War crimes and criminals

[pmulcahy11b]

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.

I know this will probably ignite a flame war, so I may not reply. All those examples above pale to the crimes of the Catholic Church in World War 2.

[Targan]

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

That's exactly what happened to the Australian David Hicks (well almost exactly, the US was making up a lot of rules as it went along when it started ounding up suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters). All those years he spent in Gitmo and he hadn't committed any offence under Australian law. He had received basic military training from Taliban, yes, but he never had anything to do with al Qaeda and had no interest in fighting US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan. He had accepted the offer of training because he had intended to volunteer in Kashmir (but never got the chance).

As soon as Hicks heard that the US and its allies were invading Afghanistan he attempted to leave the country. Not because he was a coward, not to join retreating Taliban forces in Pakistan, not to join al Qaeda, just to make damn sure he didn't end up on a two way shooting range with US and Coalition forces. Hicks was picked up at the border by Northern Alliance irregulars who arrested him and handed him to US forces purely to collect the bounty on offer for all Taliban fighters.

Then the Australian government at the time hung Hicks out to dry. It was absolutely appalling. I don't agree with many of the choices Hicks made in his life, converting to Islam and travelling to the places he went to but the only crime under Australian law that the Australian Government tried to pin on him was acting as a mercenary but that charge wouldn't stick because at the time that Hicks was training with the Taliban the Taliban was the recognised, legitimate government of Afghanistan. Its not a crime under Australian law to join another country's military.

The US could have done things alot better than it did with the whole 'unlawful combatant, throw 'em in Gitmo without charge or trial for years and years and see if they'll crack' policy.

[Mohoender]

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".

My turn to ignite a flame war. That term was invented to justify our governments' action when they are clearly violating these treaties. Then, what outrage me is that it will prevent Taliban leaders (members of a legal government in 2001) to face prosecution for war crimes.

[95th Rifleman]

I know this will probably ignite a flame war, so I may not reply. All those examples above pale to the crimes of the Catholic Church in World War 2.

What crimes

[dragoon500ly]

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.

Article 32 is the Army's version of a Grand Jury hearing. A board of 1-3 officers (depends on the accused ranks) reviews the evidence for and against the defendent and then recommends a courts martial or orders the investigation to be dropped. In this case, the two officers on the board were blasted by the courts martial as the evidence presented by the JAG did not warrant a courts martial. The soldier was able to present enough witnesses to confirm the swirling, confusing conditions of the firefight, the poor intelligence, and the expectation set ahead of time that there would be no civilians present.

[Fusilier]

Article 32 is the Army's version of a Grand Jury hearing. A board of 1-3 officers (depends on the accused ranks) reviews the evidence for and against the defendent and then recommends a courts martial or orders the investigation to be dropped. In this case, the two officers on the board were blasted by the courts martial as the evidence presented by the JAG did not warrant a courts martial. The soldier was able to present enough witnesses to confirm the swirling, confusing conditions of the firefight, the poor intelligence, and the expectation set ahead of time that there would be no civilians present.

Ahh thanks. Very unfortunate that it went that far then.

[Legbreaker]

What crimes

Others may have a lot more knowledge than me on this, but I do know that the Catholic church, or at least some very highly placed members of it, were absolutely instrumental in smuggling wanted and highly placed Nazi's out of Europe in the 40's, 50's and even 60's. Huge sums of money were paid to the church as bribes during this time.

In my opinion, a war crime can be (simply) classified as any action which causes unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering on a person or group of persons. By this definition, bombing of civilians could avoid the war crime tag if they were involved in production of war material. Shooting of escaping prisoners would also be "legal", while recapturing, and subjecting them to torture and/or drawn out execution (even being informed of impending execution without any option for appeal - aka mental torture) would not.

Obviously the true definition is MUCH more complex, but boiled down to it's basics, I think that probably sums it up fairly well.

[95th Rifleman]

Others may have a lot more knowledge than me on this, but I do know that the Catholic church, or at least some very highly placed members of it, were absolutely instrumental in smuggling wanted and highly placed Nazi's out of Europe in the 40's, 50's and even 60's. Huge sums of money were paid to the church as bribes during this time.

In my opinion, a war crime can be (simply) classified as any action which causes unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering on a person or group of persons. By this definition, bombing of civilians could avoid the war crime tag if they were involved in production of war material. Shooting of escaping prisoners would also be "legal", while recapturing, and subjecting them to torture and/or drawn out execution (even being informed of impending execution without any option for appeal - aka mental torture) would not.

