War crimes and criminals

[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).

[95th Rifleman]

I know Israel is a bit of a touchy subject (I for one can not stand how they treat palestinians) but I have to say i always rspected how they went about going after war criminals.

This may be the way things go, individual governments operating black-op snatch squads to get the worst offenders.

Reading through the responses I have to (sadly) agree that allot would come down to a case of "Don't go after General smithski and we won't go after general smith" as every naion will have blood on their hands. I can see marauder leaders ending up as political scape goats to save political face.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I can see marauder leaders ending up as political scape goats to save political face.

Or politicians to justify/reinforce a certain level of legitimacy to the marauder leaders who just took over their places.

[MajorPo]

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.

[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....

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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....

It's not just the second world war. I have it on good authority (talking to my uncle who served with the paras) that British troops in the Falklands took ears during some of the bloodier and most stressful engagements. Not every ear came from a dead argentine.

But we won the falklands and the bodies where conveniantly policed and buried so noody had to be held to account. I'm sure things would of been different had we lost.

[ShadoWarrior]

War crimes occur in every war (or "police action", or whatever euphemism is being used) by troops from every nation, without exception. Something that I take exception to is when some folks label a country "terrorist" because of the mistakes of few individuals. Besmirching over a half a million troops who've served honorably because of the actions of a few that get heavy media coverage is grossly distorting the reality of how a war is conducted.

The US, along with most UK commonwealth nations, are some of the very few nations on this planet that indict and convict their own troops for violating the rules of war. It should also be noted that the civility of soldiers has improved steadily over the years. The armies of the various NATO nations today are a lot more restrained than they were 30-40 years ago, and those of 30-40 years ago were considerably more restrained than those who fought in WW2. And the trend continues as far back as you wish to go ... for "western" nations.

On the subject of WW2, you can hardly compare the treatment of Allied POWs by the Japanese with the treatment of Japanese POWs by the Allies. Cite me one example of Japanese POWs in a POW camp being slaughtered. Or worked to death. Even the Germans, for the most part, treated US/commonwealth prisoners according to the GC. The same cannot be said for any country that viewed their opponents as subhuman (Germany towards the USSR, USSR towards Germany & Japan, Japan towards anyone else). And, unlike the Germans, Japanese, and Russians, western allied troops in WW2 didn't routinely go rampaging through towns raping and killing everyone. That was an official policy for Germany on the eastern front, and for both the Imperial Japanese and the Russians.

So when discussing war crimes, it helps not to tar an entire nation with the misdeeds of a few. And it helps if you don't compare acts from different eras, when what is unacceptable today (carpet bombing cities, for example) wasn't viewed in the same way then. And to distinguish between plain bad judgment (accidentally killing some civilians with a missile strike) and deliberate criminal acts (targeting a missile at a location known to have many innocents, such as a school or hospital). And one need also be sure of one's definitions. If you aiding a terrorist, you're not 'innocent'. If he's in your house, the house and anyone in it is fair game. Torture is always a crime. And the leaders of countries (such as G.W. Bush) that issue orders that violate international law (such as authorizing torture) should be tried by an international court. No exceptions.

Finally, as several people have mentioned, the winning side in a war seldom, if ever, is held accountable for its war crimes. The winners make up new rules and then inflict them on the losers, retroactively. In a post-apocalyptic setting, where everyone is a loser, the only "justice" is what a powerful enough group can dish out locally ... and get away with.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

It's not just the second world war. I have it on good authority (talking to my uncle who served with the paras) that British troops in the Falklands took ears during some of the bloodier and most stressful engagements. Not every ear came from a dead argentine.

But we won the falklands and the bodies where conveniantly policed and buried so noody had to be held to account. I'm sure things would of been different had we lost.

That isn't exactly 100% true.

Corporal McLoughlin was implicated in taking some ears. But he was the only one as determined by two internal and external investigations. All of the ears came from dead Argentinians as well, and there were only a few (not that quantity really matters though).

The bodies were buried yes, but exhumed as part of the investigation by the British police and forensics specialists. The incident cost McLoughlin the VC (posthumously), which incidentally would never have been investigated had the other Para's not reported it. So he was held accountable.

[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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So how is it that the Israeli's have managed to get their hands on some many over the decades?

That's easy. In many cases they ignore international law and the laws of other countries and just do as they like.

Before anyone gets on their high horse I'm no anti-semite. I'm highly critical of the policies of the Israeli government but I have absolutely no issue with the Jewish people.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a good point. There might be small-scale prosecutions, post-TW. But it's not quite the same thing. What's Argentina going to do if a couple of Mossad agents kidnap a former Nazi living incognito in Buenos Aires? They can complain, but that's about it. Is Germany going to complain? Not likely.

Now imagine what would happen if some post-TW Poles somehow captured a Russian or German living in his home country? The repercussions could be severe. I'm not sure the risks would be worth it. Such actions would likely increase tension and could lead to renewed hostilities. Preserving peace and stability might trump pursuing/punishing war criminals.

Perhaps the countries of Europe would get together and work something out but, really, when has that sort of thing ever worked (well)?

[Legbreaker]

Repercussions be damned - at least that's the way many people may be thinking. Just look at how many loonies there are out there in everyday society protesting against this or that and happy to be arrested for it. Look at the people who like to disrupt WTO meetings for example - their actions may have servious impact on global relations, but that doesn't stop them from being a pain in the posterior.
While ever there are people who believe somebody has been or is being wronged, there will be people willing to do whatever it takes, rightly or wrongly and damn the political fallout!