Talk:Command responsibility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

It seems that the discussion on the War on Terror is little more than cruft designed to attack Bush. I'm failing to see the relevancy. -- 130.126.138.6 21:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's out of place, but it is unclear. I deleted the following paragraph to tighten up the discussion:
Furthermore, aggressive interrogation techniques were adopted[1] which human rights organisations and the United Nations stated amounted to torture.[2] After pictures emerged showing abuse in Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq, several low level military personnel were prosecuted. Subsequently similar transgressions in Afghanistan were uncovered. Concomitant with prisoner abuse was the practice of extraordinary rendition, in which suspects are apprehended and transported to other countries. According to human rights organisations these prisoners are sent to less democratic parts of the world where they are tortured.
I have corrected a few errors (both the spelling and the use of the word "extradited," for example) in this text before removing it. Even so, this paragraph is not only bordering on POV, but redundant and irrelevant at the same time, which isn't easy to do. She Who Must Be Obeyed 04:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Prisoner abuse
  2. ^ UN report

war on terror[edit]

Half the things under the headline of "application in the war on terror" is biased at best, and O.R. at worst. I corrected some basic punctuation and spelling, I don't want to screw with anything else until there is a consensus.

here's what I want to fix:

"The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act[18] and by abolishing habeas corpus, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them.[19]"

I want to fix it by removing it entirely. "The Military Commissions Act of 2006" is it's own page, and how it "is seen" by an unnamed source is highly unimportant and irrelevant.

Nincubus99x 10:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused:
  1. The MCA comment is adequately sourced. If you disagree please elaborate on which of the following you refer to as "unnamed source?"[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  2. Since the sources argue the MCA is in effect making legal proceedings, i.e. criminal liability, impossible under US law their observation seems pertinent to command responsibility, as that is the doctrine used to make people criminally accountable.
  3. Regarding the supposed WP:OR, could you identify the statement/sentence that is not based on outside sources?
  4. Regarding WP:POV, please add sourced material as rebuttal to the presented information.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the wiki cite at the end of the sentence on Ferencz's argument from war crime to crime against peace to more accurately reflect the accusation. Hzoi (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Servicemembers' Protection Act[edit]

[Copied over from User talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts]: Could you explain your edit[7] and how the adoption of that Act is not relevant to the ICC? Clearly it is in response to it. Unless you can sufficiently support your assertion it is not relevant I think we should not exclude mentioning it.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's not about the ICC, it's about command responsibility. The threshold for inclusion in this article is not whether something is relevant to the ICC, but whether it's relevant to command responsibility.
This is certainly not the place for a discussion of the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Even if it were, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act is a bizarre place to start.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

  1. The ICC was created to ensure that people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Mladic, et cetera, will no longer evade accountability and are prosecuted for their crimes.
  2. This idea of holding people accountable for their criminal actions and policies is commonly known as "command responsibility." In other words the ICC was established to make sure that that doctrine is implemented and people no longer escape justice. This makes the ICC the body to enforce this doctrine.
  3. The US adopted a law attempting to thward possible litigation by the ICC.
  4. Any law trying to prevent implementation of the "command responsibility," which is the principal function of the ICC, is of course relevant the article describing this doctrine.
  5. Any summary in an article need not be totally relevant, It is meant as a short description, extra information, to help the reader. In this case we can safely say that this Act and the US position is so controversial and publicly known that we can mention it.

In short, the US is subtly (not) working on ways to negate the principle of "command responsibility" regarding US citizens. Such information is more than pertinent to this article. Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Command responsibility does not extend to the commander in chief of US military forces. But that is only due to the USA not being party to the ICI, and the American Servicemembers' Protection Act.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

I've protected the article because there's edit war with no discussions on the talk page. Edit summaries are not the place to argue. Please bring your issues to this page and seek consensus. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this observation butr you might want to look here and here where the actual debate is taking place. Second, TDC has suggested undoing his massive deletions and start discussing. In light of that I ask you to reconsider. Respectfully.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article seems to be on a good revision right now, I don't see any reason why it should be unprotected just so more fringe left wing POV can be added to it--RCT 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes, etc.[edit]

Nescio,

Rama removed the sizes of those images for practical reasons.

Most people don't realize that WP's Preferences allow individuals to set your own thumbnail sizes. Not everyone has the same monitor, browser, and window sizes that you do today. Some people prefer maximizing their windows, and others like smaller, overlapping windows. A large number of them probably won't like the image sizes you chose for this article. You might not even like it after you get your next monitor.

Try changing your browser window size and you'll see that the sizes you chose don't always work best.

While I'm at it, I'll note that you had removed my "fact" tag thinking that it was questioning that it was a response to the ASPA. Actually, I was questioning what source there was to say it "interferes with implementing the command responsibility principle when applicable to US citizens."

As the article says, the principle of command responsibility goes back to long before the ICC. It can be argued that ASPA doesn't interfere with it. Perhaps you've forgotten that not everyone believes that critics of the U.S. care about human rights.

You've also removed the identification of those critics as left-wing, by commenting that this was POV. I disagree. The critics cited are not centrists, and I think it's rather obvious. For some of them, "left-wing" is the kindest thing one can say. It would be wrong (and POV) to allow the casual reader to think these views are held by a broad spectrum.

I haven't switched anything back yet. I'm too busy at the moment to argue this one.

-- Randy2063 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced by the "press"???[edit]

It's difficult to see this link as genuine press coverage when it's only a Wikipedia mirror for the article. Just looking at the link, I can see that that site is mirroring a lot of WP articles.

I didn't think a pseudonymous post from Daily Kos qualified either, since it's a left-wing hate blog and the writer is unknown, but at least it's kind of funny in a quaint way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that new link to the piece by Nat Hentoff is interesting (mostly for off-the-wall entertainment value, and not that I'd ever take that defender-of-fascism seriously), I don't see where it references this article.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PICT4336.JPG[edit]

The image Image:PICT4336.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolic Test[edit]

I see no case law, scholarship or evidence that suggest the distribution of tasks is an indicator of effective control to establish Superior/Military Responsibility. I think this is just made up, and see nothing legitimate to points to the "Nikolic Test". Please cite, or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Command responsibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Command responsibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Command responsibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Command_responsibility&oldid=1206758702"