War Crimes - Historum

**okamido** · May 5th, 2012, 06:25 PM

What constitutes war crimes in modern-day warfare?

**bunyip** · May 5th, 2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okamido

What constitutes war crimes in modern-day warfare?

That depends entirely on whom you ask.

One man's 'collateral damage' is another man's war crimes.

**okamido** · May 5th, 2012, 06:50 PM

That's the beauty of this forum....lots of differing opinions.

**Bish** · May 5th, 2012, 08:29 PM

Anything that violates the Geneva Conventions. There are things that people may think as war crimes, accidentally killing civilians for example. But the rules of war are clearly laid down and you can't put someone on trial on what some people may believe is wrong.

**Belgarion** · May 5th, 2012, 08:36 PM

Anything the press or some other party doesn't like.

rehabnonono · May 5th, 2012, 09:44 PM

Every army does it, some more than others. Some have it institutionalized and enshrined proudly in their code of practice. World War Two era Japan and Germany come to mind (although if the Germans respected your nationality/race, they tended to treat you well) with the Japanese particularly psychopathic. Today it is predominantly African warlords bent on control of resources that are guilty of war crimes against civilians particularly children, recruiting a good part of their armies from their defeated opponents villages.

War crimes generally regard treatment of civilians, medicos and surrendered combatants... Of course realpolitik dictates only the loser faces prosecution at tribunals. Some believe war crimes like the WW2 bombing of live cities to be morally superior to losing the war, given the brutality of their opponents. Although this argument depends on the desperation of any given situation and whether it was likely that the bombings would actually decide the outcome.

What is going on today with drones in soverign Pakistan can probably be construed as war crimes, considering it is almost impossible to fire missiles into populated areas and not kill civilians. But then the flying of commercial jets into skyscrapers was something we had not needed to deal with before...

The difficulty in defining war crimes is just like the way different people experienced that event. For many (not all) Moslems, it was cause for celebration, for people watching... horror, and for those in the buildings it was 100,000 liters of jet fuel on fire, pouring down the stairwells. Ask the survivors about war crimes.

**bunyip** · May 6th, 2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Anything that violates the Geneva Conventions.

If that was the case the US would currently be in deep doo doo doo.

**tjadams** · May 6th, 2012, 06:02 AM

I can see today's largest world powers almost being totally immune from
anyone bringing war crimes against them. It always seems as if the large
powers always do the finger pointing at someone else.

rehabnonono · May 6th, 2012, 06:11 AM

Bish wrote:

Quote:

Anything that violates the Geneva Conventions.
Bunyip writes
If that was the case the US would currently be in deep doo doo doo.

The ICC is currently recognized as the world's war crimes tribunal. Yet the US military is not subject to any formal charge there. Yet saying that does not mean that they have not committed war crimes...

Quote:

War crimes can be prosecuted through the War Crimes Act of 1996 in the United States, but the US government does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC over its military forces

The US can prosecute, but not be prosecuted...

**Bish** · May 6th, 2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunyip

If that was the case the US would currently be in deep doo doo doo.

Not really. Theres a difference between what constitutes a war crime and who is punhished for them. In most cases its only the loser which pays. In the case of the US, they are to big to be brought to book.