Talk:Command responsibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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 the Military history WikiProject. 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.

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

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

[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:

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]
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.
Regarding the supposed WP:OR, could you identify the statement/sentence that is not based on outside sources?
Regarding WP:POV, please add sourced material as rebuttal to the presented information.