1: Nuremburg very clearly set the precadent that in period of armed conflict "I was following orders" is not a defence if those orders were illegal under the rules of war one was engaging in (i.e. Geneva)
2: Ignorance of the law is not a defence for breaking it.
Doubt she'll get the whole lot (although, who knows?). I'd have thought that following orders would mitigate the sentence given, although not the decision as to guilt. And Nuremberg was a Mickey Mouse procedure for convicting the defeated enemy; I can't see us applying it to our own people, godamnit, no matter how malformed their faces ('us' = UK, US, whatever).
If that happens, then it'll become clear why the US didn't favour membership of an International Court (which is supposed to step in when an individual's own nation manifestly fails to deliver justice). But I imagine that she'll do some hard time; the guy who turned and gave evidence for the prosecutions still got a year in a deal for his testimony, and Lynndie England appears to have been pretty centrally involved in what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Heh. They just had a story on NBC Nightly news about this, stuff about her going to court, and it showed her, in her military uniform, getting out of her SUV. On the back of the SUV, on the back window, is a Bush-Cheney 2004 bumper sticker.
I'm trying to find a screen shot, but for some reason it struck me as funny.
quote:Originally posted by Smug Git If that happens, then it'll become clear why the US didn't favour membership of an International Court (which is supposed to step in when an individual's own nation manifestly fails to deliver justice).
That's pretty insulting, Smug. There are any number of objections to the ICC that aren't based in an aversity to justice.
Additionally: I was under the impression that the re-trying of criminals acquitted in domestic courts was a pretty small portion of the court's jurisdiction.
Are you kidding? She's pregnant! If she went to prison under a sentence that long (not that all those on trial for this don't deserve a long stretch) the baby would be taken from her and grow up without a mother. Oh, the horror!
She'll gain so much sympathy because of this pregnancy that no matter if she is judged as guilty or guiltier than her co-torturers, she will receive the lightest sentence of all of them.
Of course the alledged baby's father, Cpl. Charles Graner, who prosecutors say was a ringleader of the abuse, can go to prison for a long time - who cares if the baby grows up without its father. I bet he and the rest of the boys are green with envy that they can't get pregnant and get a light sentence too.
What I don't get is how any guy could fuck a woman with a face like hers - I've seen mules that look better than her. I wouldn't even fuck her with Mord's dick.
quote:Originally posted by Smug Git I don't think that it wil happen, as I said, if you recall. Thus, it was hypothetical. I'd have far more insulting things to say if it did happen, though.
What I objected to was the assumption that a wrist-slap would prove that America's failure to endorse the ICC was motivated solely by a lack of desire to punish war criminals. I think that's both incorrect and a bit presumptuous.
Technically, she could be tried by the ICC under third party jurisdiction in any event, couldn't she?
If she and the others get a wrist-slap, without something pretty weird, yeah, I'll have bugger all faith in the ability of the US military to administer justice. The US reasoning on the International Court was debateable in any case, but it would certainly strengthen the case that the US wanted to be able to get away with avoiding punishing its own miscreants on occasion, you can hardly deny that (unless you are full of an unLibertarian faith in your government even if the evidence crumbles somewhat). But I don't think that it will happen and do basically have faith that the US will be true to its announced ideals (where it so horrendously failed some 30 years ago; I think that a repeat, even on a lesser scale such as this, is very unlikely. I don't think that Bush is the shitheel Nixon was and I don't think that the US military are unaware of the wrong that they did over My Lai, either).
Of course, the evidence has yet to be presented, so maybe they have a defence after all (I am clearly prejudging the evidence and the verdict).