War crimes and criminals

[dragoon500ly]

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

[dragoon500ly]

Funny how that works out...no?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Funny how that works out...no?

To be honest it makes sense in a coldly logical way. Imagine the propoganda anti-American nations could make out of an American soldier being in the hague?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

In our debate about war crimes, we overlooked a situation. How can war crimes be prosecuted if one of the involved countries has never signed any of the international conventions?

That was my point about Japan.

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

To quote a more recent example, the People's Republic of Vietnam has never signed either convention, therefore their military personnel can not be prosecuted under international law is one argument that I have heard.

Thoughts?

Vietnam signed them in 1957. When, it fought the Vietnam War, most troops involved were irregulars who are not concerned by this convention. Moreover, it won the war and the USA never declared war. As a result, there is little legal ground to charge any soldier from the north. If any ground existed, it would probably be against US troops.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Ignore international law.

That's what America did with the unlawful combatants they picke dup in iraq and Afghanistan.

on a side note, American personel are in the same situation as America has not signed on with these conventions either.

US signed them in 1955. It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines. Moreover, in the 1980's the ICJ ruled US to be guilty of Terrorism (Among those condemning US for this was the US judge, funny). Then, US court ruled that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case (basically ruling that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear any case against US). Later, it vetoed any action in the UN. Still, to days, US remains the only western terrorist country. Whatever, what US did is worse than what you states. US signed these treaties but ruled that it is not entitled to follow them.

The power of a tribunal only resides within this tribunal and US has enough atomic bomb to escape any condamnation (especially as it remains the only country which has proven the world that it will willingly use them).

US tribunals also ruled against the federal state during the Civil War, it didn't change anything. US tribunals ruled the japanese internment camps to be illegal, it didn't change S...t. On the other hand, while Guantanamo was set up to escape international law, US courts and supreme courts ruled repetedly against that. At last, this is to the honor of the USA.

To make things easier, France had also been guilty of terrorist actions: possible implication in the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (1 dead) for exemple (more can be found). Of course, this is all "Raison d'Etat". What amaze me is that people remain confident in their governments.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Imagine the propoganda anti-American nations could make out of an American soldier being in the hague?

Imagine the lesson US could give to the world.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

It didn't sign the treaty extensions such as these considering the use of land mines.

That is one thing the US government really needs to get on board with.

[ShadoWarrior]

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

I'll edit my post here for better clarity...

That is one thing (landmine banning) that the US government, and every other non-signing goverment, really needs to get on board with for the sake of humanity.

Speaking on behalf of my post, I don't think it is insulting, but rather legitimate criticism. I also believe that nothing is immune from legitimate criticism, for obvious reasons. And that most certainly includes my own country. Criticism is how we improve society.

[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....

[pmulcahy11b]

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.

Yep, one man's war crime is another man's intelligence operation.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The Crusaders where good catholics.

So were the Inquisitors and today's church child molesters.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Can we please stop with the America-bashing in this thread by the non-American members? Regardless of the truth in many of the points, and the inarguable facts, it's offensive and probably against the board's rules. You wouldn't like it much if people started insulting your own countries, no matter how much they might be correct in their facts.

I'm American and I don't recall seeing anything in this thread that would qualify as "America-bashing." There has been some criticism of American actions and policies in this thread, but nothing, unfair, unwarranted, or meant to offend. If you have an issue with a particular post, please PM me and, as moderator, I will take a look at it and run it by my fellow mods.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm American and I don't recall seeing anything in this thread that would qualify as "America-bashing." There has been some criticism of American actions and policies in this thread, but nothing, unfair, unwarranted, or meant to offend. If you have an issue with a particular post, please PM me and, as moderator, I will take a look at it and run it by my fellow mods.

That was my interpretation as well. I'm not out to slag off America but you can't have these discussions and ignore facts because they might upset a few folks.

Hell I'm British and I have no trouble with listing the bad things we have done (I did already in regards to bio-warfare and concentration camps). I could quite happily spend all day listing all the crap we have done in a thousand years of going to interesting places, meeting interesting people and killing them in interesting ways. They are uncomfortable facts, but that doesn't make them any less relevant.

[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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 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 term "terrorrist" has nothing to do with any military action either past or current but with a political one. It only refers to a judicial fact, a decision ruled by the International Court of Justice in 1984 (27 years ago) and never overruled. It's partly sarcasm because having a national court overruling an international one is not the best exemple of political integrity and wisdom. It has even less to do with any sort of media coverage but only with a well known and documented historical fact which makes the USA the only western country to be ever charged with Terrorism (for its implication with the Contras) and found guilty of that charge.

