First, my condolences on your mother's passing.

But for you say that I'd make an inappropriate remark about it just proves you're a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Coming at me with "dipsh!t" — twice, no less — while butting into an exchange that has nothing to do with you directly and within which I made no reference to you is asking to get your ears clipped. So no, I don't feel obliged to cut you any slack at all. If you're going get in my face over "conversations" that don't involve you, deal with the blow back or shut up.

And again, my condolences.

Would you two get a room already? :P

Yeah, in the UK the police are allowed to question a suspect detained in custody and use his answers in evidence at trial along with any exhibits obtained as a result.


Ah! No, you're getting confused between evidence and suspicion... in Hawaii for instance as in the UK and in international law a person can be arrested on suspicion of an offence even if the suspicion is not based on admissible evidence. Then, if any evidence is obtained during questioning, it can be heard by the jury who will take it into account in deciding whether a person's guilty or not guilty of the offence charged.


Oh! No, I think I can help you there - autopsy evidence is not a requirement. Do you remember the Nuremberg trials for example? Well, there wasn't any autopsy evidence there and yet war crime suspects were still arrested and prosecuted.


I think you must be confusing me with someone else - I'm sure I never claimed to have any evidence. I was in England when it all happened and no one has supplied me with any documents or anything... if you want to know more about the evidence you need to contact a witness.


Ah, no that's a little bit too simplistic - it depends on whether any civilians are inside.

km

What can I say, she just can't stay away from me. Maybe I need a change of cologne.

Yikes! I think we may have discovered the problem here:

On this side of the pond there's usually something called due process, where before you go out slapping handcuffs on whoever you feel like, you have to gather some evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) evidence that the person you want to arrest may be guilty of that crime ...

The immediate past administration tried to reimagine that process, but it still largely survives to this day ...


No, it's enough to justify inquiry and investigation. If evidence of wrongdoing is gathered during such inquiries, and evidence of those who may be responsible, then you can arrest people for any crime discovered ...


That's evidence that people have been killed, not that pilots have committed a war crime. For that, you'd at least need evidence that the pilot knew civilians were inside the target to begin with and evidence that he knew the target had no military significance ...


No, I'm saying that they were trusting the information from their controllers that the target was militarily legitimate.


Or that the controller screwed up. Or the perfectly plausible possibility that no one knew there were civilians in the building to begin with. Actually the possibilities are fairly numerous. I still don't see the fixation on the pilot necessarily bearing responsibility ...


No, it's simply a building. What matters at the moment is if it's occupied, and if so, by whom and what is their intent. A pilot running ground support cannot ascertain all of these things and must rely that his commander/controllers have correctly made these determinations ...


You do realize it's not necessary to arrest someone in order to question them, correct?

Here its called wrongful arrest and coercion



That is highly illegal here - are you sure you know anything about law ? ? I suspect you are a terrorist "km" but I don't have any evidence at all just a suspicion so there for you should be arrested and interrogated to get the evidence I need . LOL



No autopsies but they had photo evidence plus many eyewitness and thousands of Nazi documents , keep in mind the Nazi were very big on paper work - Non of those proceeding were done merely on suspicion alone like the UK would do wrongly



Here what you said again

(The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.)

Where is your facts ? your evidence ? ?



Your being to simplistic after the fact and yet you cannot prove without a doubt with facts or evidence that those civilian were not Taliban combatants or civilians murdered by the Taliban or even if they were killed by US bombs

<[censored]

see above


if I thought that wasn't just for show....
oops another Jersey-ism** (see above)

LOL ** For those playing along at home:
When you think of Jersey-isms; Think Joe Pesci


To Sgt Baxter: OK, Point Taken. I'm outta' here.
To Steve-0:Cologne? Yeah, maybe I'm drawn to the smell of fresh fertilizer.**

No that's wrong - I looked it up. Generally in the United States an officer can arrest a person without warrant for probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a felony has been or will be committed.


No, it's enough to justify arrest. An arrest can be made without warrant of anyone reasonably believed to have committed an offence. Large numbers of dead bodies including women and children is clearly sufficient for that.


Evidence isn't required only reasonable suspicion. Evidence is for the court. As I said before the whole point of arresting someone suspected of an offence is to obtain evidence sufficient to charge the suspect.


Well, targets that endanger civilians are illegitimate and the target they hit was illegitimate so there's a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the pilots, ground staff, or both. The pilots should be arrested first as suspected perpetrators and then if evidence is obtained from them that others may also be to blame they can be arrested as well.


No, that's wrong. For genocide liability is founded on intent not knowledge. An intent to kill the occupants of a mud built residential dwelling as part of an organised or systematic policy would support a charge of genocide where the occupants included civilians.

With respect to crimes against humanity it was decided in the Tadic trial that liability for crimes against humanity such as murder required no such knowledge. An accused is liable if he commits an act which is part of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population" meaning that there is some organisational or group policy to commit the act and that the suspect knew the context within which his actions were taken.

There's nothing in the books, I'm afraid, to support your contention that a suspect is guilty only if he knows his actions are directed at civilians. On the contrary an intent to kill members of the Taliban is transferable to the actual victims under the principle of transferred malice thus fulfilling the mental element required for charges of genocide, murder and wilful killing contrary to the Statute of Rome.


I've dealt with knowledge - not required.


In that case he should withold fire because he's personally responsible for his actions.


Correct. I wasn't discussing what was necessary to question someone but what was lawful, appropriate and necessary to instigate proceedings at the ICC when large numbers of civilians are found dead in residential homes.

km

No, that's wrong. In Afghanistan if someone trespasses in your home it's still your home.


Ah, I'm with you - yeah it might be a target but it's an illegal one because it's someone's home.

km

No, in Hawaii the police can a arrest a person without warrant for probable cause based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence.


Well obviously your suspicion has to be reasonable which is clearly not the case.


Yeah, I think Bala Baluk will be similar - photos, eye-witness accounts and Nazi doc... US documents about the JTAC system.


If you go through the thread clicking my links you'll find reports of first hand accounts of what happened sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion for arrest.

km