Above the law.

[SpellAndShield]

Hypothetically no but in practice yes. Every US president since WW2 could rightfully be considered a war criminal, yet none has been prosecuted. Edited September 8, 2011 by Stardusk

[Dan3345]

Hypothetically no but in practice yes. Every US president since WW2 could rightfully be considered a war criminal, yet none has been prosecuted.

Can you elaborate and give citations? I wouldn't argue over a few, but some presidents what was absolutely necessary in the defense of the country and others.

 

 

Until freedom can defend itself.

[brokenergy]

Major two

 

Vietnam War

 

and

 

Iraq War

 

I'm sure that there are a lot more crimes that America has done and it is not suprising considering that every nation does it.

[Dan3345]

Major two

 

Vietnam War

 

and

 

Iraq War

 

I'm sure that there are a lot more crimes that America has done and it is not suprising considering that every nation does it.

See theres the truth to it. Every nation does it. Of course that doesn't excuse it, but since every nation on the planet is looking out for what it considers its own best interests, this is inevitable with all nations. It isn't right IMO to be mad at only America for something every country that has ever had more power than another has ever exploited. And this goes down to the most basic necessities of human nature. Am I stronger than this guy? Does he have something I need? And if the answer is yes to both of those then why can't I just take it form him?

Edited September 9, 2011 by Dan3345

[HeyYou]

Major two

 

Vietnam War

 

and

 

Iraq War

 

I'm sure that there are a lot more crimes that America has done and it is not suprising considering that every nation does it.

See theres the truth to it. Every nation does it. Of course that doesn't excuse it, but since every nation on the planet is looking out for what it considers its own best interests, this is inevitable with all nations. It isn't right IMO to be mad at only America for something every country that has ever had more power than another has ever exploited. And this goes down to the most basic necessities of human nature. Am I stronger than this guy? Does he have something I need? And if the answer is yes to both of those then why can't I just take it form him?

 

What I find most amusing (yes, I am rather warped....) in both those situations is: In Vietnam, they didn't have anything we wanted, the politicians dictated how the war was to be fought, and we lost...... In Iraq, the politicians decided we needed to go to war (president bush, for the most part), he knew very well what he wanted, but, couldn't see beyond that, went to war, "won", for certain values thereof, and in the end, did NOT get what he went there for in the first place. The Odd God's of the Galaxy get the last laugh on that one.

[SpellAndShield]

Hypothetically no but in practice yes. Every US president since WW2 could rightfully be considered a war criminal, yet none has been prosecuted.

Can you elaborate and give citations? I wouldn't argue over a few, but some presidents what was absolutely necessary in the defense of the country and others.

 

 

Until freedom can defend itself.

 

 

The list is endless, how about this old one?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/u-apologizes-guatemalans-secret-std-experiments.html

 

U.S. scientific researchers infected hundreds of Guatemalan mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases from 1946 to 1948 -- a practice that only came recently to light thanks to the work of an academic researcher. On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a formal apology to the Central American nation, and to Guatemalan residents of the United States.

 

"Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health," said Clinton and Sebelius in a joint statement. "We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."

 

 

The discovery of the long-ago experiments stems from another, far better known episode of federal tampering with test subjects to study sexually transmitted diseases: the long-running "Tuskegee experiment," studying 399 poor black men from Macon County, Ala., who had been diagnosed with syphilis but never informed of their condition. Federal scientists simply told the men they had "bad blood" and researchers compiled a four-decades-long study monitoring "untreated syphilis in the male Negro." Researchers never treated the illness over its usually fatal course, even after the simple remedy of penicillin was shown to be an effective syphilis treatment; participants received only free meals and medical exams, together with federal funding of their funeral expenses after they died. The study began in 1932, continuing right through to 1972, when it was exposed in media reports.

 

One of the better-known experts on the Tuskegee scandal is Susan Reverby, a professor of women's and gender studies at Wellesley College who has published two books on the subject. As she was researching her most recent book, Reverby learned of the Guatemalan project, in which researchers from the U.S. Public Health Service conducted experiments on 696 male and female patients housed at Guatemala's National Mental Health Hospital. The scientists injected the patients with gonorrhea and syphilis -- and even encouraged many of them to pass the disease on to others.

