This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OtterSmith (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 1 June 2006 (asking questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:31, 1 June 2006 by OtterSmith (talk | contribs) (asking questions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
War crime
Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime. I do not understand why we need to be obtuse by including "may constitue." The only thing we can say is they "may" be innocent. However, if they are found guilty of willfully killing civilians, by definition they are guilty of war crimes.
Nomen Nescio 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nescio, I am as keen not to exonerate war criminals as you are. If they did what's alleged and there are no extenuating circumstances (and no, I can't think of anything myself) then yes, a war crime has occurred. However, I think it's very important that we not display any bias in such a sensitive situation, and not pre-judge any court cases which might result. That said, I'll let your reversion stand, although I suspect others might feel the need to change it. — JEREMY 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.
Nomen Nescio 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- you're missing the point. whether the story is true or not, the act is a war crime. what is in question is whether they did it or not. the qualifier is in the wrong place.
- I agree. This is neither the time nor the place for the words of the weasel. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The solution might be to quote the Geneva Conventions and the ICCP, and other human rights treaties that the United States and Iraq have signed. You could then write about how a massacre would have violated these treaties if one did indeed occur (as seems to be the case) --Descendall 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This is neither the time nor the place for the words of the weasel. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- you're missing the point. whether the story is true or not, the act is a war crime. what is in question is whether they did it or not. the qualifier is in the wrong place.
- I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.
"Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime." Not really. During WW2, allied forces bombed Japan and Germany and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians intentionally. Under the "victors justice" of the war crimes trials we conducted, this was never considered war crimes. Churchill and Truman were never indicted as were the German and Japanese leaders, even though the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were intended to kill as many civilians as possible, as were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similarly, under generally used rules of engagement, enemy soldiers cannot use civilians as human shields and fire at opposing forces without fear of return fire under the principle that the return fire would be intentionally directed at civilians, if it was in the form of artillery or bombing which cannot distinguish who in the target area is killed. It may well be wrong, bad, shocking, and immoral, but where has it been treated in a civilian or military court as a war crime? The difference seems to be that the bombing or artillery are "death from a distance" or wholesale murder, as contrasted with close up gunshots to the head, or retail murder. Edison 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the attorney general says:
- "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
it doesn't really matter what that quaint old treaty says. I'm sure the 24 massacred iraqis are feeling very liberated right now. Whoo hoo, mission accomplished! Funkyj 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Some observations
- The fact that after WW II no allies were prosecuted for war crimes does not prove they did not commit any. It only proves that victor's justice was implemented. This argument clearly is a logical fallacy.
- As to all the war crimes for which nobody has been indicted, this again does not prove they were not committed. It shows that politics is a very important part of getting indicted. Example, even if Bush is culpable for war crimes (torture, war of aggression, et cetera) it is certain he will never stand trial for political and not for legal reasons. Heck, every investigation into possible violation of US and international law has been frustrated (NSA no investigation, torture no investigation, discrepancy arguments for invading Iraq and then finding none were tru no investigation, et cetera).
- If killing civilians is not a war crime, please explain what made My Lai a war crime.
- How the war on terror is a new kind of war is beyond me. Terrorism is thousands of years old. All these years the world apparently was capable of countering terrorism with using police and criminal laws. Now, all of a sudden something has changed! Please, explain the difference between AQ and the IRA, PLO, ETA, FARC, et cetera. Nomen Nescio 07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the others, but the Royal Marines deployed to Ireland throughout the latter half of the 20th century might dispute your characterization of them as "police".
- Terrorism, while not new in the 2000-year scheme, is new to the Western way of thinking, specifically, the way of thinking that spawned your "laws of war". The Geneva conventions were an attempt to codify warfare between nation-states of similar values, resulting in crap like this:
The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts....
- Needless to say, such conventions are no longer shared on today's battlefield.....if they ever were.
- --Mmx1 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the killings of civilians by IEDs and car bombs war crimes, even if those killings are not committed by coalition forces? htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What does an Iraqi civilian look like?
Is this a picture of an Iraqi civilian?
Is this a story describing an Iraqi civilian?
A child thought to be just ten years old, wearing an explosives belt, has died in a roadside explosion at the al-Quds intersection, near the oil rich city of Kirkuk. The 'suicide' attack occurred as a car carrying a senior Iraqi police official, Colonel Khatab, passed by.
