"war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

LadyEllen -> "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 1:58:10 PM)

I've been thinking about this lately - the idea of a "war crime" and what that idea means for the status of the other horrors of war that are somehow thereby rendered to be legal acts.

The whole notion of war to me is the absence of legal constraints in dealing with the enemy. We must harm him, kill him if possible, remove his food and water supply, destroy his ability to resist - before he does the same to us. And we must accomplish victory by whatever means necessary to procure that end without suffering loss to our side.

It therefore becomes odd to start discerning between one type of act one might commit in war and another in such a context. To my mind, it is an atrocity in itself to hold that any aspect of war might be deemed lawful, let alone legal.

Is there really such a thing as "war crime", or is the whole of war by its nature an atrocity?

E



philosophy -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 2:10:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

The whole notion of war to me is the absence of legal constraints in dealing with the enemy. We must harm him, kill him if possible, remove his food and water supply, destroy his ability to resist - before he does the same to us. And we must accomplish victory by whatever means necessary to procure that end without suffering loss to our side.


(my italics)

.....i can see the confusion. Thing is, there are legal constraints in war, no matter how much the current US administration has tried to pretend there aren't. This is, in fact, the very dividing line between a soldier and a terrorist. A soldier operates under rules of engagement. A terrorist does not.
We need to remember this distinction. A failure to do so will make this 'war on terror' even more generational than it is now. Failing to remember this distinction makes us less safe in the long run than military or political experdiency.



LaTigresse -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 2:24:58 PM)

I guess, in my mind all war is a crime, against humanity.



rulemylife -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 2:26:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyElllen

Is there really such a thing as "war crime", or is the whole of war by its nature an atrocity?

E


Yes and yes.

There have been written and unwritten codes of war throughout history.  The "civilized" way to kill your enemy.




LadyEllen -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 2:42:30 PM)

Why is it wrong to shoot an enemy soldier who has surrendered but right to shoot him if one sneaks up and finds him looking the other way?

In both instances, he is at your mercy and unable to fight, either to attack or resist.

Why is it wrong to shoot civilians, but right to destroy and otherwise deny them food and water so that they starve to death?

In both instances, these are non-combatants, dead is dead.

I'm having problems seeing how one is "war crime" whilst the other is not, and how it can be that one can be justified through the use of the description "war crime" for the other.

E



Lorr47 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 2:43:32 PM)

When I was very young my father said that had the Japanese won WWII he would have been charged with war crimes along with the rest of the Marine Corp. When I showed that I didn't understand, he smiled and merely said "we won."  Later I found out that neither Marines or Japanese took many prisoners (two patrols were sent out, one to capture prisoners and the other to prevent the first patrol  from  summarily executing the prisoners);  prying gold out of an enemies mouth was SOP (you were a humanitarian if you shot the enemy when he started screaming during the extraction process; people do not die in war like the movies portray);  Marines were scrutinized upon re boarding ships for such trophies as enemy skulls.  My father carried two 45s; 2 Bowie knives; a Thompson and a pump shotgun on Iwo Jima.  And, he was a corpsman (without the red cross markings  which got you shot before anyone else) .  He did not tell me this stuff.  For example, I learned about his armament because of an article about him entitled "Angel With A Tommie Gun."  (Yes, I know Corpsmen were Navy not Marine but don't tell him that because he will come after you and he has been dead for over 20 years)  It is hard to even think of criticizing a man who had so much shrapnel in him that he couldn't use a compass.  Whether some action is a war crime depends on the beholder. Read about Iwo Jima.  Some Marines were grabbed by their feet, dragged down tunnels and slowly butchered like animals.  The Marines responded with flame throwers and allowed those on fire to just run around screaming.  Who is the war criminal. And, we talk about todays war crimes.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 3:22:23 PM)

War is a failure of diplomacy they say. Some people in power they can't be reasoned with no matter how diplomatic their opponents are. Also most of the time it is more than one person in power that is the problem i.e. a whole culture that threatens the ways of another. It's a last resort but to call a war a crime against humanity you first have to define what humanity is and if the status quo is a crime against your definition of humanity. It is a case of the rose tinted specs for anyone to say all wars can be avoided.
 
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
 
J.S. Mill



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 3:38:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Why is it wrong to shoot an enemy soldier who has surrendered but right to shoot him if one sneaks up and finds him looking the other way?

He could turn around but the only people who can say for sure no POW's were killed after they surrendered are the soldiers that captured or killed them. It is really academic and only the humanity of the soldiers dealing with these people will determine if they are killed after they are captured. It isn't like the death of an enemy soldier is investigated to the same standard as a killing outside a war zone. 
quote:


In both instances, he is at your mercy and unable to fight, either to attack or resist.

In one case he hasn't been neutralised 100%.
quote:


Why is it wrong to shoot civilians, but right to destroy and otherwise deny them food and water so that they starve to death?