 

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Edited September 9, 2011 by Stardusk

[Aurielius]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Can you muster the least bit of factual evidence to prove President Truman authorized, knew or approved of Tuskegee? I am willing to bet that the residents of Seoul would take issue with you over the other outrageous statement. To say that these assertions show political bias is an understatement.

[SpellAndShield]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Can you muster the least bit of factual evidence to prove President Truman authorized, knew or approved of Tuskegee? I am willing to bet that the residents of Seoul would take issue with you over the other outrageous statement. To say that these assertions show political bias is an understatement.

 

 

I wasn't referring to the Tuskegee experiment, which was targeted at blacks but Guatemala.

 

I lived in S.Korea for quite some time. Most of the S.Koreans hate the American military bases there; they hate the rapes, crimes and bar brawls of the American ruffian soldiers there; the American soldiers know nothing about the culture, nor are they interested in learning and most are racists. I used to talk to my ex's father about it and he used to say they were better off without the intervention. he lived under the dictatorship we supported. Nevermind the fact that the war was illegal under the U.S. Constituion as it was undeclared. The same applies to Okinawa. They don't want us there but we insist on staying for our sake, not theirs and we should not pretend otherwise. The politicians in power might wheel and deal with their masters in Washingotn but the common man does not. Remember this one? This one had the fortune of actually being reported (most don't):

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/06/world/fg-skorea6

 

 

U.S. Army Charges 2 in S. Korea Accident

The World

July 06, 2002|From Associated Press

 

SEOUL — Two American soldiers have been charged with negligent homicide for hitting two South Korean girls with their armored vehicle, the U.S. military said, reversing an earlier decision not to prosecute the men.

 

The deaths had touched off near-daily anti-U.S. protests. South Korean activists demanded an apology and a South Korean trial of the two soldiers.

 

That they were charged was a miracle in itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-American_sentiment_in_Korea#Yun_Geum-i_murder

 

Yun Geum-i murder

 

A U.S. Army soldier named Kenneth Lee Markle murdered a prostitute Yun Geum-i (윤금이) in 1992. This incident led to the South Korean public demanding a revision of the Status of Forces Agreement in South Korea.

 

At 1:00 AM, October 28, 1992, Yun Geum-i, who was 26 and worked at a club near the US Army base in Dongducheon, South Korea, was murdered.

 

When her house lord found her dead at 16:30 of the day, she was naked. Two bottles of beer were stuck inside her uterus and one bottle of coke was hung there. And an umbrella was inserted 27 cm along inside her anus up to the rectum. The fingerprints on the beer bottles helped find the murderer.

 

Private Kenneth Lee Markle, 20 at the time, who served in the 2nd Division, had beaten her head and body to death with the bottles, putting them into the dying woman. The whole of her body showed bruises too severe to be described. The private spread white detergent on her dead body and put matches into her mouth to get rid of the evidence. Her head fracture had bleed copiously and was the direct cause of her death. Based on reported facts, the death was seen as one of the most tragic sexual assaults committed by GIs.

 

After a trial in April 1993, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the court in December of that year, and the sentence was reduced to 15 years. He appealed again on April 29, 1994, to the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal. Custody of Markle was handed over to the Korean government on May 17, 1994. On August 14, 2006, Markle was released on parole and flown back to the USA. He had been imprisoned a total of 13 years, 6 months, 4 days.

 

During his trials and afterwards in Korea, Korean public anger was growing over the Korea and US authorities' handling of the case. Human rights activists and the public have called for reform of investigations into the case and also for reform of the SOFA, the Status Of Forces Agreement between the two countries, which they claim have often infringed the human rights of Korean victims.

