Home▸
Forums▸
Differences in UK and US Military 'Terms'..?▸
Differences in UK and US Military 'Terms'..?
Thread
Differences in UK and US Military 'Terms'..?
I went to a student association meeting at my uni a few nights ago; the 'emergency' meeting was to adopt a 'stance' on the Iraq situation. Naturally, one of disapproval on the grounds of civilian casualties was proposed and approved.
(I went there with the sole intent of seeing if there was any support for those in the military. I consider that, at the end of the day, they are there as the instruments of the politicians and we should support them in doing a professional job therefore minimising ANY casualties - whatever our opinions of the war itself are. I was generally met with disapproval; 'trained assassins'...)
There was some vehement (anti-war) statements and opinions debated, but also (the reason I went) some constructive and well-informed ones.
One, by (I think) a US or Canadian student, stated that those in the UK Armed Forces sign something that states that they will be held accountable for their actions. Those in the US do not sign it, as the US Military does not recognise whatever law this is. (This was the short and sweet or it.)
Can anyone expand on, or clarify, this?
(I went there with the sole intent of seeing if there was any support for those in the military. I consider that, at the end of the day, they are there as the instruments of the politicians and we should support them in doing a professional job therefore minimising ANY casualties - whatever our opinions of the war itself are. I was generally met with disapproval; 'trained assassins'...)
There was some vehement (anti-war) statements and opinions debated, but also (the reason I went) some constructive and well-informed ones.
One, by (I think) a US or Canadian student, stated that those in the UK Armed Forces sign something that states that they will be held accountable for their actions. Those in the US do not sign it, as the US Military does not recognise whatever law this is. (This was the short and sweet or it.)
Can anyone expand on, or clarify, this?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by engaged: One, by (I think) a US or Canadian student, stated that those in the UK Armed Forces sign something that states that they will be held accountable for their actions. Those in the US do not sign it, as the US Military does not recognise whatever law this is. (This was the short and sweet or it.) Can anyone expand on, or clarify, this? |
I'm not sure if I understand what it is you are talking about. If you are suggesting that the US military doesn't take the laws of war seriously, you are wrong. All US troops receive mandatory training on the laws of war, and troops are held accountable for how they conduct themselves in war. Those laws of war are integrated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which all US soldiers are bound by.
Here is a link to FM 27-10, the law of Land Warfare, which is the main publication used to train US soldiers.
On ABC's Nightline last week, Ted Kopple spoke with an military attorney who was traveling with the 3rd ID. The attorney is there to make sure the rules of engagement are followed, if certain targets can be attacked, like an Iraqi artillery gun was firing at American troops from an Iraqi school yard and he had to determined what the laws are about such a target before it could be destroyed. So, I would say we do take great care in following the laws governing warfare. I don't know much about the UK soldiers having to sign a piece of paper, though, I don't see much good in that if the soldiers aren't precisely trained on such matters.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: I'm not sure if I understand what it is you are talking about. If you are suggesting that the US military doesn't take the laws of war seriously, you are wrong. All US troops receive mandatory training on the laws of war, and troops are held accountable for how they conduct themselves in war. Those laws of war are integrated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which all US soldiers are bound by. Here is a link to FM 27-10, the law of Land Warfare, which is the main publication used to train US soldiers. |
I think he (engaged) may be referring to the International Criminal Court or The Hague war crimes framework that has been set up in the last few years. No, the US doesn't recognize the authority of some new "court" to prosecute our military officers for war crimes -- we already have a system for that, and subjecting our folks to the whims of European politics is pretty f*cking scary. But I didn't think that UK signed on to that either.
We have our own lawyers in the field (as EvIl points out) and most Americans would see bowing to the ICC as a loss of sovreignty.
Thanks all for the responses so far.
My question was a serious one - I am intrigued; I was not suggesting for one minute that the US does not take things seriously, nor making any comment on European vs. US law and politics and the like!
I think that the ICC/Hague stuff may be what I am thinking of - thanks finboy.
Edit:
It is indeed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The US does not intend to become a party to the treaty, whereas the UK did become a participant.
Well done, finboy.
My question was a serious one - I am intrigued; I was not suggesting for one minute that the US does not take things seriously, nor making any comment on European vs. US law and politics and the like!
I think that the ICC/Hague stuff may be what I am thinking of - thanks finboy.
Edit:
It is indeed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The US does not intend to become a party to the treaty, whereas the UK did become a participant.
Well done, finboy.