Talk:War crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Validity/ Accuracy

Don't get me wrong but I believe this topic is useless. Reason for my saying - History has shown War crime is a Assignation Tool at the hands of Victor. Some of you may not like it ( Am not biased against anyone) however most people / generals who have been accused and tried of War crimes have been from defeated armies. There has never been a case in history when Soldiers or politicians from any Country like USA or UK ( just to name few) have been tried of a War Crime - Even though there has been an ample proof of war crime by soldiers or politicians from these countries. If you ask me Use of 1) ATOM bomb against innocent civilians in Japan is the biggest war crime - who got convicted ? No one. 2) The use of Naplam on civilians in Vietnam & Korea by US troops also amount to war crimes not to mention the long list of crimes conducted by these countries (especially the soldiers during operations since then).

What can be done is we can make this particular topic genuine and forceful by listing down GENUINE and proven acts of War Crimes and their outcome irrespective of which country was involved. Sorry to have taken so much space. By User Dimitrz

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimitrz (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... 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)

[edit] 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)

This would be pointless. Almost any major head of state or high-ranking military officer in time of war would be accused as a war criminal for decisions made in the heat of battle and for technical errors.

Saddam Hussein surely considered President George Bush ("41") a war criminal for attacking Iraqi forces in the liberation of Kuwait. Adolf Hitler surely considered Sir Winston Churchill a war criminal for resiting him. --Paul from Michigan 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


As a rule war crimes are those significant criminal acts that civilian leadership or high-ranking military officers have organized, tolerated, or covered up. A deed might qualify as a war crime because it is a criminal act committed by a soldier -- but prosecution in accordance with recognized courts-martial makes the qualification moot. War crimes almost as a rule involve a national entity or a rebel force that begins to act as a criminal entity.

Crimes against one's own people (let us say the Dujjail massacre for which Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death, the Holodomor, or the mass death in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge) are not war crimes unless the military or a para-military has a role in them. In contrast, the Anfal campaign (gassing the Kurds)is an unambiguous war crime because of the use of military forces and military weapons (even if the chemical weapons are banned under international law). The Holocaust is a war crime to the extent that paramilitary forces (the SS, especially) were used in controlling people and killing them, and civilians knowledgeable of the nature of the activity who participated in any way -- which would include police agencies (the Gestapo) and the foreign ministry. Civilians become culpable in war crimes if they participate in them, advocate them (thus Julius Streicher), or protect the culpable from lawful prosecution (which would apply to courts-martial that in accordance with orders from above excuse criminal activities).

Massacres under military supervision or mistreatment of captured soldiers (including summary executions, lynchings, or torture) makes one a war criminal even if one is a civilian. Responsibilities exist toward prisoners of war and persons who become subject to the rule of occupying powers -- such as ensuring the reasonable safety of an occupied people's lives, property, most basic freedoms, and culture consistent with the maintenance of order and the rule of law. Military officers who violate that assumption through deliberate or reckless acts are war criminals, and civilians who place themselves in culpability by giving criminal orders or participating in criminal acts of soldiers (such as in systematic looting) become war criminals. A civilian collaborator from an occupied country who participates in war crimes might be considered a [treason|traitor] as well as a war criminal should he be captured by the political entity whose people he has betrayed.

As a rule, most countries have considerable control, at least nominal, of the armed forces, selecting upper officers as much for their morals as for their competence, sharply delimiting the activities that soldiers can do, and putting tight controls on military weapons.

That a criminal act of a soldier is prosecuted in accordance with the legal code of the political entity that he has sworn to serve makes a trial as a war criminal for which a 'lone wolf' or 'criminal gang' moot; codes of military justice are usually quite unforgiving to those who violate the trust of the armed forces with overt crimes.--Paul from Michigan 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul from Michigan said "As a rule war crimes are those significant criminal acts that civilian leadership or high-ranking military officers have organized, tolerated, or covered up."
The acts must be committed during an "armed conflict" to be a "war crime" diran 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: [6](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)

[edit] 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)

Hideki Tojo was Prime Minister of the Empire of Japan; Japan was then (as now) a constitutional monarchy. He was as much the leader of Japan as was Benito Mussolini in Italy -- or, for that matter, Sir Winston Churchill in the UK -- Prime Minister. That a King or Emperor was formal Head of State does not change the fact that the Prime Minister wielded the final power except under extreme circumstances (such as complete collapse). Head of State in the Soviet Union at the same time would have been Mikhail Kalinin, formal President of the USSR -- but the real power in the Soviet Union was of course the Party boss Josef Stalin.

