Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 6 July 2006

Move 2003

Any objection to moving this to war-crime? Lirath Q. Pynnor 04:39, 22 October 2003 (UTC)

I have no preference between "war crime" and "war-crime" as a title, but if you move it, be sure to change all the links in pages on "What links here". -- Infrogmation 05:34, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have a definite preference. "war crime" is a noun, "war-crime" a modifier, as in "war-crime tribunal". 142.177.22.22 20:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush

"Condemnation" is not charging. We're talking about people who've actually gone to trial here. Meelar 06:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

You're going to need a better source than an off-handed comment by Chomsky to place someone in a shortlist of of war criminals. I can't find a primary source for this or even a decent secondary source. The International Court of Justice (World Court) does not list any case whatever involving the U.S. and Panama and a search of their site does not even mention Bush's name. Further, even if there were a case (which there isn't) the WC decides complaints between nations, it doesn't try individuals. Cecropia 04:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Quick Google search gives: , , , , ... I guess that WC archives don't go back to 1986. Nikola 05:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I've done a lot of research in my life and have discovered that all you need is one bad citation that is then picked up over and over, especially by partisans, which describes the sources you're giving, some of which don't even mention the alleged incident and none giving a primary source. If six people repeat a lie it doesn't make it less a lie. The point is I went to the primary source, and it just isn't there. -- Cecropia 05:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The International Court of Justice Records go back to 1947 with UK vs Albania. I'll comment that Chomsky seems to "know" many things that noone else has heard of. If you see him say something, you should look for a primary source. -- Cecropia 05:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky: The first thing you ought to do is verify what I present. Just because I say it doesn't make it true. So check it out, see what looks correct, what looks wrong, look at other material which wasn't discussed, figure out what the truth really is. That's what you've got a brain for. What's the source you're refering to? Could you put a link here, please? If not, I'll pick it up in a little while. Mr. Jones 11:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Original cite came from the now-banned User:Troll Silent, Troll Deep. Meelar 04:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

? I can't see him ever editing the article? Nikola 05:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Meeler, please provide evidence for this assertion. Mr. Jones 11:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should there be a list of (percieved?) war crimes?

Should there be a page listing cases which appear, or are possibly perceived by many individuals, to be war crimes?

I think this would be a worthwhile project. For one thing, its not information collated elsewhere. For another it might make people think. I'd like to add this, but solicit other opinions first. FT2 16:18, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Page now added War crimes list FT2 16:18, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Definition is incorrect

There are a number of inaccuracies with this article. First off, it defines war crimes incorrectly. If it, unfortunately, not true that "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The laws of armed conflict ('international humanitarian law' or IHL) consist of many rules that bind the behavior of states, but only some rules are considered serious enough that they lead to criminal prosecution of individuals. It is that subset of violations of IHL that can be considered war crimes. Also, the article refers to war crimes as being part of human rights law; as described above, they are part of IHL, which is actually a separate body of international law, though of course they have complementary interests.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.43.152.127 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The errors above should be fixed. In addition, I don't know that the distinction between internal and international armed conflict is necessary any longer. Violations of IHL committed during a purely internal armed conflict may not be considered Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions, but they will almost certainly fall under Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Conventions) or as violations of the laws and customs of war (previously customary international law, but now codified in the Rome Statute).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.156.208.239 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

The discussion below has been copied here by MrJones at 10:56, 22 December 2004

Nowhere in this article is any mention of a count of deaths of Iraqi police, soldiers and recruits. Nor is there a count of civilian deaths caused by reactionary forces operating in Iraq. I've scoured the internet and find nothing. Maybe these victims are not important?! Also, the statistics at this site would mean more if there were some comparisons (or links to such), such as the number of civilian deaths caused by the Allied D-Day invasion in combating Fascism, that is, to recent wars. According to the above statement, the Allies would have been responsible for French deaths, oddly insinuating that the war against Hitler would have been somehow illegal. Also, the statistics seem for many here more important than the idealogy behind the "insurgents". No interest in that, ....? Whyerd 19:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, killing traitors and collaborators is part of any liberation move. Also, it's pathetic to use comparisons with WWII in order to support the Iraq war propaganda. It shows how desperate the imperialist aggressors really are. And the ideology behind the freedom fighters (or "insurgents" like you call them) is to liberate their country from a violent foreign aggressor and illegal occupier, nothing more, nothing less.

