War crimes and criminals

[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.

[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]

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.'

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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".

[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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

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?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

The Crusaders where good catholics.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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.