 

http://www.iacenter.org/Koreafiles/ktc-civilnetwork.htm

 

19. Statistics on Crimes Committed

by US Troops in south Korea

 

Civil Network for a Peaceful Korea

 

Over 100,000 Cases of Crimes, Over 100,000 Victims

 

Crimes committed by US soldiers were found as early as when US troops were first stationed in south Korea. According to the south Korean government's official statistics, 50,082 crimes were committed by US soldiers from 1967 to 1998 (including those by soldiers' families), and 56,904 US soldiers were involved (including soldiers' families) in these crimes. The statistics imply that the actual figure may be higher if take into account those cases not handled by the south Korean police. Based on the statistics, the total number of crimes committed by US soldiers since September 8, 1945 (when they were first stationed in Korea) is estimated to be around 100,000. Unfortunately the south Korean government does not have statistics on US soldiers' crimes committed before 1967, because SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) went into effect in 1967, allowing the south Korean court jurisdiction over crimes committed by US soldiers with narrow and limited application.

 

So, from 1945 to 1967, the US had full authority in court. south Koreans were even subjected to American rulings (of course, in English language). And during 1945-1948, when the US military government took control over the south Korean government, a judge was an active US soldier, with no jury system although the court followed American court system. Many problems aroused including language barrier, lack of cultural understanding and even prejudice on the part of the judge, unfair practices on the part of interpreters.

 

Study by Ministry of Justice of south Korea shows that among the 39,452 cases (45,183 US soldiers involved) of crimes committed by US soldiers from 1967 to 1987, south Korea was able to exercise its jurisdiction only in 234 cases, punishing only 351 US soldiers. Among them, 84 US soldiers were convicted of rape and 89 US soldiers were convicted of murder and robbery. Taking into account the fact that rape cases were more common before 1967, and that many rape cases were intentionally hidden and forgotten, the actual number of rape cases committed by US soldiers will be much higher than what official figures suggest.

 

1980, the year of civilian uprising in Kwangju alone, over 1,679 crimes committed by US soldiers were reported.

 

Due to the military dictator, Chun Doo Hwan’s martial law at the time, south Korea lost its jurisdiction that year. Not even a single case was handled in south Korean court.

 

Countless cases of rape were committed by US soldiers, including a woman gang raped by 4 soldiers' in March 1946, a 14-year-old schoolgirl raped in 1956, a daughter and a mother both raped in 1967, a woman raped by 8 soldiers in the mountains in 1971, a month pregnant teacher raped in 1986 by 5 soldiers in the middle of Team Spirit military exercise, a handicapped schoolgirl sexually harassed in 1996, and a 6-year-old girl sexually harassed in May 1997.

 

Gregory Henderson, who served at the US embassy in Seoul in the 1950s and 1960s, recalls in his thesis 'politically dangerous factors in US troops exercising operation & control right in Korea':

 

" ... Every US soldier from officer down enjoys material indulgence in Korea. Material indulgence includes abundant supply of fresh bodies of young local women."

 

Earnst W. Carston, a former chaplain in US military camp in Korea, also harshly criticized US soldiers in his report to the US government in October 1964: "90% of US soldiers in Korea lead immoral sex lives. On being stationed to their posts, a soldier indulges in illegal sex with prostitutes, and when returning to the US, he sells off the woman, her house, and furniture to the new arrival".

 

<The Korea Times>, in its June 10th 1971 edition, quoted a high-ranking military officer as saying "around 2 million foreign soldiers stayed in south Korea since the Korean war, among which 70% were venereal diseases patients as well as drug addicts".

 

Robert Oliver, an American adviser to former south Korean President Rhee Seong-man, once said that 2,000 US soldiers out of total 30,000 stationed in Korea were from poor class. Also, Kevin Heldman, an American freelancer writer, wrote on the Internet in September 1997 that US troops in Korea are potential criminals and losers had they stayed in the US society.

 

Although above comments seem to lay a blame on those less-educated soldiers from poor family background for the crimes, the crime report shows that it is the officers who are very often commit rape and robbery by faking marriages before secretly returning to the US. There is no official statistics on fake marriages, mainly because victims do not want it reported.

