War Criminals?

[jhat01]

Since some on this board have thought "long and hard" about their positions. I thought I would post some info on some of the heroes that have given their lives for their country. In LABF's mind, these guys are war criminals, and he gets a pass on it. Semper Fi LABF.


Medal of Honor Recipients
Iraq


*DUNHAM, JASON L.

Rank and Organization: Corporal, United States Marine Corps
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

*McGINNIS, ROSS A.

Rank and Organization: Private First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an M2 .50-caliber Machine Gunner, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 December 2006.

That afternoon his platoon was conducting combat control operations in an effort to reduce and control sectarian violence in the area. While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner's hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled "grenade," allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade's blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner's hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion.

Private McGinnis' gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death. Private First Class McGinnis' extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

*MONSOOR, MICHAEL, A.

Rank and Organization: Master-At-Arms Second Class (Sea, Air And Land), United States Navy
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as automatic weapons gunner for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 29 September 2006. As a member of a combined SEAL and Iraqi Army Sniper Overwatch Element, tasked with providing early warning and stand-off protection from a rooftop in an insurgent held sector of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by his exceptional bravery in the face of grave danger. In the early morning, insurgents prepared to execute a coordinated attack by reconnoitering the area around the element’s position. Element snipers thwarted the enemy’s initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents. The enemy continued to assault the element, engaging them with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun between two teammates on an outcropping of the roof. While the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off Petty Officer Monsoor’s chest and landed in front of him. Although only he could have escaped the blast, Petty Officer Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates. Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates. By his undaunted courage, fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of certain death, Petty Officer Monsoor gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

*SMITH, PAUL R.

Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by jhat01

In LABF's mind, these guys are war criminals....

Straw man alert!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iraq & the Nuremberg Precedent

By Peter Dyer
March 16, 2006

Editor's Note: As the United States approaches the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, much of the commentary is focusing on the Bush administration's "incompetence" in prosecuting the war -- the failure to commit enough troops, the decision to disband the old Iraqi army without adequate plans for training a new one, the highhandedness of the U.S. occupation.

But what about the legal and moral questions arising from the unprovoked invasion of Iraq? Should George W. Bush and his top aides be held accountable for violating the laws against aggressive war that the United States and other Western nations promulgated in punishing senior Nazis after World War II? Do the Nuremberg precedents that prohibit one nation from invading another apply to Bush and American officials -- or are they somehow immune? Put bluntly, should Bush and his inner circle face a war-crimes tribunal for the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq?

Despite the present-day conventional wisdom in Washington that these are frivolous questions, they actually go to the heart of the American commitment to the rule of law and the concept that the law applies to everyone. In this guest essay, Peter Dyer looks at this larger issue:

Just over six decades ago, the first Nuremberg Trial began. On Nov. 21, 1945, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson opened the prosecution of 21 Germans for initiating a war of aggression and for the crimes which flowed from this act. Now is a good time to reconsider some of the history and issues involved in this momentous trial in the light of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

After Nazi Germany had been defeated, the major victorious allies (the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) drew up a Charter establishing an International Military Tribunal as the legal basis for prosecution for three distinct categories of crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The trial lasted for over a year, culminating in verdicts of guilty of one, some, or all of these crimes for 18 of the defendants. Eleven were sentenced to death.

While the Nuremberg trial is, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, it was, and still is, in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, “unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world.” Among the most groundbreaking aspects were the drive to formally criminalize the three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for these crimes.

These days, the Nuremberg Trial is chiefly remembered for the prosecution and punishment of individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time, however, was the focus on wars of aggression. Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson’s opening statement: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility.”

Crimes against peace and the responsibility for them were defined in Article 6, the heart of the Charter of the IMT: “The tribunal…shall have the power to try and punish persons who…whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes...(a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.” And, of course, the United Nations Charter forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Those who still justify the invasion of Iraq would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”

And, for those who have difficulty visualizing American leaders as defendants in such a trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “...(L)et me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment...This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbors.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031506a.html

[jhat01]

"The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz."

Perhaps.

You like to throw out the straw man argument all the time, when in reality that's what you are doing on this issue. You said that all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are complicit, meaning they are actively participating in war crimes, meaning they are war criminals. When it's brought up, you deflect. You said yourself that it took a long time for you to come to this conclusion, yet you keep acting like you weren't talking about the grunts on the ground (including the heroes listed above).

I'll admit that I lost my mind the other night, and came off like a nitwit. I apologize for the foul language, and the threats, and the other stupidity. I can't however understand how you can trash the work of these brave people, and call me a "war profiteer". I happen to believe that the work that I do, along with many other contractors, and GS's is honorable and respectable. You do not share that view, which is fine. I just don't understand it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by jhat01

Perhaps.

You like to throw out the straw man argument all the time, when in reality that's what you are doing on this issue. You said that all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are complicit, meaning they are actively participating in war crimes, meaning they are war criminals. When it's brought up, you deflect. You said yourself that it took a long time for you to come to this conclusion, yet you keep acting like you weren't talking about the grunts on the ground (including the heroes listed above).

I also said that regardless of whether the war is illegal or immoral or not, this issue doesn't negate individual acts of heroism by individuals in any number of wartime circumstances.

In other words, if you save your buddy's life, or if you save the life of an Iraqi child, for example, then you are a hero - regardless of the legality or illegality of the war.

The poster who suggested I said the things I said just to get a rise out of people couldn't be more wrong.

It's not easy to say these things - they give me no pleasure, and I knew I would get flamed for saying them.

I enlisted (was not drafted) at the age of 17, and at that age I was so gung-ho that I would have gladly fought any battle in any theater they asked me to without question and without giving a second thought to the mission or the politics in the background.

Now that I'm older and I have the benefit of some hindsight, I find that I cannot ignore the dictates of conscience.

I cannot look at the Nuremberg Precedent and delude myself into thinking these principles we formulated only apply to our enemies and not to ourselves.

This is how I arrived at the conclusion that conscientious objection and a refusal to participate in an illegal act of aggression is the moral thing to do.

I cannot support an ethic that places obedience and duty over right and wrong.

I guess I should leave it there by saying each individual must decide these things for himself.

Originally Posted by jhat01

I'll admit that I lost my mind the other night, and came off like a nitwit. I apologize for the foul language, and the threats, and the other stupidity. I can't however understand how you can trash the work of these brave people, and call me a "war profiteer". I happen to believe that the work that I do, along with many other contractors, and GS's is honorable and respectable. You do not share that view, which is fine. I just don't understand it.

Apology accepted.

I owe you an apology as well insofar as I might have jumped to some hasty and/or unwarranted conclusions about you without first knowing the specifics re: what it is you do for the government.