War crimes and criminals

[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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

The biggest issue, as stated, is the lack of a clear winner. My own nation, Britain, has a long and distinguished history of glory, honour and good conduct in war. We have this reputaion because we tend to win and kill any poor bastard that disagrees with us. We pioneered biological warfare in the 18the century French and Indian wars, we invented concentration camps in the Boer war and we developed a taste for rape and pillaging during the Indian mutiny which was quietly ignored.

America is another good example. The American government has always made much of the moral highground, claiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy. yet they have conveniantly opted out of any international agreements that would subject American soldiers to international war crimes tribunals. American war crimes are well documented in Vietnam and there was a case of US marines raping a civilian in iraq and calling in an airstrike to try and cover the crime.

The simple fact is you can not ask a human being to throw away every thing he has been taught from childhood regarding violence and killing and expect him to only kill the people you want him to.

[Caradhras]

I have to agree with MajorPo. The way nations try to formalise mass killing and make it seem like a civilised act with War, then have trials of officers of the losing side. It is kind of ridiculous.

Which part of taking a life is ok and which is a crime? Reasonable force? Because they started it? Of course it is a knotty problem but I do feel it is very conveniently used to paint good guys and bad guys.

It is similar to something I hear that winds me up - when people say 'That War wasnt legal' WTH? When was it ever 'legal' to go to War? Because a group of countries say it is ok, so it is?

I will stop now before I rant more

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 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).

This is the really simple version and the one àf 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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[headquarters]

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)

Originally Posted by 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.