 

Long Over Stay of US Troops and Their Operation & Control Rights over south Korean military

 

The first 3-year history of US military government control in south Korea was not based on a mutual friendship between peoples of the two countries. Rather it was based on a cozy relationship between the two governments. Such circumstances have not changed much since then. For example, US military that withdrew after 3 years of government control in south Korea came back during the Korean war to 'take away' operation & control rights from the south Korean army on July 15th 1950. In October 1953, immediately after the war, the US introduced Korea-US Defense Alliance Treaty, which allowed long-term stay of the US troops in south Korea. This treaty effectively gave the US a virtual full control over the south Korea’s political, military, and economic power.

 

In the light of such lopsided treaty which practically handed over a nation’s sovereign rights and the eventual political, military and economical subjugation to US mighty power, it becomes easy to see why such US soldiers crimes are committed easily in south Korea.

 

No other place in the world, does the US soldiers enjoy such immunity over the crimes they perpetuate.

 

I t is reported that US troops stationed in Okinawa, Japan, called the local prostitutes 'Yellow Stool'. It is not only humiliating to Japan, but also to Korea as well. Such word is a good indicator of how US soldiers look at the local people.

 

Even to these days, when they are subjected to south Korean police investigation, US soldiers frequently say "how dare you Koreans treat an American soldier like this’.

 

Their debased superiority often comes from the years long of propaganda from US and south Korean governments asserting that it is the US, liberated south Korea from the hands of communist north Korea and without them, north Korea will invade the south Korea right away.

 

Moreover, the unique military arrangement in which the visiting force, the US controls the operational command over the south Korean military and it’s own general serving as a Joint Chief of Staff of the combined army, only exacerbates the unfair situation.

 

Although many of the past US Secretaries of Defense have repeatedly stated that it is US’s own interest to have the soldiers stationed in south Korea, and that US troops will remain in south Korea even after the reunification of Korea, many US soldiers still believe that they are in south Korea to fight the cold war.

 

On sex slavery issue, a Dutch military court in 1946 convicted those who were responsible for rape against minority women. Also in 1995, when three US soldiers gang raped a schoolgirl in Okinawa, Japan, local residents demanded and received an official apology from US President Bill Clinton, US ambassador to Japan, and US military chief. All these are unimaginable in south Korea.

 

Such stark difference between situations in south Korea, Japan and the Netherlands illustrates international power structure among the nations.

 

Statistics from south Korean government shows visible drop in the number of crimes committed by US soldiers, from 1967 to 1991, 1,100 - 2,300 crimes were committed per year and from 1992, the number dropped to 700-800 cases per year.

 

Such improvement was possible because of high-profile murder case of Yoon Kum-i by US soldier Kenneth Markle in October 1992. The cold blooded torture/murder case brought public conscience to the "crimes committed by US troops". The Movement to Eradicate Crimes Committed by US Soldiers was formed as a result.

 

However, the south Korean government still exercises very limited jurisdiction over such crimes.

 

In 1998, Korea handled only 3.9% of all crimes committed by US soldiers.(and 24.6% of crimes by soldiers' families)

 

Let's not pretend our presence in Korea has anything to do with the people's will there, it doesn't. It's about power and politics.

[Aurielius]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Nice try...you said the Koren War was totally unnecessary....stick to what you assert. I said I didn't think that the free peoples of Seoul would agree with that. Bringing in post war military / civilian tensions is just an attempt to bypass the primary assertion that you made. Please stick to justifying the original statement.

[SpellAndShield]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Nice try...you said the Koren War was totally unnecessary....stick to what you assert. I said I didn't think that the free peoples of Seoul would agree with that. Bringing in post war military / civilian tensions is just an attempt to bypass the primary assertion that you made. Please stick to justifying the original statement.

 

Sure. It was not necessary. Tell me what American interests were involved? (Containment of communism should not count). Why was there not a constitutional declaration of war as there was for WW2? The war could have raged on there and the US would have been fine, we were not threatened or attacked; it was an act of pure militarism, not defence.