[kj] ChangeTin, change

[B. Oliver Sheppard]

Forget about communism, etc. -- the US had a huge part in the Nuremberg 
Principles, which unequivocally state that soldiers, regardless of their 
nationality, have not just the right, but a DUTY, to disobey orders that 
they know require them to breach int'l law. This was because, like, if 
Nazis had done this, had disobeyed their orders, WW2, the Holocaust, 
etc., mightn't have happened. It was seen as a very desirable principle 
to establish to prevent future horrors.

The problem is getting this principle, like all things (Geneva 
conventions, UN Resolutions, etc.) to apply to the US, which usually 
practices American exceptionalism: int'l law applies to everyone but us. 
The US is uniquely awesome, imbued with an almost God-given historical 
noble mission on the planet, so things rarely apply to us that are 
strictly enforced when encountered in others. Like I said, the rest of 
the world calls it American exceptionalism. I don't think US troops are 
immune from the Nuremberg Principles any more than Indian troops, 
Russian troops, Afghans, etc.


-Oliver



GREG SLAWSON wrote:

>

> The debate about whether or not the IRaq troops are guilty is an 

> important debate that we often have in my commie party...speaking of, 

> has anyone seen the film "Sir, No Sir!". It's about the resistance and 

> rebellion against the war by the GIs in Vietnam and is supposed to be 

> awesome...people in my party often say that this was the main reason 

> (troop rebellion) the US didn't "win" in Vietnam...There are also at 

> least a couple of Iraq war veteran groups that are against the war.

>