Else, I have not seen anything on japanese POW. For my part I only refered to US citizens of Japanese descent. To note, The famed 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which fought in Europe, was formed from those Japanese Americans who did agree to serve. This unit was the most highly decorated US military unit of its size and duration (wiki).

[Mohoender]

As France was never recognized guilty this is only suspected facts (most being, nevertheless, well documented) or crimes that remains largely unpunished, often negated

Crime against humanity
- Vichy France had been the first country to send children to Nazi concentration camps (still 60000 were saved by the French Population).
- Mass deportation of jews and resistance’s members to Germany (to note France was the only country not administered by Germany to act as such). Not to talk of torture and direct involvement by the French police and gendarmerie.
- Mass internment and, later, deportation of Gypsies (14000 dead). Restrictions started on September 16 1939, internment was ordered on April 6 1940 to end only on June 1 1946 (2 months before the fall of France, more than 1 year after the return of people from Auschwitz and almost 2 years after the liberation of France).
- Add to this the treatment given to the Harkis after the end of the Algerian war (agree that this might only be seen as an unlawful treatment).
- Suspected direct involvement of French soldiers in the Rwanda Genocide (4 cases being investigated)
- …

War crimes
- Mass rape by French soldiers in Germany (1945).
- Use of torture and military exaction in Algeria and else (1945-1962)
- Recent exactions in Côte d’Ivoire (Under operation Licorne) and Rwanda (1994)
- …

Raison d’Etat (or sometimes State terrorism from my point of view)
- Involvement in the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka (1965 - Charles de Gaulle)
- Sinking of the Rainbow warrior (New Zealand - 1985). The soldiers involved didn’t had to answer this. (François Mitterand)
- Suspected direct involvement in the assassination of Thomas Sankara (1987), leader of Burkina Faso. (François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac)
- Suspected involvement in the dissimulation of facts in the assassination of Judge Borrel who Died in djibouti in 1995 (Jacques Chirac). France still pretends it to be suicide while the former president of Djibouti has been found guilty of murder (how can you murder someone who had commited suicide?)
- Active support to the Ben Ali and Khadaffi regimes. Currently, France still support and funds the Chadian regime of Idriss Déby Itno. Meanwhile Déby sends troops within Libya to support the very Khadaffi we are bombing daily (how amusing).
- …

Of course, these are the doing of the French government not of the French population. To note French Presidents between 1968-1992 often brought flowers on Petain's tumb. The list could go a long way and soldiers have been condemned for several of these acts. However, politicians have yet to answer these. Still, the good thing about France is that I can write this without fearing for my life or freedom (the same for US).

[95th Rifleman]

Very often there is a difference between what a soldier fights for and what his country does.

America just happens to be a very good example and sets herself up a little bit. Nobody is insulting the memory of American soldiers who have fought in some very bloody wars for some good causes (WW1 and WW2 are examples, even if they where a tad late to the party ).

But the US government is very shady, as are ALL governments and when an administration takes the moral highground they open themselves up to criticism.

We have such a great example today. The UK and France are happily blowing Libya's milliary to hell because Gaddafi was being a naughty boy. Funny thin is the bastards in Bahrain and Syria are doing the same thing and yet we are ignoring it (Russia is throwing a blanket over Syria and Saudi is supporting barhrain, who the Uk and US have cosy trade links and arm deals with.)

[dragoon500ly]

There was a certain US general who made a comment following a bloody battle.

"I wish that we could bottle the stench of a battlefield and save it for our political leaders. And the next time the bastards start talking about sending troops to fight for some stupid cause, every damned member of congress should be made to take a good whiff. Maybe then they will find some other way of settling things without sending our boys off to get die in some foreign country that nobody has ever heard of."

The military profession is perhaps unique in that its members really don't want to put to use the skills that they have learned.

In spite of Hollywood's best efforts to convince everyone that soldiers are mad dog killers, ready to loot, rape and murder at the first chance, I've never met one of these animals in all of my years wearing the uniform. Rather, I have had the privilage of serving with men and women who truely love their country and the ideals that it stands for.

Much has been made of those who fall short, and these criminals are justly punished. But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.

The military is indeed unique.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child.

