War Crimes

[S.A.M.]

What is a war crime?

How is it defined?

How is the country or countries held accountable?

By whom?

 

[Read-Only]

What is a war crime?

How is it defined?

How is the country or countries held accountable?

By whom?

?? Why should anyone here bother to write an essay for you, Sam? :shrug: Just read about the Nuremberg Trials and the answer to all three of your questions will be right in front of you.

 

[S.A.M.]

?? Why should anyone here bother to write an essay for you, Sam? :shrug: Just read about the Nuremberg Trials and the answer to all three of your questions will be right in front of you.

Thanks for sharing, perhaps you should join your local library since all you do here is whine .

 

[cosmictraveler]

What is a war crime?

How is it defined?

How is the country or countries held accountable?

By whom?

1. A crime that the winning country deems a crime and is punishable by the winning country.

2. A war crime is defined by the winning country.


3. People are held accountable not usually whole countries and those in charge of the war machine are the ones punished when found by the winning country.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah thanks, I wondered if it was the winning country.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'm not stepping into your trap.

 

[Read-Only]

Thanks for sharing, perhaps you should join your local library since all you do here is whine .

Not whining at all. You asked what I took to be an honest question (was I wrong?) and I gave you a very honest answer. And how did you take that as whine, anyway? Did I sign some agreement that obligated me in some fashion to provide a full, detailed answer to every question you ask? I sure don't remember having done so. Perhaps you could find me a copy of it? Thanks.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not whining at all. You asked what I took to be an honest question (was I wrong?) and I gave you a very honest answer. And how did you take that as whine, anyway? Did I sign some agreement that obligated me in some fashion to provide a full, detailed answer to every question you ask? I sure don't remember having done so. Perhaps you could find me a copy of it? Thanks.

No one obliged you to write at all; that you chose to write to say you wouldn't constitutes a whine in my book.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not stepping into your trap.

I wondered; because of course, there are other definitions:

The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.

All theoretical of course. In reality, soldiers are generally immune. Hence, I wondered. But of course, if the winning country makes the rules, that explains the distance between theory and practice.

 

[cosmictraveler]

War is hell as they say and sometimes people do things they normally wouldn't do in peace time. That is why many soldiers have mental disorders when they are through with their tours of duty.

 

[Read-Only]

No one obliged you to write at all; that you chose to write to say you wouldn't constitutes a whine in my book.

Picky, picky, picky. I did give you a good historical reference and apparently you chose to ignore that. Ah, well, not everyone is appreciative all the time (or even part of the time).:shrug:

 

[Grantywanty]

What is a war crime?

Depends on who you ask. And any honest person would admit that it is not an easy question to answer.

How is it defined?

It depends on who you ask. Many would say that the use of cluster bombs and land mines are war crimes because they will later maim and kill civilians, often children. Many would argue that cutting off the water supply to civilians is a war crime. And what about non-wars: like much of the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians where claims of collateral damage swallow up many more innocents than all the suicide bombers. When are economic punishments war crimes? (say the embargos on Cuba or Iraq).

How is the country or countries held accountable?

Usually the focus is on leaders, as you probably know. The private in the army is generally not punished. Up the food chain is the idea. And of course what has been said about the winners deciding is often true, though there have always been examples made of winner war crimes. The Mai Lai massacre, as one example. (actually in Vietnam the US were really losers, but you know what I mean). I don't think anyone in N. Vietnam was punished for war crimes (officially that is, I am sure some were shot in the field or target bombed).

By whom?

Well, we have our little tribunal now. And it does seem like they go after some of the baddies. And who gets to be considered a baddy is of course political.

But perhaps you had something specific in mind, a specific point. Toss it out and we can hash around that one.

 

[Enmos]

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

Nothing about winning parties here. Just law.

From Nuremburg principles:
"Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

 

[Baron Max]

What is a war crime?

How is it defined?

For you, Sam, a war crime is anything that the USA does anywhere in the world.

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

Nothing about winning parties here. Just law.

From Nuremburg principles:
"Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

Of course the definition does not include 'winning parties'. That would be like having in the law that a rich person is vastly less likely to go to jail or be convicted of a crime in the US. But if we are talking about reality winning definitely makes a difference.

How long did we teach Manifest Destiny in the schools and explain away US crmies against Native Americans?

You think the NA's didn't have a different story with different war criminals? Oddly they were forced to learn the winners story.

 

[Enmos]

Of course the definition does not include 'winning parties'. That would be like having in the law that a rich person is vastly less likely to go to jail or be convicted of a crime in the US. But if we are talking about reality winning definitely makes a difference.

How long did we teach Manifest Destiny in the schools and explain away US crmies against Native Americans?

You think the NA's didn't have a different story with different war criminals? Oddly they were forced to learn the winners story.

Well I might be mistaken, but isn't it possible to be trialled for war crimes before the war even ends ?

 

[James R]

What is a war crime?

How is it defined?

A war crime is any act committed in time of war that breaches agreed international conventions on how war should rightly be conducted. Most war crimes involve so-called "crimes against humanity", that transcend the politics of the particular war and involve affronts to the dignity of the human species as a whole.

How is the country or countries held accountable?

There are a number of international bodies that deal with war crimes. Perhaps most prominent lately has been the relatively-recently established International Criminal Court. Not all countries recognise its jurisdiction yet.

Going back in history, you can look at various UN bodies, and going back even further look at mechanisms such as the Nuremberg trials.

1. A crime that the winning country deems a crime and is punishable by the winning country.

2. A war crime is defined by the winning country.

No. The notion is much wider than that, and ideally involves "unbiased" observers who had no stake in the outcome of the particular conflict. In practice, this is not a condition that is often easy to meet.

3. People are held accountable not usually whole countries and those in charge of the war machine are the ones punished when found by the winning country.

People are held accountable because war crimes are crimes by people against people. They are acts not justifiable according to agreed standards of the conduct of war.

 

[Grantywanty]

Well I might be mistaken, but isn't it possible to be trialled for war crimes before the war even ends ?

Sure. But that doesn't take away from what i am saying. If you set up a tribunal and the countries that set this up are defeated good luck getting convictions. Yes, winners get convicted, but generally not if they are a super power. We'll throw a couple of lieutenants at the court, but a state official, forget about it.

 

[Enmos]

Sure. But that doesn't take away from what i am saying. If you set up a tribunal and the countries that set this up are defeated good luck getting convictions. Yes, winners get convicted, but generally not if they are a super power. We'll throw a couple of lieutenants at the court, but a state official, forget about it.

Aren't war tribunals held in and by third party countries ?

 

[Grantywanty]

Aren't war tribunals held in and by third party countries ?

And yet oddly enough superpowers tend to be immune.

How'd that come about?

Also, no. Nuremburg, for example.

Nazis have been prosecuted in Israel, hardly neutral turf, not that I am concerned about it in this case.

Notice any tribunals weigh in on US actions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Or Nicarauga, etc.

Russia in Chechnia. And so on.

War crimes tend to be prosecuted, these days, against smaller countries and the big powers preside, divving up judicial power amongst other smaller countries.

Saadam Hussein. War Crimes. Iraq court put together by a regime pasted together by the Americans. Again, not that I am crying.

The injustice has tended to come in not because of who is prosecuted, but by who is not prosecuted.

Winning helps. Economic and military might also help avoid prosecution. Those nations are immune. So being a 'winner' in a broad sense helps.