Certainly there have been criticisms of the allies for bombing German civilians, yes. Noam Chomsky has described the principles of the Nuremberg courts thus:

... you have to ask yourself what was called a "war crime"? How did they decide what was a war crime at Nuremberg and Tokyo? And the answer is pretty simple, and not very pleasant. There was a criterion. Kind of like an operational criterion. If the enemy had done it and couldn't show that we had done it, then it was a war crime. So like bombing of urban concentrations was not concidered a war crime because we had done it more than the Germans and Japanese. ... Bombing Dresden is not a war crime because we did it.

And that formed the basis for the UN conventions, for the Geneva convention; the trials an Nuremburg, etc. However, it can be argued that every president has violated those rules: (Search for "I've done that in print a couple of times.") From his point of view, it's then not surprising that the President disregards the UN.

This doesn't belong here. I'm going to post it here then move it to Talk:war crime.

Mr. Jones 10:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no lack of interest, it's just not the subject of this article. There's lots of info about the insurgents at Iraqi resistance. As for certain counts not appearing in this article, the problem is, they don't exist (as you've seen by scouring the internet). We can't give counts that aren't known. Neow 22:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Heads of state?

The reference to heads of state seems incorrect. Tojo, for instance, was surely not the head of state in Japan -- that would have been the Emperor. Similarly for the German example.

Bathrobe 03:12, 3 April 2005 (UTC)

Peace Crimes

Recently there have also appeared testimonies of "peace crimes" committed against the Nazi children in the peace time after the war, after 1945, as part of the victors' celebration. These peace crimes reflect the complexity of justice when the winners' mentality dominates in international criminal tribunals.

Does this belong? What are "Peace Crimes"? Why blur the distinction between War Crimes and other acts of barbarism in the middle of an article on war crimes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axamoto (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 April 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm concerned that the last paragraph may not be NPOV, because it seems to imply not merely that the dropping of the atom bombs and the treatment of the East Timorese may have been war crimes, but that they were. Donald Ian Rankin 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been edited, but I'm not sure if such alleged examples should be mentioned at all. Shawnc 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I've noticed that there have been multiple instances where someone has put George W. Bush's biography at whitehouse.gov. I removed the link, just thought that you might want to keep an eye on it. - Richard Evan 11:13, 9 December 2005

Is the Hussein trial a war-crimes tribunal?

I was under the impression that Hussein is being tried locally under Iraqi law, not as part of a UN-sanctioned war-crimes tribunal. --Delirium 06:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not a war crime tribunal. The murder of your own civilians by the government is murder, not a war crime. It's also being described as "crimes against humanity." That may be an accurate statement, but it doesn't have much legal meaning.

Also, as a technical point, the UN does not have to sanction war-crimes tribunals. -- Cecropia 07:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that Hussein's trial is not taking place at the Hague. As a side note the proceedings are similar, but not the same as the Hague's as well. Iflipti 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Event Section

I'm putting back in the links to the recent events in Iraq. Mr Adequate, if you have any objections to this, don't just delete the links as that violates Misplaced Pages policy. You must justify why it is "not appropriate" to have these external links. And your justification has to be better than that you don't like the wording or format, cause that can be changed. Every article about ongoing wold events has a recent event section, and the links I have provided are highly newsworthy. Furthermore, video by definition is not biased in any way. Video cameras record the actual events that happen by reading the actual photons and sound waves produced. So no bull about the camera lying.

Futhermore, both America and Britian have equated the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq. Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with them, it is clearly true that the two are influencing each other. So these links do provide important information about the so called war on terror. In fact, the video shows exactly why "they" hate "us".

If you want to present your own personal point of view and biases go ahead. But do NOT delete the objective, hard video footage that I'm putting back on the page. Add your own links if you want to paint a rosey picture of the war on terror. But leave the undesputable facts in! I will take this up with administrators if necessary. And quite frankly it makes Misplaced Pages look bad if there is blantant censorship in an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MithraApollo (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with user:Mr Adequate on this one. This is an inappropriate place to add such material, I would suggest another location on wikipedia.