Obviously the true definition is MUCH more complex, but boiled down to it's basics, I think that probably sums it up fairly well.

That's a bit daft mate, if you want to accuse the catholic curch of "war" crimes for helping to smuggle Nazis then you need to level the same accusation at America for operation paperclip when they gathered up as many nazi scientists as they could. Some of these scientists had clear links to the SS, hell a few where in the bloody SS.

Sure, individual priests helped smuggle out nazis but it wasn't a church policy.

[Legbreaker]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

[95th Rifleman]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

The Crusaders where good catholics.

[ShadoWarrior]

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.

The atomic bombings of Japan were done for several reasons, only one of which has been mentioned. Shock value was one. The others were as live-fire tests, and as a not-so-subtle message to Stalin. The fact that the arguably more destructive fire-bombing campaign wasn't getting the job done should clue people in to the fact that dropping the atomic bombs did not shorten the war in the slightest. That many people still continue to believe this common misconception is mostly due to post-war American propaganda and biased historians in the 50s and 60s.

Modern scholars recognize that the actual impetus for Japan surrendering when it did was when the Soviets invaded Manchuria on the same day that the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Faced with daily firebombing raids by the USAAF and an unstoppable land assault (including of the northern Japanese islands) by the Soviets, who didn't care how many troops they lost, some wiser Japanese leaders (about half the inner circle, including the Emperor) decided to end things before they lost to a foe who would never negotiate.

When it was just an Americans invasion the Japanese faced they were perfectly willing to, despite incessant bombing, to continue to fight to the bitter end. But that all changed when the Soviets joined in. The Japanese feared the Russians almost as much as the Germans did. They knew full well the Russians would exact a terrible revenge over their humiliation in 1905. So the Japanese put out feelers to the US and UK about a negotiated surrender that would allow them to keep an Emperor. Something that the Soviets would never have agreed to had the Soviets been allowed longer to grab more turf and gain a bigger say in things.

[Mohoender]

That's a bit daft mate, if you want to accuse the catholic curch of "war" crimes for helping to smuggle Nazis then you need to level the same accusation at America for operation paperclip when they gathered up as many nazi scientists as they could. Some of these scientists had clear links to the SS, hell a few where in the bloody SS.

Sure, individual priests helped smuggle out nazis but it wasn't a church policy.

In fact, it was a church policy with an official office at Vatican city but to this you can add the French (who protected Vichy officials), the British for dissimulating evidences (films on the camps had not been released before the 1990's), the KMT (for giving a job of military advisor to the man responsible for the massacre of Nanjing) and the Soviets (of course)...

When you sited US you also forgot to put charges on General Patton who wished to enlist SS in order to launch an offensive on USSR.

Other time other needs. Bringing up charges on these need to forget that WW2 ceased only to lead the world to the cold war. We only achieved peace in 1989 and that lasted solely 2 years (Of course I'm being sarcastic or not)

[James Langham]

Like I said, there's more to it than that - what I posted is what I know off the top of my head.
It's also interesting to note the US used the same priests to smuggle their spies out of eastern Europe during the cold war. A number of supposedly religious men made a LOT of money in those decades. The only condition was that all those smuggled had to be "good Catholics".... Hmm, good catholic ex-SS Nazis, there's something novel!

Much to Himmler's disgust, a substantial portion of the SS were actually regular church goers. I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

[Mohoender]

I'm not quite sure how they reconciled the different world views either...

You only have to justify your acts before god and god forgives everything may be.

[Mohoender]

I have written something false. You had no specific offices at the vatican taking care of war criminals. However, evidences have revealed that various high ranking clerics within the catholic church heading various offices (including the most influencials) had been involved (that would probably include one or two popes).

What I'm going to write is not politically correct. I have never been chocked by the Catholic Church hiding war criminals. As it did that it fullfilled one of its commitment which is to protect and shelter whoever seeks it. I'm more stunned by their official declarations, sign of support to nazi Germany and by the general silence that characterized the Vatican during this troubled time. Finally, I'm outraged by the fact that their higher leadership didn't offer the same protection to Jews, Roms... seeking refuge. For them, the support was purely individualistic. In Germany it came from the higher clergy while many among the lower clergy spied for the nazis, in France shelter was given by the lower clergy as the higher clergy was mostly supporting Vichy (to note out of 72,000 jewish children in France, 60,000 escaped deportation hided by among french families and religious institutions), in Italy, in the city of Rome, 80% of the jews escaped protected mostly by religious while Pie XII remained silent.