Could someone describe an Iraqi civilian and differentiate that person from an Insurgent.... Jeravicious 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, that's not a picture of an Iraqi civilian, it's a picture of a Jordanian suicide bomber. --Descendall 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, Descendall, that is a picture of an Iraqi woman who travelled to Jordan, along with other Iraqis, in order to commit a suicide bombing...but she failed. Perhaps you missed that story. Jeravicious 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- AMMAN, Jordan - The Iraqi wife of a suicide bomber made a chilling confession on Jordanian state TV Sunday, saying she also tried to blow herself up during a hotel wedding reception last week but the explosives concealed under her denim dress failed to detonate.
- Oh. If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question? --Descendall 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- AMMAN, Jordan - The Iraqi wife of a suicide bomber made a chilling confession on Jordanian state TV Sunday, saying she also tried to blow herself up during a hotel wedding reception last week but the explosives concealed under her denim dress failed to detonate.
- Attempting to justify or diminish war crimes on the basis of incompetence or necessity is seriously offensive. Please don't use wikipedia as a soapbox for your extremist views. — JEREMY 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, so the wikipedians who are zealously tagging the subjects of this investigation with a premature and unfounded "war crimes" category are, what, noble servants of the ICC? Everyone's got an agenda. --Mmx1 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice attempt at avoiding my question...I'll try another way. The article starts with the sentence "The Haditha massacre is a massacre of civilians reportedly committed by United States Marines on ". I think it is entirely relevant to ask how a Marine in Iraq should differentiate between a civilian and the "enemy". Is a civilian a woman or child who doesn't try to blow the Marine up? (btw, I like how you label me as extremist...I show you a picture of an Iraqi woman suicide bomber and post a story of a 10 year old Iraqi bomber...and I'm the extremist...forgive me.) Jeravicious 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- First, there is no doubt this massacre constitutes a war crime. I don't see why we shouldn't call it that. As to the difficulty in recognizing civilians, tough luck. The US started this war, it is their duty to ensure the safety of civilians under the rules of war. Or, are you suggesting to shoot everybody that isn't wearing a US uniform (which is exactly what US soldiers have been doing, hence the antipathy against them)? Nomen Nescio 10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- That is a pretty bold statement to make seeing as how you are nice in comfortable in front of your computer. I would ask you to strike that last comment.--Looper5920 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't doubt occupying a country is hard work. However, you must be aware of British, Dutch, Australian, et cetera, troops complaining about the "shoot first, think later" mentality? Every incident (remember shooting the wounded Iraq soldier) results in similar comments. It doesn't prove anything, but one does wonder why people are sying it. Nomen Nescio 11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't doubt occupying a country is hard work. However, you must be aware of British, Dutch, Australian, et cetera, troops complaining about the "shoot first, think later" mentality? Every incident (remember shooting the wounded Iraq soldier) results in similar comments. It doesn't prove anything, but one does wonder why people are sying it.
- That is a pretty bold statement to make seeing as how you are nice in comfortable in front of your computer. I would ask you to strike that last comment.--Looper5920 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- First, there is no doubt this massacre constitutes a war crime. I don't see why we shouldn't call it that. As to the difficulty in recognizing civilians, tough luck. The US started this war, it is their duty to ensure the safety of civilians under the rules of war. Or, are you suggesting to shoot everybody that isn't wearing a US uniform (which is exactly what US soldiers have been doing, hence the antipathy against them)?
- Nice attempt at avoiding my question...I'll try another way. The article starts with the sentence "The Haditha massacre is a massacre of civilians reportedly committed by United States Marines on ". I think it is entirely relevant to ask how a Marine in Iraq should differentiate between a civilian and the "enemy". Is a civilian a woman or child who doesn't try to blow the Marine up? (btw, I like how you label me as extremist...I show you a picture of an Iraqi woman suicide bomber and post a story of a 10 year old Iraqi bomber...and I'm the extremist...forgive me.) Jeravicious 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Again , those forces are in parts of Iraq where there is little to no resistance. Their wonderful peacekeeping skills are not why there is little violence in southern Iraq...it is the population. As far as those county's troops "complaining" about "shoot first, think later" I only recall only one British general speaking up and I had seruious issues with his arguments/arrogance. Like you said it does not prove anything and as far as wondering... people can wonder all they want, that still does not give you the right to say that all US soldiers/Marines are shooting everyone not in US uniform. Again I ask you to retract the statement. --Looper5920 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not all, but then again: ! Nomen Nescio 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not all, but then again: !