Although this one single event may consitute a war crime, the article tends to focus on large, international events, such as entire wars, or the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Although to the individuals involved, the acts of Imperialist US and British troops when they attack civilians is a war crime, I don't think anyone here could agree that those acts are on the scale of say Indonesia's slaughter of East Timor or the dropping of the atomic bomb. The bombing of Iraqi water plants during gulf war I is probably a "war crime" as defined in this article, or the torture memos of Bush is a "war crime" as defined in this article, or Guantanemo Bay and the Secret worldwide prisons is a "war crime" as defined in this article, or the sanctions against Iraqis which killed 500,000 people may be a "war crime" as defined in this article.

But a couple of soldiers beating the shit out of some civilians, and even killing them, although a war crime, does not effect the same number of people on the same scale as the events above.

I think what user:Mr Adequate may be saying is that the title, although not explicitly listed as LARGE war crime, if you read the article, the title is implicitly LARGE war crime. Does this make sense.

Listing every single event in a war which happened between individual soldiers makes the article weaker because it delutes the defintion of "War crime".

Don't get me wrong, the events you listed should be heard, and punished, but they unfortunatly have no place here on war crime. I suggest making a link under "see also" on this page, and adding your comments and links on another wikisite, focusing on this shameful event.Travb 09:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq:Investigation of "War Crimes" Complaints

Given the controversy which any mentions of "war crimes" in relation to the invasion of Iraq has generated during the progressive development of this article overtime, I thought it necessary to go into considerable depth about the nature of the complaints made to the prosecutor of the ICC, and to quote at length from his reasoning. Proividing a summary or account of the matter would be more appropriate given that now this section somewhat dominates the article . However to do so at this stage would simply generate another bout of editing, and re-editing, as the rival factions objected to one interpretation or another. I trust, in time, a synopsis may be considered more acceptable, and the more detailed account here can be transfered to an article specifically dedicated to that subject on its own.

It is worth noting in the context of the material presented, that the Prosecutor's investigation was of a preliminary kind, with a view to deciding whether he would go to the court in order to seek authority to carry out a full investigation. . One of the advanatges which the prosecutors report or conclusion at this stage presents, is that it did not involve "naming" individuals as prospective or putative "war criminals". In so far as this section of the article does not name individuals, I hope that it may restrain individuals who might otherwise be moved to edit, and re-edit it.

Finally it is worth noting that the prosecutor's investigations were principally concerned the actions of nationals of parties to the statute. The United States is not a party to the statute. However, some of the communications complained that nationals of state parties may have been accessories to crimes committed by nationals of non-States Parties . Under the ICC statute this is a "war crime" founded on accessorial liabilty In footnote 10 of his letter he says

the available information provided a reasonable basis with respect to a limited number of incidents of war crimes by nationals of States Parties, but not with respect to any particular incidents of indirect participation in war crimes.

This means he did not find a reasonable basis to proceed against nationals of state parties on the basis of complicity in war crimes carried out by non state parties. It is not a finding that war crimes were not carried out by non state parties. He did not express a conclusion on that matter since that was not within his competence.Diranh 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UCT)

Hello Diranh, your comments, although probably valid, are too detailed for me to devote massive amounts of time too when this is simply a hobby. If I read and dissected your above message, it would feel must to like work or school work.

That said, I am going to remove myself from the war crimes wikipage, and let you and others edit away.

The word "war crimes" is a POV magnet, and like the entries about American imperailism, it does not foster analytical study, but converts for and against.

See: American Empire (term)--although looing at it for the first time in months, it looks like other wikiusers have completely watered down and destroyed the original entry I added from the book Benevolent Assimilation. (Grr...more "work")Travb 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See List of war crimes#2003-2004: 2003 Invasion of Iraq, (USA and "Coalition of the Willing") for more details and references on this issue --Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Winners

Have the winners of wars ever been convicted of war crimes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.48.187 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes often. They are usually held under a court martial, and those found guilty are usually guilty of breaches of their own military code. See also Victor's justice#Allegations of victor's justice usually the losers, if guilty of war crimes are also found guilty of crimes by their own legal systems. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jurusdiction?

Interesting term; shouldn't this be jurisdiction?