Impeding delivery of food and aid to civilian populations is a war crime as far as I'm aware.




tweedydaddy -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 3:48:46 PM)

If, as happened to me, In the Falklands, the guy in question was looking the other way, indeed he was, he was lining up a machine gun against the boys I had spent the last three years of my life with, I was perfectly happy to kill him. His friends too.
I had no qualms about that, none whatsoever. I would not shoot any man who laid down his weapons, not even if directly ordered to, as that would be an illegtimate order and although in my opinion I was too young to be there, I was a trained professional.
The moment a man surrendered and had been searched he was just another human being and was fed, watered and given such medical assistance as we had.
The circumstances where a man would be subjected to deliberate harm with impunity did not exist. They were human beings.
They fought hard and they fought well, but they had very poor esprit de corps, the pride we had made us endure further than seemed possible, it's just possible that it was that pride that made us care for their wounded to the same level as our own.
I had been trained and schooled in the disciplined application of extreme agression, but the key word was disciplined. War is fought to win. When a contact was over, it was over and I can say that I was as quick to give first aid as I was to fight.
I suffer from night terrors and it's not a good idea to play Boo games with me, but that's from things I saw years later in Africa and the middle east, none are from anything we did. I sleep very well about that.
Lest anyone accuse me of Jingoism, My Dad watched black and tan irregular troops hang a man from a tree at a nearby farm as a small boy in Ireland. He recoiled from both me and my brother in Uniform and would never speak to us until we took them off.
War is a vile business it turns some people into animals, but maybe some were animals to start with.



SummerWind -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 4:32:52 PM)

I can't comprehend a person in combat ever being charged with a war crime for actions against an enemy combatant.....ever.






NeedToUseYou -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 4:49:29 PM)

I've thought the same thing and quite frankly to me the whole concept of "war crimes" is a bunch of bullshit just to add a thin layer of perceived civility to what is otherwise pure base destruction. Would you like ketchup on your shit sandwich. It's still a shit sandwich. War is about killing, you fight wars to kill. What the hell, other purpose is there? Why gloss it over with these stupid rules. It's not like those rules will hold if we are ever in a position that we think we might actually lose. I know in the US that seems crazy, as we only fight wars that we can't really lose anything from, as they are always on the otherside of the word. So, we either gain(win), nuetral(withdrawal), but we've never been faced with losing the US, I guarantee you in a real war like that where it is possible we might lose completely, we'd be barbequeing babies if we thought it'd help our chances of winning. The rules only apply, to the losers anyway, for the most part.



blacksword404 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 5:55:29 PM)

quote]ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I've been thinking about this lately - the idea of a "war crime" and what that idea means for the status of the other horrors of war that are somehow thereby rendered to be legal acts.

The whole notion of war to me is the absence of legal constraints in dealing with the enemy. We must harm him, kill him if possible, remove his food and water supply, destroy his ability to resist - before he does the same to us. And we must accomplish victory by whatever means necessary to procure that end without suffering loss to our side.

It therefore becomes odd to start discerning between one type of act one might commit in war and another in such a context. To my mind, it is an atrocity in itself to hold that any aspect of war might be deemed lawful, let alone legal.

Is there really such a thing as "war crime", or is the whole of war by its nature an atrocity?

E
[/quote]

War will always be necessary as long as there are two people or more on this earth that don't agree 100% with each other. The whole war crimes thing is an attempt to bring some civility to something that can never really be. If i am at war i want to wipe the enemy completely away. You have a problem you eradicate it. Now that problem will not pop up again. The fact that war is ugly helps people to want to avoid it if at all possible. If you pretty it too much you make it a little more attractive to people who would otherwise not engage in it. To decide to go to war now you really have to have good reasons because of the potential losses you could have.



blacksword404 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 6:08:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Why is it wrong to shoot an enemy soldier who has surrendered but right to shoot him if one sneaks up and finds him looking the other way?

In both instances, he is at your mercy and unable to fight, either to attack or resist.

Why is it wrong to shoot civilians, but right to destroy and otherwise deny them food and water so that they starve to death?

In both instances, these are non-combatants, dead is dead.

I'm having problems seeing how one is "war crime" whilst the other is not, and how it can be that one can be justified through the use of the description "war crime" for the other.

E


If he has surrendered you have already taken all the weapons on him and made him as harmless as possible. He is not considered a threat. If you simply come upon him you shoot him before he shoots you. Because he has the same idea for you. You don't shoot civilians because they are are considered non-threats. Food has no owner. The enemy could come and take that food for themselves. You do not allow the enemy to strengthen themselves. That is the same as helping to kill yourself. And after your dead the enemy could still decide to take that food from civilians.



Aneirin -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 6:19:01 PM)

Killing is killing, and war is war, the purpose of war is to kill, either word is an atrocity and a failure of the human race.

How is it we have evolved so far in so many ways, but we still have wars and feel the need to kill people, despite our technical and intellectual advancement, how come is it though we know how fruitless a war is, do we continue to wage war, it's pathetic. In reality we are no better than our distant ancestors and when we can get over this organised and ' legal' killing thing, we may then move forward, evolve perhaps.

But war is not an excuse for the sick to indulge their thing, war is bad enough without the sick and the sick should be hunted and kept out of harms way, as all they are is criminals who have not yet been caught.