You can trust that had the Nazis won the war, Sir Winston Churchill, had he survived and not fled capture, would have been first on the list of persons to be tried for whatever charges the Nazis could have come up with. Likewise Stalin would have been so treated, and Kalinin would have been small fry. --Paul from Michigan 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
They should definitely be mentioned as examples of unpunished war crimes, because that is what they are. There is nothing subjective about that. There is no question that the deliberate targeting, and subsequent mass murder, of enemy civilians during a war is a war crime. The fact that no-one, for whatever reason, has ever been charged or convicted in relation to these events does not alter this fact. (When someone is murdered, the event itself it is not an "alleged murder" or "perceived murder" until a conviction is obtained. It is a "murder" and remains so regardless of whether or not the police ever arrest someone in relation to it.)
In a sense, war crimes are a bit like acts of terrorism: too many of us have a problem with an objective definition because it makes us uncomfortable. It forces us to face truths we would rather not face. It is much easier, instead, to define war crimes (and acts of terrorism for that matter) not by the nature of the act itself, but by who the perpetrator is - and there is nothing objective about that.
Suffice to say these events belong here as examples of war crimes that remain unpunished.59.167.59.181 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Keir.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

The fact that a trial is not taking place in The Hague or in a multinational judicial body is not, in itself, proof that it doesn't relate to war crimes. See Cases before the International Criminal Court - DRCongo for examples of war criminals who have been sentenced under local courts. My understanding is that Hussein has been charged with war crimes in connection with the invasion of Kuwait. AndrewRT - Talk 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
After further research I've found the info here: Trial of Saddam Hussein. He is currently being tried only for the Dujail massacre, which is included as a crime against humanity; however he is also indicted for war crimes connected with the invasion of Kuwait which may be tried at a later date. Hence I think we're right to keep him in here. AndrewRT - Talk 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein was of course convicted only for the Dujjail massacre, a domestic perversion of justice not involved with any war or the use of military forces; he was hanged for that crime even though he was under indictment for other crimes, including the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, a campaign involving the use of military forces. That he would have been convicted of other offenses, including the invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and that those would have qualified as capital crimes, is now moot because he has since been executed.

Speculation on whether Saddam Hussein would have been convicted of war crimes as ordinarily understood in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals is now moot; like Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Josef Goebbels, he did not survive to be tried for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, or conventional war crimes. Saddam Hussein did not survive to be tried for war crimes for a different reason: he was convicted of something else.

Others may yet be tried for such crimes in Iraq; in view of the political structure of the former fascist Iraq any convictions of Saddam Hussein's subordinates can only demonstrate Saddam Hussein's culpability. --Paul from Michigan 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One of Saddam Hussein's lieutenants, Chemical Ali, has been convicted of war crimes relating to the Anfal campaign against the Kurds and has been sentenced to death by hanging. Chemical Ali can be considered, in contrast to Saddam Hussein, of having been convicted of a war crime. --Paul from Michigan 03:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also being described as "crimes against humanity." That may be an accurate statement, but it doesn't have much legal meaning.

In so far as this intends to say that there is no such thing in law as a "crimes against humanity" it is clearly wrong - for example see Articles 5 and 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm diran 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
I'm sorry, but frankly such a distinction is grotesque and smacks of trying to justify or excuse events such as the Abu Ghraib war crimes by comparing them with other events. There is absolutely no reason to exclude certain war crimes on the basis that they are "small scale" and therefore apparently not worthy of a mention. Where do you draw the line? Such action is definitely subjective and to be honest, ridiculous.59.167.59.181Keir.

