I am talking about clearly justified, non debatable jusifified.
follow up question is if country A attacks country B unjustifiably, is that a war crime? and which individuals from the war crime committing country are the ones charged?
2007-08-20 23:37:23 · 8 answers · asked by ez f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Attacking another country unprovoked is a war crime. War crimes fall under several categories, one is where the leaders, generals, and planners of the illegal attack are charged (crime agains the peace). This happened to the high ranking nazis at the Nuremberg trial, and Hitler himself would have been charged with that one, had he been alive. Crimes against humanity is a sort of war crime that happens on the battle field or off the battle field affecting civilians, such as the holocaust, or the eradication of a village because of an insurgent attack eminating from there etc..
But the bottomline with war crimes is to the victor goes the spoils. It is possible to envision the nazis holding their own nuremberg like trials of the allies for alleged real or trumped up warcrimes, if they had won the war. As for the Iraq war, clearly a case can be made that the attack on Iraq was an attack on a country that did not pose an immediate and obvious threat to the USA, neither before the invasion and certainly not after..as it turned out. This is a war crime, and the planners and propagandists all all guilty of the war crime called "crime against the peace". This would include, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and others who are proven to have told lies and purposely misled to cause the attack to occur or to get people to approve of it. There is also a case to be made for a charge of crime against humanity for the atrocities that have occurred in Iraq, and for the genocidal situation that has ensued...and that too can be laid at the feet of Bush and his henchmen. The top generals are guilty as well, but only in a milder sense...unless it it specifically proven they ordered torture or covered up atrocities or ordered them.
But the bottomline is who is going to charge Bush with these crimes? no one, cause he and his country are too powerful and have not lost......and that is the bottomline. Only when you lose a war, can you really be charged with ther war crimes or atrocities that you committed or facilitated.
2007-08-21 06:15:04 · answer #1 · answered by me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It falls under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
As to War Crimes:
Violating the UN Charter is not a war crime.
Never in history, has anyone been charged with a war crime, for one nation attacking another nation.
They are charged with war crimes, for specific acts that are against the Geneva Conventions.
But the Geneva Conventions doesn't deal with the causes of war, only the treatment of individuals and actions taken after the war has started.
And even then, only if the Nation, the citizen is a member of, does not bring the individual to trial themselves.
2007-08-21 03:35:19 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A pre-emptive strike is justified when it protects the citizens of the attacking country from being harmed by the country under attack.
Don't even worry about international law. The law of survival is what counts.
War crimes are not an issue.
If I were the commander-in-chief, I would launch a pre-emptive strike if it was needed. I would not sit around and debate anyone on the merits. There will always be dissenters.
2007-08-21 00:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, for example, if a country were to attack USA right now, it'd be okay for everything they have put others through.
2007-08-20 23:44:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whenever the Powerful in 'Amrrrca' (that's the way that the Little-Big Cowboy @ The White House pronounces it...) realize that it will FURTHER line their pockets with more CASH(!).
2007-08-21 01:32:27 · answer #5 · answered by Cisco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Virtually never. International law is too absurd.
2007-08-21 04:16:56 · answer #6 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Justified= never.
charged? who is charging ? depends how powerfull the agressor and how good it's reputation in the puplic opinion is!
2007-08-20 23:49:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
apparently its ok if one of the attacking countries is America
2007-08-20 23:43:21 · answer #8 · answered by bobthebrowser 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