcrimes)
However; it's obviously not that simple. In order for anyone to stand trial in such a court, there must first be an international warrant for their arrest; and those aren't just called out very easily regardless of where the subject is from. Secondly, they'd have to be caught by the authorities of a country that's actually willing to arrest them and send them to the Hague. All that an American citizen wanted for say the ICC would have to do is not go to countries that signed the treaty, and that'd be that. Another issue is that the courts can only prosecute cases that are not investigated/handled by their respective national governments; and will not prosecute regardless of the outcome of the national proceedings so long as the court is satisfied with the legitimacy of said proceedings. Since the US already investigates and charges its own soldiers and people for international crimes, UN courts generally can't intervene unless they have significant reason to believe those proceedings are illegitimate.
Of course, a lot of the issue also stems from technicalities; and the US government certainly has better lawyers and legal experts to enable it to take advantage of such technicalities than the average African dictator. That's really behind that whole 'redefining' torture to be 'enhanced interrogation' bit a few years back. It had nothing to do with convincing Americans or people in general that the government was doing morally acceptable things, and everything to do with the fact that if they didn't there was a good chance that certain high-placed individuals would be subject to international law and sanctions. While the legitimacy of said legal acrobatics is still somewhat controversial, it does seem that so long as it holds there's really nothing for the UN courts to charge any Americans with AFAIK; especially since the courts aren't (yet) able to prosecute people for 'Acts of Aggression' (which would include things like bombing campaigns in illegal wars and what not)
However; it's obviously not that simple. In order for anyone to stand trial in such a court, there must first be an international warrant for their arrest; and those aren't just called out very easily regardless of where the subject is from. Secondly, they'd have to be caught by the authorities of a country that's actually willing to arrest them and send them to the Hague. All that an American citizen wanted for say the ICC would have to do is not go to countries that signed the treaty, and that'd be that. Another issue is that the courts can only prosecute cases that are not investigated/handled by their respective national governments; and will not prosecute regardless of the outcome of the national proceedings so long as the court is satisfied with the legitimacy of said proceedings. Since the US already investigates and charges its own soldiers and people for international crimes, UN courts generally can't intervene unless they have significant reason to believe those proceedings are illegitimate.
Of course, a lot of the issue also stems from technicalities; and the US government certainly has better lawyers and legal experts to enable it to take advantage of such technicalities than the average African dictator. That's really behind that whole 'redefining' torture to be 'enhanced interrogation' bit a few years back. It had nothing to do with convincing Americans or people in general that the government was doing morally acceptable things, and everything to do with the fact that if they didn't there was a good chance that certain high-placed individuals would be subject to international law and sanctions. While the legitimacy of said legal acrobatics is still somewhat controversial, it does seem that so long as it holds there's really nothing for the UN courts to charge any Americans with AFAIK; especially since the courts aren't (yet) able to prosecute people for 'Acts of Aggression' (which would include things like bombing campaigns in illegal wars and what not)
somebody2
New member
Thank you all for taking the time to answer. I guess they can just get away with anything even when it is as despicable as this. I thought torture was against the rules of war, a pact the US signed. I thought that if any country broke that the UN could and would put them on trial. But I'm no lawyer and nothing in life is black and white.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
We wouldn't win the war, but we wouldn't lose it either. Sovereignty is mostly geography. Americans can wrap their mind around a soldier being a POW, but coming onto our soil the get "one of ours"? There is no need for a war. They would call the FBI to arrest said individual and the FBI would say, "no". Is the UN gonna call in their new Special Ops unit for extractioin???
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/04/u...flage-helmets-shoots-at-people/#ixzz3LV5SjWqO
I'm sure the Seals, Rangers, and Forest Recon are pissing themselves out of laughter.
The only crack I see in this is if the UN was able to nab a US soldier while abroad. However, we would know about it ahead of time (most likely) and get the individual home.
Last edited:
Why? They're probably fairly high up the list to form the Special Ops unit. UN troops are made up of troops from member nations. US Rangers have certainly been UN troops in the past.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Which is kind of the point. Nobody's going to start what will inevitably turn into either nuclear apocalypse or a conventional slugfest ala WW2 over a couple of people being tried for warcrimes in an international court of law. Not even if they somehow elected Fox News Personified as the next president of the US.
That's what I was saying. This would only ever be an issue if such an individual were to travel to countries that do cooperate with the court. The progression of events would be: 1) the ICC would expect a legitimate investigation/trial of this person. Then either 2) If this happens, they shut up about it forever regardless of the outcome. Or 3) It doesn't happen, and then the court puts out a warrant for his arrest, and patiently waits for the suspect to set foot in a country that signed the ICC treaty. Then it just comes down to how stupid the suspect is.
You realize that isn't a real news site, but a parody site right? It seems to try its hand at being another Onion focused on the military, but it's doing a pretty poor job at it, judging from a quick scan of its frontpage.
In any case, I don't really understand why Americans feel the need to mock the UN for being ineffectual, because it actually performs its stated mission quite remarkably well. It's just that people apparently think it needs more authority and power because otherwise it's "ineffectual", so they make fun of its perceived lack of authority and power so that... well I haven't figured out this part. Either 1) people want a competent international body dedicated to law and order with the ability to actually accomplish its goals, in which case constantly mocking it as ineffectual means it isn't likely to get better because why would country X cede power to an organization that country X has convinced itself is incompetent? Or 2) they *don't* want a competent international body dedicated to law and order, in which case I'd ask 'What the hell's wrong with you?'.