Actually you do but you have to listen carefully. During the Draguignan's last year flood, the french navy helicopter pilots (who had been in the area for an air show) did no less than 800 rotations, saving undreds of peoples from the flood. Not to mention the soldiers at Chernobyl, Fukushima, New Orleans... Those who jumped over Kolwezi in 1966, 1978 and more recently... Those German soldiers of the Afrikakorps who had protected Jews in Tunisia... Those US troopers who sacrificed their chocolate as they were advancing through the villages of France, Belgium... Those hundreds of thousand of soldiers which have served under UN mandate all over the world... (The list is so long it would never ends, hopefully).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Those US troopers who sacrificed their chocolate as they were advancing through the villages of France, Belgium...

*GASP*
No, not the chocolate!!!!

Seriously though, soldiers are used in civil defence situations far more that combat (in most civilised countries anyway) even though barely trained for the tasks given them. More acts of bravery and kindness can be found in these situations than in all the battlefields of history combined - but we don't hear about it because it's not as "newsworthy" as somebody earning a VC for killing/capturing 30 of the enemy while armed with nothing more than a knife and his boots.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Much has been made of those who fall short, and these criminals are justly punished. But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.

I think that dutiful, decent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are the silent majority in most militaries. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, it's the bad apples that get most of the attention.

Discussions that focus largely on negatives, such as this one, can sometimes make people feel that those involved have nothing good to say about the subject of discussion- in this case, military folks- especially when people have strong, personal connections to that subject. Please keep in mind that pretty much everybody here has, on some level, respect and admiration for military folks. Otherwise, we likely wouldn't be so wrapped up in an RPG like T2K.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The military profession is perhaps unique in that its members really don't want to put to use the skills that they have learned.

Really? Perhaps it is a reflection of the combat arms they serve in but the majority of serving and recently-serving soldiers I know are proud of their skills and look forward to putting them to use. Not because they want to end lives specifically but because they excel as warriors and are proud of their warcraft. The Australian and US militaries are both volunteer forces. Soldiers who don't want to be put in a position where they use their skills for real can always leave.

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

But you never hear about the marine who gives his dinner to a starving child. Or the seamen on liberty that, instead of getting drunk and laid, volunteer their precious leave time to build a new roof for a orphanage. Nobody mentions the soldier who pulls trapped civilians from a collapsed building following an earthquake. And nobody cares about the airman that grabs a man as he falls and renders CPR until the paramedics arrive. That too is a face of the military that is never mentioned.

Strange, I hear about that sort of thing on a regular basis. It is quite common for the local media here in Perth to report on USN and USMC personnel on leave from ships berthed in Fremantle Port volunteering to assist in local worthy causes (such as cleaning up after a major bushfire last year). Or ADF personnel helping with disaster relief following the massive floods and fires in the Eastern States over the past few years. Is the US media so different?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

*GASP*
No, not the chocolate!!!!

I know it sounds to be a detail but to the various friends of mine that were children at the time, it was and remains extremely important. It might seems strange but that is what comes to their mind first before they tell you that they were hungree and that these soldiers had shared with them all they had. Keep in mind that, often, the wermacht had left only hours before.

[Graebarde]

The only thing worse than war is rules for war.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Targan

Strange, I hear about that sort of thing on a regular basis. It is quite common for the local media here in Perth to report on USN and USMC personnel on leave from ships berthed in Fremantle Port volunteering to assist in local worthy causes (such as cleaning up after a major bushfire last year). Or ADF personnel helping with disaster relief following the massive floods and fires in the Eastern States over the past few years. Is the US media so different?

It is most likely a US issue, for the most part, the media does not report favorably on the military. There is far more coverage of a GI that rapes a woman in Iraq then there ever is about all of the hospitals and schools that GIs built in Iraq. If there is a national diaster, such as Hurricane Katrina are the Midwest Floods, you will see coverage of National Guard efforts, but it is almost always curt at best (especially from the national media; local media tends to be a bit more open).

But then there is a running joke that the press hates the military and the military hates them right back.

[95th Rifleman]

I've ran into this in theuk, in heated arguments with stupid civvies. There are two broad camps, the civvies who say thins like "Our soldiers are killing babies" and the camp that says "I'm glad our lads are out there killing those muslim bastards".

Neither is valid.

The general philosophy of the British army is to go out there and save lives. This often means that to save lives you need to take life, to fight the people who want to kill the people you have been deployd to save.

It's because our soldiers have such high standards and such a reputation that when someone goes bad, we make such a big deal about it.

It wasn't always that way, the concept of the modern, professional soldier is very much a 20th century creation.