War crimes and criminals

[Fusilier]

I've been able to listen to various living history tapes made by veterans of the Pacific War. In the over one thousand tapes that I've heard, not one single soldier, sailor, marine or airman has ever condemned the nuclear bombings, the most common sentiment is that it ended the war and allowed them to return to their lives.

Morality isn't a popularity contest based on a select population.

So is it a war crime to use every means at your disposal to destroy the enemies will to fight

Yes, if it means directly targeting non-combatant civilians. That's why Mladic is going to trial and Bin Laden was targetted... both tried using every means.

And just where do you draw the line. No Nukes No Chems No Bios No shooting the enemy soldier with rounds that inflict undue suffering

Sure. And also throw in the use of landmines too.

[pmulcahy11b]

The atomic bombing of Japan was for pure shock value. And yes, one could define it as terrorism. But the firebombing and conventional bombing campaign wasn't getting it done, it was just getting the Japanese more eager to repel the then-coming Allied invasion. Until the atomic bombings, the Japanese were going to fight until the last life.

The atomic bombings were a horrible thing, no question. But they stopped the need for an invasion of Japan, which would have caused a million or more casualties -- on the Japanese side, mostly deaths. It was a horrible act to stop a far more horrible act.

[Adm.Lee]

Ok, fast forward to post exchange, things are starting to get organised, countries have moved from the "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" stage and have established industry and legitimacy. Would there be an interest in hunting down war criminals/ If so, who would do it and why Would it be purely political, for the pursuit of justice or motivated by vengeance

Well, IMO, it's all going to come down to situations. IMO, you're looking at one or two instances: the ICC has been reconstituted as an element of the restoration of the rule of law (most likely with French backing, with the obvious goal of enhancing French influence across the Continent); or it's another nation or sub-national group, operating outside that framework of international law. The latter case is more likely, and will most likely resemble 'frontier justice.'

[headquarters]

eerrr...

While certainly see some of the points made here ( I could go one up and say that in the future -hopefully - war it self will be judged as organized crime ) , I have to refer to the present or any gaming timeline built upon the present - meaning :

The rule of law is never an absolute in any circumstance. While in peace time in a country with due legal process and a fairly non corrupted police force, you can hope to approach justice and fairness, but it is far from ensured. The impact of laws and what society do to uphold them is more of a moderator on crime than an efficient cure. In war time its plain for all to see that the rule of law is weak and almost non existent - its hardly a moderator at all. But it is present .And it does protect some - some victims that would otherwise perish in war crimes, and even some perpetrators that are reigned in by the nagging sensation that this isnt right -or that they wont get away with it. ( A bit philosophical that one - protecting a warcriminals humanity from himself..)

I for one see a huge difference in torturing a man to death instead of a quick killing. I see a huge difference in being under threat of prosecution for atrocities against civilians -wheras with no laws I could just chain alot of babies to my tanks and have at `em - let them return fire at their leisure...

Granted - trying Japanese prison camp commanders for war crimes because they starved,mistreated and tortured thousands of Yanks to death seems a bit off when Curtis LeMay who came up with the firebombing campaigns like Operation Meeting House killed ten times as many civilians in Tokyo alone-not to mention the other major cities.

I however like to think that lives are spared on a general basis due to the attempts to govern a base and ugly ritual like war by introducing rule of law.

You make some good points Po - but I feel you oversimplify.

(all my words in the spirit of a friendly debate on an interesting subject - state sponsored and legally sanctioned killing - a.k.a war)

Ah war crimes, is there really such a thing Some truly shocking and disturbing things happen in armed conflict, most notably the killing of people. We may like to think that there is a noble purpose to war and it can somehow be fought like a gentlemen's agreement.

I think this 'pretended civility' collectively makes a society feel better about sending out it's armed citizens to murder groups of armed citizen of another society. We like to call these groups armies and dress them all the same so we don't have to think of them as people.

Once the war is done and we have no more distractions, we sit back and think about what happened, and find fault with the way our enemy played their part. If they didn't follow our 'moral code' (whether or not it was the same as their own) we call them criminals and if we are the victors and in a place to do anything about it, we prosecute them. This again supports our sense of moral superiority and makes us collectively feel better about all the murder and destruction commited by our own citizens.

Basically I think war crimes are all a load of self-serving nonsense. War is about the application of lethal force to ensure victory. I don't believe there is anything worse you can do to a person than kill them, so whether you torture them to death or shoot them in the head it all means the same thing in the end. Is there really a 'good' death, I'd say no.

[Mohoender]

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent.

I'm always struck by the hypocrisy of the Nuremburg trials. Many people who study the second world war and who are British, Australian or new Zealander share a sense of disgust as we happily hanged the Nazis but let the japanese war criminals make deals with America to get out of how they treated our POWs.

I hope you are not among them. If these people are scholars they should be fired and sent back to school. How can you forget of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East

28 defendants with 2 dying of natural death before the end of the debates, 7 being executed, 16 sentenced to life imprisonment and 1 to 20 years imprisonement. Among the offences you'll find "Ordered, authorised, and permitted inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others" and "Deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities".

Nuremberg: 24 defendants with 12 death penalties and 3 acquited.

Were deal made with Japanese Yes. Were deal made with Nazi Oh yes as well. Can I respectfully remind you of a highly respected Wernher Von Braun. May I also point out that some among us might be driving a Volkswagen designed by an equally respected Ferdinand Porsche. Isn't that an interesting legacy of a certain A.Hitler And these are only the two best known exemples.

[dragoon500ly]

One of the objections to the War Crimes Tribunals is that they tried to place the blame for carrying out orders to commit war crimes squarely on the shoulders of the military officers involved. After all, they should have realized that these were illegal orders and refused to carry them out (this is the simple version).

