Talk:Command responsibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Command responsibility", TimesDaily. (details)

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Bringing Bush to Justice", Daily Kos, July 1, 2007. (details)

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale. This article is part of the International law WikiProject, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of international law. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Command responsibility article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 NPOV 2 war on terror 3 American Servicemembers' Protection Act 4 Edit warring 5 Image sizes, etc. 6 Referenced by the "press"???

[edit] NPOV

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)

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)

[edit] war on terror

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)

• 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Servicemembers' Protection Act

[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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

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)

• 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

[edit] Image sizes, etc.

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)

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

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)