Lorr47 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 6:55:57 PM)

quote:

But war is not an excuse for the sick to indulge their thing, war is bad enough without the sick and the sick should be hunted and kept out of harms way, as all they are is criminals who have not yet been caught.


I am interpreting your "sick" persons to be those who allegedly commit war crimes.  How do they become sick?  The Marine Corps tears you  emotionally, intellectually and morally apart and rebuilds you in its image.  Then you are thrown into the cesspool of war where your opponent is trying to butcher you and your superiors will shoot you if you break and run.  You are running on adrenaline and anything else you can take on the premise of kill or be killed.  At some point you become the soul less zombie that the Corp intended; kill or be killed; do not question; do not think.  At some point you go insane.  That is why I would never under any circumstances charge anyone with a war crime below the rank of colonel.  Now, the politicians who started the war are another matter.  Off with their heads.



Aneirin -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 7:09:45 PM)

War does bad things to people, there is no doubt about that, and enlisting in a warrior force again does bad things to some. I know the breaking down of a person and the building back up into a fighting machine and I am aware of what that can do to some. But there is no excuse, no matter the damage to a person caused by the military brainwashing, to engage in sick actions to a foe, another human being. Not everyone is fit to become a soldier and it would help if all these intellects that can ascertain the psychology of a person do so with raw recruits, only select those that are likely to do the job and not enjoy it, not take it to extremes, just kill if they have to and be clean about it. I understand taking prisoners is a hindrance to most enemy forces, but it would be preferable to killing and it would act in a way to show the enemy that despite their firepower, they can be captured, a far better message to be sent than killing to cause resentment which perpetuates war.



blacksword404 -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 9:21:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Killing is killing, and war is war, the purpose of war is to kill, either word is an atrocity and a failure of the human race.

How is it we have evolved so far in so many ways, but we still have wars and feel the need to kill people, despite our technical and intellectual advancement, how come is it though we know how fruitless a war is, do we continue to wage war, it's pathetic. In reality we are no better than our distant ancestors and when we can get over this organised and ' legal' killing thing, we may then move forward, evolve perhaps.

But war is not an excuse for the sick to indulge their thing, war is bad enough without the sick and the sick should be hunted and kept out of harms way, as all they are is criminals who have not yet been caught.



There was a good reason hitler decided to go around Switzerland. Maybe all those militarily well trained citizens. If you want peace prepare for war. I hear people cry about war all the time. Peace is good but not every person on this earth wants to let you have it. Some can't be negotiated with, bargained with. At some point you have to choose. Fight or submit.



rexrgisformidoni -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 9:30:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

But war is not an excuse for the sick to indulge their thing, war is bad enough without the sick and the sick should be hunted and kept out of harms way, as all they are is criminals who have not yet been caught.


I am interpreting your "sick" persons to be those who allegedly commit war crimes.  How do they become sick?  The Marine Corps tears you  emotionally, intellectually and morally apart and rebuilds you in its image.  Then you are thrown into the cesspool of war where your opponent is trying to butcher you and your superiors will shoot you if you break and run.  You are running on adrenaline and anything else you can take on the premise of kill or be killed.  At some point you become the soul less zombie that the Corp intended; kill or be killed; do not question; do not think.  At some point you go insane.  That is why I would never under any circumstances charge anyone with a war crime below the rank of colonel.  Now, the politicians who started the war are another matter.  Off with their heads.




ummm...every active duty marine I have ever had the pleasure of meeting was possibly one of the most polite and non-zombieish person ever. They may be a bit full of themselves, but in my opinion, they have the right to be. My uncle was a Marine in WW2 and he is still proud of his days in boot camp and his unit in the war. Kill or be killed...thats basic human nature, instinct in all animals. Marines just happen to be highly trained and focused purveyors of that instinct. I also have never met a stupid Marine, as one of the told me, the stupid ones go home the first day.



Kirata -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 9:51:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

War will always be necessary as long as there are two people or more on this earth that don't agree 100% with each other.

I'm not sure you really mean this as written. But there it is, so I'll quibble with it. I've met, and lived (at various times) in the same dorm, building, or neighborhood with, and even worked for, people whose views and beliefs were not only different from my own, but extremely objectionable to me. Nevertheless, while never becoming social companions, we shared a respect for each other's right to hold the views we held, and treated each other in a way that acknowledged that respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

We must harm him, kill him if possible, remove his food and water supply, destroy his ability to resist - before he does the same to us.

The operative phrase is, "before he does the same to us." War is one of those things where it matters very much who started it. The only virtue in war is a willingness to stop if the other guy does. But with that, we have absolute absolution. Because then, whatever happens to him is by his own choosing.

K.




philosophy -> RE: "war crime" - an atrocity in itself? (10/19/2008 10:56:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

If i am at war i want to wipe the enemy completely away.


.....and if i am at war my aim is to neutralise my enemy as a danger to me. While my aim can have, as one its methods, your idea of war....it also includes a lot of other stuff. i would also argue it has the added benefit of making wars less prolonged and less likely.

....edited for a missing g



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02