Togo said:
Exactly. Making fun of the UN has always struck me as making fun of oneself. "Haha! Look at those stoopid people as they try work together in an international context to bring about peace! Glad we're not in the UN or anything!"
There's a fair point to make, of course, that UN peacekeepers have been "ineffectual"; but that's not actually the fault of those peacekeepers, which have certainly consisted of professional soldiers, but of bureaucrats who come up with artificially limiting rules of engagement. But I rather doubt this would be a concern to a hypothetical UN black spec-ops team created to nab warcriminals from the US or elsewhere. And I rather doubt that the US soldiers would A) want to go up 1:1 against whoever's selected to join this hypothetical team, or B) become aware of their activities at any point before they announce the warcriminal's incarceration somewhere far from the US.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,326
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
I don't think it is. If it were, China would own Taiwan and Argentina would own the Falklands. Sovereignty is mostly willingness to fight. Which raises the question, why do you think we wouldn't win the war? In the implausible event that the U.S. launched an actual invasion of the Netherlands in order to retrieve an American put on trial there by the UN, do you really think Britain, France, and Germany would make war on the United States over it? They'd pass resolutions, they'd impose sanctions, and they'd privately tell the Dutch to hand the man over.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
I've never been in the military, but from what I understand the UN troops are looked at as the piss boys. Maybe that's changed... does anyone know? (This gives me a good excuse to call an old roommate). I've never heard of Rangers working as UN troops, do you have a link? Special Ops by definition are very specialized. I get the feeling that the UN Special Ops are advanced peace keeping (probably with killer language skills) not surgical extraction. Have any member states even contributed a Black Hawk helicopter? Has the UN ever done anything that could be classified as "bad ass"? It seems like they are mostly ignored.
To pull off what is suggested would basically require a secret coup. The five permanent members of the security council have veto power. Other than Alex Jones listeners does anyone seriously think this is possible?
Tom Sawer said it with the least amount of words.
To pull off what is suggested would basically require a secret coup. The five permanent members of the security council have veto power. Other than Alex Jones listeners does anyone seriously think this is possible?
Tom Sawer said it with the least amount of words.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Yes, I have military friends on FB that think it's hilarious. I thought their humor illustrates the opinion of the military establishment.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Yes. In fact, they would be required to by their own laws. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't say no. And there would be absolutely no chance, in that scenario, that they wouldn't want to.
Turn that question around, even ignoring the fact they'd be legally required to wage war on the US in this absurd hypothetical; do you really think those countries are going to do nothing more than impose sanctions when a non-European country launches an invasion of the economic heartland of the European Union? For one, each of the three countries you mentioned are deeply economically linked to the Netherlands; the US invading would seriously ruin their shit and would be more than enough reason to go to war by itself. Secondly, if the US was so far gone that it would launch an invasion of a founding member of both the EU and NATO over an issue like this, then no member of either organization could seriously sit back. It would be patently obvious the US had instantly become an existential threat to all of them. If the US were insane enough to invade its own allies over a matter of them hosting an international court that's trying a US soldier for warcrimes, then anyone could be next. Not even the third reich was quite so obviously a threat to the rest of Europe before the war erupted in full force as the US would be in this scenario.
dystopian
Veteran Member
I think this last line in particular demonstrates a problem with your thinking, and not so much with the UN. So you only think these troops are to be respected if they've done something "bad ass"?
UN blue-helmets are drawn from national armies (UN peacekeeping forces currently number some 97,000 uniformed soldiers) for the purposes of a given peacekeeping mission. It would be very shallow to dismiss/ignore them based purely on the fact that "they haven't done something bad ass"; especially considering they're specifically tasked with doing the exact fucking opposite. They're *peacekeepers*, by definition, they've failed the moment they need to start doing "bad ass" things. Braindamaged idiots with guns go and do "bad ass" things when they're tasked with keeping the peace, professionals with guns prefer to keep them holstered while perform peacekeeping missions. The only reason UN troops are looked down upon by some, is because their mandate tends to prevent them from carrying the sort of weaponry that these forces would have in their own national armies (or because some people just want to watch the world burn, I guess). That is a matter of policy, and doesn't reflect on the skill of the individual soldiers, their 'bad-assedness' (if anything, I would think soldiers operating in a warzone armed with only light weapons are a lot more badass than those that roll around with overkill), or the role they hold in their national armies when they're not serving as UN peacekeepers.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think the UN is going to set up a spec-ops teams to kidnap Americans suspected of war-crimes; but the ignorant and dismissive attitude needs to be addressed.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,326
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
A mutual defense treaty required France and Britain to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. Did they? If you want a more recent example, in 1974 Britain reneged on its treaty obligation to intervene when Greece overthrew the government of Cyprus. Why on earth would you imagine that any law ever means a government can't refuse to fight?
That's a category error. Countries don't want; people want. There would be absolutely no chance that there would be no government officials who wanted to fight and also absolutely no chance that there would be no government officials who wanted not to fight. Which faction would be in a position to get its way and control policy would be a political question.
In the first place, yes, the third reich was quite so obviously a threat to the rest of them. And in the second place, the decision not to go to war for Czechoslovakia wasn't based on underestimating the threat; it was based on fear. Increasing the perceived danger doesn't just crank up the reason to go to war; it also cranks up the reason not to go to war. There's a reason animals have fight-or-flight reflexes.
Hickdive
Member
US forces in Somalia, including special forces, in the early nineties were operating under a UN mandate.
Countries with good militaries don't trust UN command, if they're going to commit forces other than as observers they'll be under their trusted command, not UN command.
UN mandate != UN control.