War crimes and criminals

[95th Rifleman]

The recent arrest of Ratko Mladic and the assassination of Bin laden have got me thinking. War is hell and every side is guilty of war crimes, it would be unavoidable in a war the scale of the twilight conflict. It can be even argued that using WMDs like nuclear weapons is in itself a crime.

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?

I'm always looking for new angles to base T2K games and this strikes me as an interesting one, setting up a game where the PCs are hunting a known war criminal.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I'm always looking for new angles to base T2K games and this strikes me as an interesting one, setting up a game where the PCs are hunting a known war criminal.

Or the hunted.....

Yes, given a few years (minimum) of recovery, there would be some effort made to find and punish war criminals. However, it's likely to be a lot harder than post WWII due to the extreme level of destruction.

Overal, this sounds like a good Merc concept.

[Targan]

I'll have to email the player of Major Po and get him to contribute to this thread. His character was an expert in the application of war crimes. Even more than just being a hobby, almost a semi-professional war criminal

Comes to think of it General Pain would have extensive experience in this area too.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'll have to email the player of Major Po and get him to contribute to this thread. His character was an expert in the application of war crimes. Even more than just being a hobby, almost a semi-professional war criminal

Comes to think of it General Pain would have extensive experience in this area too.

Kind of an ethical conundrum for the GM - the pålayer who engages in ..war crimes..(WTF??)

General Pain certainly doled out his share before buying the ticket a few sessions back.- ( And thus cheating the GMs already made up MilGov Warcrimes tribunal of a lengthy and juicy trial with many implications..that would have been a good session though - the trial of General Pain. Probably would have ended in a court room shooting though - General Pain didnt have a lot of faith in legal process )

[Rockwolf66]

I could totally see something like the warcrime in the prologue of Tom Kratman's "Countdown: The Liberators" happening in some parts of the TW2K world.

Basically a US Special Forces Officer leading a local warlord group finds out that a local tribe has kidnapped several americans and are going to torture and murder then. In responce he has the warlord group under his control capture the enemy tribes home village and after torturing the information out of the locals finds that the american's were burned alive. He then asks the warlord under his control to kill every male in the village and sell the women into slavery. As there are no witnesses insted of being charged with warcrimes he's discharged.

[Rainbow Six]

Personally I rather doubt there would be many post War prosecutions in a properly appointed court of law, for a number of reasons, many of which have already been put forward. Whilst I think the most pertinent one is that the War has no clear winner, to get a proper prosecution one would need evidence, witnesses, etc. Unlike the Balkan Wars (for example) every move both sides make is not going to be covered by 24 Hour news media after November 1997, so atrocities are not going to be recorded on film (covertly or otherwise). People will move around, disappear, die, etc, etc. So even if a Government had the will to do so I just don't see there being the capability for some time to have "proper" prosecutions.

Vigilante justice and kangaroo courts are, of course, a completely different matter altogether. Might Governments send out "snatch squads" to kidnap suspected war criminals and bring them in front of some sort of military tribunal that would administer swift and summary justice without regard for the rule of Law? I think there would be occasions where they probably would, (and I think this would be an excellent scenario for a campaign).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, given a few years (minimum) of recovery, there would be some effort made to find and punish war criminals. However, it's likely to be a lot harder than post WWII due to the extreme level of destruction.

Maybe not. Some countries have decided that pursuing and prosecuting war criminals will only lead to more instability and increase the potential for renewed bloodshed. Liberia, is the example that springs to mind. Certain murderous commanders on all sides of the '90s and early '00s conflict where pretty much granted amnesty. It's not uncommon for a former fighter/rapist to be recognized by one of his victims on the street.

After the widespread breakdown of central authority/civilization in Europe during the Twilight War, the line between legitimate combatant and war criminal would be rather blurred. As many have pointed out, one man's marauder is another man's freedom fighter. Just look at the pro-Mladic riots that have occured in Serbia since the arrest and deportation of a man most Europeans consider a war criminal (for the record, so do I). This is 15 years after a regional war. The Twilight War would dwarf the Yugoslav wars in scope, scale, and brutality. Identifying and labelling war criminals after such a war could rouse a lot of demons that many people might just want to forget completely about. I think the last thing many European nations would want to do is reopen old wounds or fracture tenuous political alliances. I'm not sure going after war criminals would be such a good idea for a continent just emerging from amounted to a second feudal period. There's no Marshall Plan on the way either to help stabilize things. In the interest of national reconciliation, pardons or blanket amnesties might be the norm. I think only the most notorious, violent, equal opportunity marauder captains would be fair game for labelling and prosecution as "war criminals". Some local commander who might have gotten overzealous on an anti-marauder sweep would likely be forgiven if he seemed contrite enough. Some partisan leader or feudal militia captain who killed captured gov. troops would likely get a pass as well. This might seem really cynical, but I'm just not sure Europeans 10-25 years after the TW would be invested in war crimes prosecutions. Hell, I bet a lot of survivors who fought in some army, militia, warband, etc. would have some moments that they wouldn't be proud to recount in public.