One of the problems with this view is that for most of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, one of the requirements of the military was to obey any order passed along by a superior officer ending with orders issued by the monarch at al. Again, this is the simple form.

The prime defense of the war criminals is that they obeyed the orders passed down to them. Their code of honor, their sworn military oath required
"unquestioning obedience" to the state. Reading through military journals, and various newspaper articles from that period make the point that what the German and Japanese officers did was, in many cases, not very different than those actions performed by Allied officers.

But wars have always been brutal, bloody, callous affairs. People die in some of the most horrible ways possible and often they die alone and in terrible agony.

But when a soldier in the middle of a fire fight has to make a split-second decision to fire on a fleeting target, and discovers afterwards that he shot an unarmed civilian, does that make him a war criminal

When the elected leader of a nation, based on the best information presented to him, faced with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of losses on both sides, makes the decision to use a new weapon, unknowing of the terrible after-effects of that weapon. Is he a war criminal

I don't believe that these actions warrant being tried as a war criminal. That title belongs solely to those swine who go out of their way to rape and murder non-combatants.

[Fusilier]

But when a soldier in the middle of a fire fight has to make a split-second decision to fire on a fleeting target, and discovers afterwards that he shot an unarmed civilian, does that make him a war criminal

When the elected leader of a nation, based on the best information presented to him, faced with the possibility of hundreds of thousands of losses on both sides, makes the decision to use a new weapon, unknowing of the terrible after-effects of that weapon. Is he a war criminal

I think mens rea needs to be considered. Mens rea is the term for criminal intent. So the soldier in your first example may not be considered a war criminal since it wasn't a deliberate attempt.

[Fusilier]

But wars have always been brutal, bloody, callous affairs. People die in some of the most horrible ways possible and often they die alone and in terrible agony.

Reminds me of another film.

Anyone here see "Johnny Got His Gun"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067277/

Please don't tell me I am the only one who saw this amazing anti-war movie Unfortunately most people only know it from the Metallica video for "One".

[dragoon500ly]

That's an oldie! Been several years since I've seen the whole thing.

[dragoon500ly]

I think mens rea needs to be considered. Mens rea is the term for criminal intent. So the soldier in your first example may not be considered a war criminal since it wasn't a deliberate attempt.

Too bad. The soldier in the first example stood a courts martial for his action. He was found not guilty, but it should never have passed the Article 32 hearing, let alone go to a c/m. Everybody involved thought that insurgents were all that was left in the building complex. Still, this is the Poltically Correct Army!

[Fusilier]

Too bad. The soldier in the first example stood a courts martial for his action. He was found not guilty, but it should never have passed the Article 32 hearing, let alone go to a c/m. Everybody involved thought that insurgents were all that was left in the building complex. Still, this is the Poltically Correct Army!

I'm not in disagreement with you, but isn't it the CM's purpose - to determine guilty or not I mean just because he stood doesn't imply guilt right That is the method in which criminal intent is determined I would expect.

My question may not make sense though... I don't know what Article 32 is.

[95th Rifleman]

Another problem with war crimes is the assumption of one morality and imposing it on all nations.

We like to assume that our interpretation of what is moral and what is right is the correct one. This is all well and good till you walk into someone who does not share your interpretation. This situation itself has led to a large number of armed conflicts.

You end up prosecuting someone under your laws who genuinely did nothing wrong under his own legal system.

[Mohoender]

One of the objections to the War Crimes Tribunals is that they tried to place the blame for carrying out orders to commit war crimes squarely on the shoulders of the military officers involved. After all, they should have realized that these were illegal orders and refused to carry them out (this is the simple version).

This is the really simple version and the one f those advocating full scale blind revenge. The idea of war crimes always existed in a way or another as you always had some type of rules of engagement. Then, it evolved through the first half of the 20th century to reach the idea of war crime as we understand it today only after ww2 when everyone basically had enough. Very understandable when you think that humanity had destroyed almost 100 million lives in no more than 30 years.

When it comes to trials, most have not prosecuted soldiers but leaders and still do. Then, those sentenced to death or heavily condemned are generally linked to crime against humanity.

When it comes to Japan, trials have exclusively been carried on high ranking leaders and this is only fair. Japan had not ratified the geneva convention of 1929 and, therefore, you had no legal ground to prosecute officers or soldiers who only carried orders within the limits of their state laws and international laws binding their state.

The PRC wished to do it, of course, but was deprive of its right to do it by the KMT (first hand) and by the western world which didn't recognized it as a state before 1972. Then, it was kind of late.

Still most war crimes remain unpunished as it is the case for rapes. There is numerous evidence of rapes by allied and soviet troops in Germany and Japan. Most (if not all) unpunished. Some sources even give a high number for rapes by US troops in France (40.000). Then, a friend of mine (who had since died) had done his military service in Germany. In the town next to his base (near the French border), a woman's statue was showing her fist in anger toward France. According to his testimony. French troops which had entered the town in 1945, conducted mass murder and rape there.

Most war crime will remain unpunished and it will remain so for a long time.

One last thing, Bin Laden has never been guilty of war crime. If he had been taken alive he should have been prosecuted for terrorism and crime against humanity.

[Mohoender]

Another problem with war crimes is the assumption of one morality and imposing it on all nations.

Untrue, cases for war crimes are now established on the ground of international agreement now signed and ratified by most nations. If it had been true, this morality has prevailed. Weather or not it is a good thing, is another matter that could be open to debate.

[95th Rifleman]

Untrue, cases for war crimes are now established on the ground of international agreement now signed and ratified by most nations. If it had been true, this morality has prevailed. Weather or not it is a good thing, is another matter that could be open to debate.

The problems is we are fighting organisations that do not subscribe to those treaties. Afghanistan is a classic example of this and has forced America to create the term "unlawful combatant".