A.A. Drive by on Insurgents

[ch_123]

Another countries have their own way of life. Sometimes it can look just horrible for us, but it is quite normal for them. You think that stoning the woman to death is inadmissible, but citizens of that countries think the same about BDSM and some other sexual deviations which are to be "just another kind of relations between people" in US or Europe.

You're completely missing the point.

Laws are made when societies come together and say that certain things are objectively wrong and bad for everyone. Therefore if someone carries that act out, no matter who they are, they should be punished for it. I think that if a government says that it's wrong for it's people to do something, but says that it's ok for people who live somewhere else to do it, that the objectivity of the laws that they are trying to apply is completely undermined. And cultural context is irrelevant because a) a Muslim who stones someone to death where I live is tried just the same as a Christian who stones someone to death, so we generally don't let people off the hook because what they are doing was some sort of cultural activity and B) international law is based around the concept that there is a natural law that exists above all laws and takes precedence over them. This is how we are able to have war crimes tribunals. By your logic, the holocaust was quite alright because the Nazis had no laws prohibiting the genocide of Jews.

Furthermore, I really doubt that most people would actually subscribe to that nonsense if they were properly educated and had some decent standard of living. As I keep saying - people used to buy into similar ideologies in medieval Europe. Now people are better than that. As it stands now in places like Saudi Arabia, or under the Taliban, that 'culture' is forced down people's throats by people who stand to gain power, money, or both. Culture is a fluid thing, it isn't as if it's somehow genetically programmed into people who come from a particular region. There are countries in the middle east that are quite progressive, where women have rights and people don't get their hands chopped off for stealing or whatever. There's no reason why a place like Iraq or Afghanistan wouldn't be like that if given sufficient stability and prosperity.

I think there is a great danger in saying "Religion/Culture x encourages act y" and that we should stand by and accept this. A lot of the so-called "Islamophobia" around these days is caused by people who have been hyped up into believing that Muslims carry out all sorts of nefarious acts as part of their religion. The last time people got it into their heads that a religion was associated with all sorts of evil savagery, there were lots of pogroms, followed by a holocaust... In reality, wouldn't it really be more productive to go after the people who actually do this shit? Someone correct me if I'm horribly wrong, but isn't Sharia law just a human interpretation of the Qu'ran anyway that's been revised over and over again to suit whoever was in power?

[Spooky Lynx]

I think that if a government says that it's wrong for it's people to do something, but says that it's ok for people who live somewhere else to do it, that the objectivity of the laws that they are trying to apply is completely undermined.

Light drugs and prostitution are legalised in Netherlands. In many other countries they are prohibited. Does it mean that laws of those countries are unobjective?

international law is based around the concept that there is a natural law that exists above all laws and takes precedence over them. This is how we are able to have war crimes tribunals. By your logic, the holocaust was quite alright because the Nazis had no laws prohibiting the genocide of Jews.

International law? It cannot be truly international, because countries and nations have too different ways of life. And even less them have enough power to take part in the development of such law. And all war crimes tribunals, especially modern, post-WW2, are totally inobjective.

There's no reason why a place like Iraq or Afghanistan wouldn't be like that if given sufficient stability and prosperity.

Fully agree. But there was already stability and some prosperity in Iraq. Until United States decided to transform Hussein into modern Hitler (it would not happen at all if he didn't invade pro-western Kuwait).

[armydude]

Errr I can't really tell what's happening in the video. I think I heard that a Iraqi fired on a convoy, and they started chasing them but the rest to me was a bunch of swearing and shaky camera footage?

[Baff1]

Originally Posted by Spooky Lynx

International law? It cannot be truly international, because countries and nations have too different ways of life. And even less them have enough power to take part in the development of such law. And all war crimes tribunals, especially modern, post-WW2, are totally inobjective.


Fully agree. But there was already stability and some prosperity in Iraq. Until United States decided to transform Hussein into modern Hitler (it would not happen at all if he didn't invade pro-western Kuwait).

I pretty much agree with these sentiments.
With the specific example of Afghanistan I would like to add that I believe that not all enviroments in which man has settled provide the opportunity for prosperity.

War crimes in particular too often bear the smell of winners justice.
It's not a good thing for someone comfy in their lifelong stable peaceful living room to pass judgement on the behaviours of others involved in a war for their survival.
The people judging these behaviours are not capable of empathising with those involved in them.

Here in England we have a judicial principle that I rather like. Trial by a jury of your peers.
This provides the safeguard that if the law is perceived to be injust in anyway, the jury will just acquit the accused. Even if the criminal is clearly guilty of breaking the law, the jury may find them innocent regardless becuase they believe the law to be wrong or not reasonably applicable to the circumstance.

The problem with any international laws is that by their very nature you will not be tried by a jury of your peers. But instead tried by a jury of people with very little, if any, connection to you or the events that took place.
With no insights or empathy for the circumstances in which those crimes were commited.
(And most commonly by a jury of your enemies).
This is not justice as I understand it.

That is not to say that all war crime prosecutions are wrong or evil or that all war crimes are OK, only that the system of international justice required to prosecute war criminals is so fundamentally flawed that a fair outcome is unlikely.
The mostly likely result in all prosecutions is always going to be winners justice.

Which begs the uncomfortable question, what happens when my side loses?
As much as I greatly dislike Tony Blair, I do not wish to see him hanged.
As much as the Israeli interventions in Palestine disgust me, I do not wish to see their leaders hung because of them.
As much as no one wants to see innocents massacred by soldiered or friendly fire incidents I am uncomfortable bout making examples of those soldiers involved in them.


In my opinion war is what happens when "international law" breaks down. When it is unable to resolve a circumstance.
It simply can't be applied to the scenario because if it could that scenario would never have arisen in the first place.

So in my eyes when we hang those who did it, it is more an exercise in revenge and victims catharticism than it is justice.