Politically speaking, who are the bad guys that need to be punished? There are no Nazi aggressors. Is the German military taken to task? How about the Soviets or the Americans? Didn't they both unleash weapons of mass destruction all across Europe and other parts of the world? What about the company commander that ordered a village wiped out for aiding and abedding enemy forces? Where do you start and where do you end. The scale of the crimes against humanity in the TW is truly massive. I'm not sure how much documentation would have been kept/survived the nuclear exchanges and the breakdown of civilization that followed. For that matter, how many eye-witnesses to attrocities would have survived and/or be willing to come forward?

I think a lot of people would jbe willing to say "let's try to forget about what happened and just move forward".

[Targan]

Its rare, after a war, for soldiers on the winning side to be tried for war crimes. Just sayin'.

[Legbreaker]

The problem with T2K compared to other wars is that there is no winner writing the history. All sides involved will have scores to settle in the years afterward.
As for living and letting live, even today there are nazi hunters seeking out and bringing to trial WWII war criminals, even though the vast majority would have to have died of old age by now.

The efforts to catch, try and punish war criminals may not be made by the international community as a whole, but it will happen. It could be carried out by a coallition of countries, a single country, an organisation or even individuals. As long as somebody can remember being wronged, retribution will be sought.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The problem with T2K compared to other wars is that there is no winner writing the history. All sides involved will have scores to settle in the years afterward.
As for living and letting live, even today there are nazi hunters seeking out and bringing to trial WWII war criminals, even though the vast majority would have to have died of old age by now.

The efforts to catch, try and punish war criminals may not be made by the international community as a whole, but it will happen. It could be carried out by a coallition of countries, a single country, an organisation or even individuals. As long as somebody can remember being wronged, retribution will be sought.

What we forget is that the crime committed by allied troops that were largely overlooked. I am not saying it was right, and many cases their crimes compared by those committed by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII pale in comparison. There were enough, by the time end of the war, many of the case hadn't been document or the people who knew about didn't survive.

In the case of Twilight 2000 war. There would be no doubt many, but I think after things deteriorated to point where they would be in 2000, yeah some would be looking to hunt down war criminals, but in many cases, I think the people they would be after would already be dead....

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Its rare, after a war, for soldiers on the winning side to be tried for war crimes. Just sayin'.

Exactly. I was going to come back and make this point but you beat me to it.

In the TW, there's really no clear-cut winner or loser. Usually, the winners dictate the terms, decide what war crimes are, and determine who should be prosecuted as such.

How are Poles going to get their hands on German, or Soviet/Russian, or American "war criminals"? They're not. I don't see any scenarios where exchanges/extraditions would be made. Each country pretty much looks after its own. I can see local attempts made to prosecute "local", native war criminals but I don't see any Nuremberg Trials or Hague tribunals after the Twilight War.

[Legbreaker]

So how is it that the Israeli's have managed to get their hands on some many over the decades?
It may not be easy, or guilt even all that clear cut, but there will still be somebody doing the chasing.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The recent arrest of Ratko Mladic and the assassination of Bin laden have got me thinking. War is hell and every side is guilty of war crimes, it would be unavoidable in a war the scale of the twilight conflict. It can be even argued that using WMDs like nuclear weapons is in itself a crime.

Of course it is. Nukes against civilian population centers are cold blooded war crimes of the worst sort. ( I f they are to try Ratko Mladic for orchestrating the siege of Sarajevo where thousands perished from sniper fire, artllery and starvation but at the same time would let him of if he used a tactical nuclear weapon against it...)

In my humble opinion the hunt for war criminals would depend largely on how these individuals were affiliated with existing powerbases. Look at Ratko MNladic for instance - he is a hero to the nationalists in Serbia and they are a group to be reckoned with politically there. ( Or have been depending on how you see it). Its a poorly hidden secret that the secret services in Serbia knew his whereabouts and could have gotten him years ago.