- Again , those forces are in parts of Iraq where there is little to no resistance. Their wonderful peacekeeping skills are not why there is little violence in southern Iraq...it is the population. As far as those county's troops "complaining" about "shoot first, think later" I only recall only one British general speaking up and I had seruious issues with his arguments/arrogance. Like you said it does not prove anything and as far as wondering... people can wonder all they want, that still does not give you the right to say that all US soldiers/Marines are shooting everyone not in US uniform. Again I ask you to retract the statement. --Looper5920 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
About the State of Forces Agreement (SOFA):
Have you a link? I don't see it on the US State Dep't website http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/54265.htm (...which doesn't mean it doesn't exist...).
While, indeed, a SOFA is very common, I query whether the existing Iraqi gov't has got it together enough to accede to one. Even without a SOFA, the chances of this Iraq gov't prosecuting Americans for anything at all is pratically nil. 216.254.10.236 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn
Categories
I recently added Category:Spree shootings, which was removed as "incorrect - does not fit". What I am trying to categorise is the way that this incident, and the My Lai massacre are different from the other war crimes. What they have in common is that they were committed by soldiers using guns on unarmed civilians. Is there not a way to categorise this? Carcharoth 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is properly categorized under war crimes. The category Spree shootings refers to civilian massacres. If you wanted to apply the category Spree shootings to military events then you need to be prepared to add every battle since the invention of the rifle to the list. Please keep the military incidents separate.--Looper5920 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is properly categorised under war crimes. But "war crimes" is a very broad umbrella - I am trying to narrow the focus into suitable subcategories. About your definition of spree shootings, I am not so sure that spree shootings are exclusively civilian-civilian shootings, but I agree that at the moment that is how that category functions. Many of them are also lone gunmen or pairs of gunmen.
- About my supposed intention to "apply the category Spree shootings to military events" - I have no intention of applying the category spree shootings indiscriminately to military events, and fail to see how you have formed that impression. I will repeat what I said initially: "...this incident, and the My Lai massacre are different from the other war crimes. What they have in common is that they were committed by soldiers using guns on unarmed civilians. Is there not a way to categorise this?" This makes clear that I am trying to distinguish different war crimes. I am trying to find a way to subdivide war crimes, not relabel them as something different. I hope this makes things a bit clearer, and avoids any further misunderstandings. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from but the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category. I think at this point it may be premature. If you are willing to do the reasearch and really tackle the topic you may be able to get 60 but I think it will be tough. I would say leave it as is for now and wait for the topic to mature.--Looper5920 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You say "the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category" - I've never encountered this before. I have seen many, many categories where such a restrictive, even prescriptive rule makes no sense what so ever. Can you point me to some guideline stating this "60 article" rule? Thanks. Carcharoth 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that is for stub cats, not regular cats. youngamerican (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems entirely possible that there could be a soldier or Marine or insurgent or terrorist who became a spree killer, either in some particular action or alongside it, where the spree killing might be unobserved. htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think that is for stub cats, not regular cats. youngamerican (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You say "the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category" - I've never encountered this before. I have seen many, many categories where such a restrictive, even prescriptive rule makes no sense what so ever. Can you point me to some guideline stating this "60 article" rule? Thanks. Carcharoth 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from but the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category. I think at this point it may be premature. If you are willing to do the reasearch and really tackle the topic you may be able to get 60 but I think it will be tough. I would say leave it as is for now and wait for the topic to mature.--Looper5920 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Name of article
I think that the M in massacre should be capitalised. It is in My Lai Massacre. --Descendall 13:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- See List of massacres to see how consistent the naming policy has been. Carcharoth 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
reopened?
The article says:
- In March 2006, the U.S. military reopened an investigation
that implies that the investigation was closed/finished. Can someone cite a source for this claim? Are there any official documents that say "case closed"? Funkyj 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- My very limited understanding is that there are or were at least four investigations: 1) an after-action documentation by a different USMC unit; 2) an investigation that started in January or February; 3) an NCIS investigation that started after that; and 4) an Army investigation that started after either 2) or 3). I have not heard that any of them were "closed", although the first might be, if all they did was take photos and leave. htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)