Should we try War Crminals?

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

I was wondering whether you thought war criminals should be tried. Are there actually any crimes committed in war?

I always remember the image in Saving Private Ryan of the german soldiers being shot whilst trying to surrender on the beaches of Normandy. After the horrific experiences the allied soldiers had faced taking this beach, the loss of friends and companions, the brutal, in your face, experience of death, the fear of your own death, it is easy to explain the blatent murder of surrending soldiers as emotions governing reason.(I know this is a movie but the example is fair)

Would you consider this as murder? Or would you be happy to let the incident slide? Personally I think it is war, things happen that wouldnt happen in everyday society and you have to expect that. Do we really want soldiers to consider their actions in a battlefield? Or do we want them to carry out orders, kill without remorse and win?

Taking this into more modern history, why would we try soldiers from conflicts such as the Balcans or Yugoslavia or even Iraq? Laws made by the government of that country, at the time of the incident must surely be taken into account. A soldier is expected to follow orders and "do his duty" so to speak. Why then would we try them for their actions, however abhorrent they may seem? Has Suddam commited any war crimes? Or do we just find his actions abhorrent? Prisoners held in Guantanamo bay are just that, prisoners, why do we question the necessity of it and the actions that may or may not have taken place there?

Do only the losers deserved to be brought to trial?

If you hold a soldier to the laws of a peacetime society whilst he is in a war time environment, what will be the result? What type of soldier will that create?

I look forward to your thoughts.

[bugsbunny04]

I would think shooting at people that are trying to surrender is not acceptable, but it should be noted that false surrender is a very effective last ditch ambush tactic to take a few more enemy with you and avoid capture (a tempting idea if you expect to be interogated or mistreated or if you just dont want to surrender for your ideals). How do you tell the difference? Instinct. And if you are wrong and shoot someone who is actually surendering, it sucks to be him, he should have deserted before the battle started.

Im against toruture, executing prisoners, and intentionally targeting civilians, but Im not going to freak out when accidents happen.

[Milton Bradley]

I would be much less harsh on those in the actual battlefield.


War criminals that sit in comfy offices, and destroy the lives of untold numbers of peoples would be far more likely to incur the full wrath in my mind.


So yes, and no.

[nykoelle]

I do think war criminals should be tried and punished. War is no excuse for senseless rape and pillage.

According to this: http://www.phrusa.org/research/healt...humrape.html#b
"Many hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in wars in this century alone.(1) The following examples give some indication of the scope of the problem:
1. In Korea, recent reports estimate that in World War II, Japanese soldiers abducted between 100,000 and 200,000 Asian women, mostly Korean, and sent them to the front lines, where they were forced into sexual slavery.(3)"

There are countless examples of this. I can't remember where I read this, I'll try to find the source for you, but officers trained at the college of the americas in south america were responsible for loads of rape and murder in Nicaragua around the time of the contras. That's ludacris. Why are americans getting away with this? Americans or not, it's not right. This is humanity, we're self destructing ourselves over petty politics.

I do support ratification of the international criminal court.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

[Nono]

There is a body of international law called "the law of armed conflict". That's the law. If you believe in law and order, the question doesn't arise about "Jeez, well maybe we shouldn't give him a hard time about shooting that prisoner. He was pretty upset". Otherwise you should do this in peacetime too ("Well yeah he shot six people to get to the head of the line. But he was in a real hurry.")

[Suburbanite]

I don't think they should be tried at all. They should just be killed, like how we used to do it...

[NoFriend]

Quote by: nykoelle officers trained at the college of the americas in south america were responsible for loads of rape and murder in Nicaragua around the time of the contras. http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

Just a small correction. Its the School of the Americas and it is in Georgia.

[Osborn F Enready]

ALL war criminals should be tried, including those who send is to war wrongly, or those who lie to create the illusion of necessity of war, when that necessity doesn't really exist.

Treason, should also be tried, with the firmest punishment available, hanging or firing squad.

This would put a quick end to the Bush Administration.

[nykoelle]

Quote by: NoFriend Just a small correction. Its the School of the Americas and it is in Georgia.

Ah yes, my apologies. I saw a documentary on it a month or so ago, narrated by Susan Sarandon, I can't remember what it was called though to look it up and site it.