Much the same in T2K I believe. The Russians are not going to give up " The Hero of Kaliscz" - or "The Butcher of Kaliscz" as Nato affiliates call him. And Vice Versa. But take countries that have had occupation and civil war - the winning faction would be out for blood and tracking down its adversaries on the pretext of war crimes - or actual charges - and individuals with a grievance would probably be looking high and low for the ones believed culpable to deliever some justice.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by headquarters

Of course it is. Nukes against civilian population centers are cold blooded war crimes of the worst sort.

Now I do not want to start a flame war, I am simply intrested in other peoples take on this.

On one hand, I agree with that nuking civilian population centers, would certainly count as a cold blooded war crime, on the other hand, only one nation has used nukes in a war.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka were horrific, and certainly are, in modern times, at best questionable actions. But at the time, the twin bombings were considered to have been the key to convincing the Japanese to finally sue for peace.

Now, the US was preparing for the massive invasions of Japan and were adjusting to the new methods of fighting that Japan had demonstrated on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Of special concern was the large numbers of combatants that Japan had in the southern islands, the program of intensive fortifications, the large number of kamikazes ready for the invasion force and Magic intercepts where the Japanese were talking about shifting the kamikaze attacks from warships and on to the transports. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were concerned about the heavy losses that the military would be facing. Its of intrest that the JCS briefs from that period do not make any claim of "Millions of Allied losses" (this is a post war claim that used to excuse the bombings), they simply estimated losses, based on the two most recent campaigns as being in the vinicity of 600,000 total (dead, wounded and missing). Japanese losses were estimated to range up to over one million (again, dead, wound and missing and including estimated civilian losses).

It is against this backdrop of the Japanese willingness to fight to the last soldier, of their new tactics of multiple, deeply dug-in positions and the horrors suffered by the Navy by the kamikaze attacks that Truman made his decision.

So, the question is, was President Truman a war criminal? Or did he make the hardest decision that any nation's leader ever had to face?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

So, the question is, was President Truman a war criminal? Or did he make the hardest decision that any nation's leader ever had to face?

I would answer 'yes' and 'yes'. I agree it probably saved many lives and shortened the war, but it doesn't negate the fact that it still constituted a war crime by definition. I believe that one doesn't necessarily cancel out the other, as it were.

I recommend 2003 documentary "Fog of War", with Macnamara discussing the use of the atomic bombs...

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

[Raellus]

The Allies' strategic bombing campaign against Axis cities was, by definition, terrorism. Between Germany and Japan, nearly a million civilians were killed and many more wounded or displaced. Yet, since the Allies won the war, no Allied political or military leader was taken to task for ordering cities to be levelled.


As for the "there's no such things as crimes in war" argument, I don't buy it at all. That's the worst kind of moral relativism. There is such thing as fair play. Wantonly massacring civilians, shooting unarmed prisoners who've already surrendered, or rape are simply not acceptable or necessary behaviors, even in the organized insanity that we call war. Resorting to such amoral, unethical behaviors lowers human beings beneath wild animals. Shrugging and saying "c'est le guerre" doesn't justify, in any way, torture, murder, rape, etc. True, war offers the psychopath a much less restrained environment in which to conduct his/her pyschopathic behaviors, but does that make those behaviors acceptable? Most of the civilized world would argue that it does not.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Allies' strategic bombing campaign against Axis cities was, by definition, terrorism. Between Germany and Japan, nearly a million civilians were killed and many more wounded or displaced. Yet, since the Allies won the war, no Allied political or military leader was taken to task for ordering cities to be levelled.

There was a lot of controversy when a statue to "Bomber" Harris was erected in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris#Postwar

[dragoon500ly]

And this is the crux of the arguement for the two bombings. We consider such an action, today, to be a such a horrendous action that it constitutes a war crime.

But at the time, it was considered the decisive blow that forced Japan to realize that it faced utter destruction. It gave the peace party and the emperor the leverage needed to surrender.

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.

In studying military history, one of the maxims is that to acheive victory, it is first necessary to destroy the enemies will and means to resist.

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

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?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

If it means deliberately targetting civilians, then yes.

The bombing of German cities, if anything, only increased the German military's will to resist. It didn't prompt a single popular uprisings against the regime. One could easily argue that the terror bombing of Axis cities was a costly failure as it did not break their will to fight. It resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and bomber crew casualties were staggering as well.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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.'