Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Kosovo War Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Violations of International Law
Malrait    1/21/2002 9:56:37 AM
Atkins, before replying to that, counter the arguments relating to our discussion on geopolitical causes. I do not want this post to be your way of escaping an embarrasing situation. Amnesty International (yes, again) believes that in the course of Operation Allied Force, civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war. NATO did not always meet its legal obligations in selecting targets and in choosing means and methods of attack. In one instance, the attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television (RTS), NATO launched a direct attack on a civilian object, killing 16 civilians. Such attack breached article 52 (I) of Protocol I and therefore constitutes a war crime. "Collateral Damage" is the worst and most bastardly term you have coined to cover your ass (before that, you used the term "soft target", much more FRANK). At the beginning of June 2000, the War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, announced that she would not prosecute NATO for war crimes (due to subtle pressure from various NATO and political leaders). A week following that, Amnesty International released a report accusing it of committing serious violations of the rules of was and even a war crime. (And a "Berlin Tribunal" came to an opposite conclusion to Carla Del Ponte's.) Even though there will always unfortunately be civilian casualties in any wars, there are still international rules of war that help define situations when civilian deaths count as violations of those laws or not. For over ten years, Amnesty has been reporting on human rights violations against ethnic Albanians. Another issue that was also of concern before and during the bombing commenced was the place of NATO with respect to the UN Security Council. NATO bombing of Serbia, should have legally been performed with the authorization of the UN Security Council. The fact that US/NATO broke international law and therefore once again undermined the UN seems to have been missed out in all the various press reports from mainstream media. Although International Law was invoked when three American soldiers are captured by Serb troops. Just love American hypocrisy... And if international law was something that could be ignored, even the US Congress had not approved war and therefore this bombing was illegal according to US law as well as international law. Regardless of by-passing the UN, it didn't stop NATO blaming the UN for any ineffectiveness in rebuilding processes -- even though it is normally ignored by those countries that lay the blame that they are often the ones who are responsible for reducing monetary funds or political support to the UN in the first place. Malrait
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
tommy atkins    RE:Violations of International Law   1/21/2002 12:35:34 PM
Will address the other points ASAP. Bombing of theTV station.totally agree,looks like a war crime to me.Deliberate targeting of a civilian facility. the arguement would be that it was a mouthpeice for propaganda.to be honest that dosnt wash.the Serbs ,however much of a murdourous regime,is entitled to hoodwink their population.(Similar to all your Lefty sites blinding you to anything but American hatred.)The Person responsible for authorising that target should be put on trial. Collateral Damage.this-as a term-to you means deliberate butchery of innocents. to me it means- We aimed at a tank and it hit a bus.You can call it Flibblyflobbly damage for all I care.It isnt meant to happen,but by accident it does. However The Serbs deliberatly targeted Civilians,in a sysematic campaign of Genocide(and yes I will use the word,because thats what it was). The Outrage of the TV station is the only war crime the west has commited since Vietnam. The UN should have acted instead of NATO?Totally agree,BUT the UN dont act.They left Rawanda to a genocide.The UN talk sanctions and diplomacy.There is a time for Diplomacy and a time for action.the UN did not come down on NATO for their actions.Technically a violation of international Law?Yes. Morally?If you have the morals of a baboon then you would probably complain about this Violation. Whoops forgot ...you did diddnt you? Violation of US law?Nope.The Cin C is the President,He CAN declare war or take military action without congress.Just read your law a little.
 
Quote    Reply

evlstu    RE:Violations of International Law   1/29/2002 1:06:30 AM
The "Radio Station" in question may have been a civilian radio station. However, once a "civilian target" is used for military purposes that target is no longer a military target. The radio station was being used by the Serb government to communicate with its military and para-military forces in the field, hence, it was a legitamit target.
 
Quote    Reply

givemeabreak    RE:Violations of International Law   12/12/2005 2:35:43 AM
Were you listening to the radio station, i don't think so! So don't shoot your mouth off that it was a military target. Fact 1 the US were using patriot missles that were banned from being used due to the radioactive material in them. That didn't stop them from disobeying the international laws. They also weren't suppose to bomb Serbia, only targets in Kosovo. Bill Clinton and the US are one of the biggest criminals and should be held accountable just like everyone else. Back a few months ago some UN troops in Kosovo were caught for human trafficing. It was on the news in Europe for one day, but never in North America. The US should solve its own problems in their own country and not stick their noses in other peoples business. Soon they will bite off more then they can chew and pay the price somewhere. But if they are going to try Serbs, Croats, and Albanians for war crimes. Then Bill Clinton, Wesley Clarke and the rest of the planners should be in the Hague.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Violations of International Law   12/12/2005 7:02:04 AM
"Fact 1 the US were using patriot missles that were banned from being used due to the radioactive material in them." -- Give ---- Okay, I was very much opposed to our involvement in that 79-day unprovoked war against Serbia, but if you're going to say something is fact you probably should actually cite something factual when you do it. No one used "Patriot" missiles then, because Patriot missiles are anti-aircraft misiles (SAMs) and there was no need for them in that conflict. Patriot missiles are not banned from anything by anyone. Patriot missiles do not contain anything radioactive (in particular I assume you're referring to depleted uranium) any moreso than any other missile, or helmet, or lawn mower, or brick fireplace, or anything else (i.e., no more than the typical sort of background radiation in basically everything around us). In fact, and here's where so many people believe so much crap that has been spread by the anti-war pukes and the pro-Serbian propagandists (as opposed to those people who just realize that we shouldn't be attacking people who do not threaten us in any way), America does not use any depleted uranium in any bombs or missiles. Depleted uranium is only used in certain types of non-explosive armor piercing ammunition fired from the main gun of our tanks, infantry combat vehicles, and some (not all) ground attack aircraft. No bombs, no missiles, just some cannon projectiles that do not contain any explosive. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

gisse       7/28/2009 7:39:50 AM
NATO don't have single proof that some organized genocide happened.After war they got lot of investigation and nothing to find.
 
Attack on Serbia is war crime done by USA. 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics