How do War Crime trials work?

[Syringer]

How does one get tried for it, and what possible punishments await them?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

They don't if you have US citizenship . . .

 

[ElFenix]

they're show trials, pure and simple.

 

[BOBDN]

I found some info at these links. It seems generally the nation where the war crimes occured is responsible for conducting a war crimes trial or complying with requests for extradition of those involved in war crimes to their nation for trial. This is of course in the case of international war crimes. The law regarding war crimes needless to say seems to be very complicated. This all seems to depend on what treaties nations have agreed to and whether or not nations abide by the rules of international governing bodies or world courts (which the US for instance doesn't recognize).

Don't know if this is what you're looking for but you can Google it and find much more info. A very interesting subject.

Link

The University of Ottawa has a page of links. The links dealing with war crimes are under the heading

"International Criminal Tribunals, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity"

Link

 

[Syringer]

Oooh, thanks.

I was wondering then, how a war crime trial would work against someone like Saddam..

 

[BOBDN]

I would imagine the "coalition" would conduct a military war crimes trial since they are now the "law" in Iraq and there is no one who can stop them.

I often wonder about how a war crimes trial would work against someone like Bush or Blair.

Not that Saddam shouldn't be tried. I think he should.

But IMO if fairness ruled instead of might Bush and Blair would be on trial as well as Saddam for invading Iraq.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I would imagine the "coalition" would conduct a military war crimes trial since they are now the "law" in Iraq and there is no one who can stop them.

I often wonder about how a war crimes trial would work against someone like Bush or Blair.

Not that Saddam shouldn't be tried. I think he should.

But IMO if fairness ruled instead of might Bush and Blair would be on trial as well as Saddam for invading Iraq.

One of the reasons the US has refused to recognize the International Criminal Court.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I would imagine the "coalition" would conduct a military war crimes trial since they are now the "law" in Iraq and there is no one who can stop them.

I often wonder about how a war crimes trial would work against someone like Bush or Blair.

Not that Saddam shouldn't be tried. I think he should.

But IMO if fairness ruled instead of might Bush and Blair would be on trial as well as Saddam for invading Iraq.

One of the reasons the US has refused to recognize the International Criminal Court.

Seriously?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Seriously?

Not quite as cheekily. As I understand it, we refuse to recognize it for the exact reason that it can and probably will be used as an explicitly political tool. You don't allow lesser nations the authority to dictate policy over you unless you know they won't try to put your own officials on trial.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Tabb
Seriously?

Not quite as cheekily. As I understand it, we refuse to recognize it for the exact reason that it can and probably will be used as an explicitly political tool. You don't allow lesser nations the authority to dictate policy over you unless you know they won't try to put your own officials on trial.

"Lesser nations" - that about says it all.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Tabb
Seriously?

Not quite as cheekily. As I understand it, we refuse to recognize it for the exact reason that it can and probably will be used as an explicitly political tool. You don't allow lesser nations the authority to dictate policy over you unless you know they won't try to put your own officials on trial.

"Lesser nations" - that about says it all.

You know what he was saying.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Tabb
Seriously?

Not quite as cheekily. As I understand it, we refuse to recognize it for the exact reason that it can and probably will be used as an explicitly political tool. You don't allow lesser nations the authority to dictate policy over you unless you know they won't try to put your own officials on trial.

"Lesser nations" - that about says it all.

although an obvious slanted phrase, it seems to be accepted and used without much thought. interesting to note in this context and it does cause discomfort. at the same time, it is pretty accurate: nations are valued in terms of money/power/resources. which, of course, results in "greater" or "lesser" categorical relationship.