Thanks for refreshing my memory!

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ALL war criminals should be tried, including those who send is to war wrongly, or those who lie to create the illusion of necessity of war, when that necessity doesn't really exist. Treason, should also be tried, with the firmest punishment available, hanging or firing squad. This would put a quick end to the Bush Administration.

Who decides what constitutes a war crime Osborn? You? An international body? What authority would this international body hold over those it is accusing if those who it is accusing do not recognise it's authority?

Putting aside the extreme comments you made further down, are you using societal peace time law to govern soldiers in a war time environment? Do you think this is reasonable?

[Nono]

Quote by: Seeker Who decides what constitutes a war crime Osborn? You? An international body? What authority would this international body hold over those it is accusing if those who it is accusing do not recognise it's authority?

For one thing, a war crime is any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, a term defined very clearly by those Conventions. The US is party to the GC and therefore bound by them. Among its obligations is to prosecute perpetrators.

How simple and clear to things have to get?

Hypocrisy...

Would the same people willing to give the benefit of the doubt to our boys killing the surrendering 'bad guys' be willing to give the same consideration to 'bad guys' killing our surrendering boys?

It is like the story about the American soldier beating a retarded kid multiple times while laughing about it. Well, yeah it is wrong, but he was under pressure....
Again, if the 'enemy' did the same thing....beating a retarded kid and laughing about it...what would the reaction be?

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: Nono For one thing, a war crime is any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, a term defined very clearly by those Conventions. The US is party to the GC and therefore bound by them. Among its obligations is to prosecute perpetrators. How simple and clear to things have to get?

Sorry to be really thick here nono, although the US may be a signatory to the Geneva Convention, how does that equate to prosecuting a perceived war criminal from another state that is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

[Nono]

Quote by: Seeker Although the US may be a signatory to the Geneva Convention, how does that equate to prosecuting a perceived war criminal from another state that is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Conventions are universal, i.e. there isn't a single state left in the world that isn't party to them. That means that all governments have a clear obligation to prosecute any their own citizens who commit "grave breaches".

Of course, as we know, not all meet their obligations, or are even (in some cases) capable of meeting them. That's why the International Criminal Court was set up in 1998. The idea is to have a standing judicial body instead of creating all these ad hoc courts like the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals. The ICC's purpose is to prosecute war crimes when, for whatever reason, this can't be done at the national level. As you can imagine, with all these failed states in which virtually no government authority exists, there's obviously no functioning legal system. Both Uganda and Congo/Kinshasa have already referred cases to the ICC.

About 120 states (that's a lot) have adopted the ICC statute. But not the US, no sirree. This -- like the Kyoto protocol -- is a way of thumbing its nose at the rest of the world when it comes to international law; it's a way of declaring itself an exception to the rules.

Suppose the US captures Saddam Hussein (just suppose) but it isn't possible to try Saddam in an Iraqi court because Iraq is in chaos and no viable Iraqi state exists. :) Saddam is an Iraqi national suspected (to say the least) of having committed war crimes. It ought to be possible to hand him over to the ICC. Instead he'll now be tried by a court whose legitimacy many will find it easy to dismiss. We'll see how that plays.

[Samildanach]

I'm all for letting things slide a bit in a battle situation, in the heat of battle insane things are going to happen, its pretty much unavoidable due to the fact that when your life is on the line you are going to be pretty twitchy on the old trigger finger and quite paranoid about people trying to trick you.
On the flip side anyone going to war deserves all they get, war is one of the ugliest things in the world regardless of the reason IMO.

[Nono]

The problem is: What's "a bit"? Things get completely out of hand with lightning speed, if you let them.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Suburbanite I don't think they should be tried at all. They should just be killed, like how we used to do it...

"Conan, what is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

Starboy

[castille]

The winner should try the loser. While this is a pretty poor technique, it has happened throughout history, from American/British/French governments trying "Nazis" while ignoring their own war crimes, to the winning side reducing the penalties for their own war criminals.

[Nono]

Quote by: castille The winner should try the loser ... it has happened throughout history ...

Exactly the sort of thing the ICC was created offset.

[Nono]

Further to US sabotage of the ICC: this news.