[edit] 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 [in terms of proportion]. 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. [That is the process which the ICC statute sets out]. 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 [most notably the United Kingdom] may have been accessories to crimes committed by nationals of non-States Parties [i.e. the Unired States]. Under the ICC statute this is a "war crime" founded on accessorial liabilty [aiding, abetting etc.] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

I am taking out the line the US led invasion of Iraq was illeagle. That is POV and adds nothing to the article. I also took out the line that accuses Israel of using using phophorous weapons because it had no source. This article is full of bias and seems more than happy to blame the US and Israel with out even contemplating to list any of the crimes of their enemies. --Soccergo9

[edit] Jurusdiction?

Interesting term; shouldn't this be jurisdiction? I've changed it, but if I were mistaken, feel free to undo...

[edit] International Law

Joe 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)I have added the book by Aryeh Neier on War Crimes, as it is one of the best summaries of the development in recent international law covering the period from the Neuremberg Tribunals to around 1990's to 2000. Besides just the legal treatment, it shows the trend of thinking in international law, and it may well be an invaluable secondary text to help explain this branch of law. I would think that any judge in this area would have had to have read this book.

[edit] POV

I have taken out the statement by Samabar because it lumps together all Japanese troops and ascribes to them en masse a lack of regret for having raped asian women. The CNN article [7] cited points to a rather more complicated set of arguments. Armeria 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist war crimes category?

There are Category:Nazi war crimes and Category:Japanese war crimes. But I could not find Category:Communist war crimes or Category:Soviet war crimes. Should they be created? For example, Przyszowice massacre and Red Army atrocities probably belong there. Do we need a more general Category:Communist repressions that would also include peace time repressions? Any thoughts? Biophys 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so for two reasons. First, communist is too broad a descriptor, one might also just as easily suggest that one needs a category examining "capitalist repressions". Secondly your suggestion that the inclusion of such a category would allow for or also include "peace-time repressions", makes little sense in the context of an article concerned with the notion of a "War Crime" which by definition can only be committed when the threshold requirement that it takes place during an "armed conflict" aka "War" as recognised/defined/interpreted by International Humanitarian Law/Laws of War, is satisfied. Diranh 18:02, 13 May 2007 (GMT+1)

Most of the wars involving Communists against non-Communists are either insurgencies (Greece, Vietnam, Laos, China before 1949), power struggles (Russian Civil War, Angola, Ethiopia), consolidation of power in what prior states considered parts of the country (the Guomindang never recognized the independence of Tibet or Xinjiang from China), overthrow of governments of client states that display "too much" independence (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 -- if you call those "wars") or the result of aggression against an extant Communist power (Operation Barbarossa; the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia resulted from the aggression of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia). Leadership of the Soviet Union cannot be faulted for turning the defense of Russia into an invasion of Romania or nazi-occupied Poland or Czechoslovakia, let alone into Germany any more than British or American leadership can be faulted for the D-Day invasion that led to the Anglo-American advance into the Third Reich.

The clearest act of Communist aggression that could be treated as a war crime is the Korean War in which Kim il-Sung invaded the Republic of Korea with the prompting of the PRC and the USSR. Kim il-Sung likely fits the definition of a war criminal -- except that he was not going to ever be tried as such. Massacres were the norm after Communist advances -- those are of course war crimes, and responsibility cannot evade Kim il-Sung... except that he was not defeated and captured.

I suspect that culpable persons generally found a safe haven, in view of the absence of any major trial of (North) Korean war criminals.

The bulk of Communist crimes have occurred after the Communists consolidated power; those might be crimes against humanity, and not war crimes... but trials for those crimes are unlikely to be held because the culprits outlived any possibility of being tried for such crimes. --Paul from Michigan 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

The conduct of Soviet troops in central and southeastern Europe during World War II was often abominable; rapes, robberies, and murders by individual soldiers indicates a lack of discipline of soldiers at the front. Most likely such was not the choice of the highest Soviet leadership (that is, Josef Stalin) -- but in view of their frequency they suggest lax discipline of troops even though the Soviet legal and penal system was quite harsh on other matters. --Paul from Michigan 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trueman, and MacArthur, and Bush

why were they not held accountable for their crimes against humanity,war crimes ,and genocide? why is Bush not being held for his crimes as well? These men gave the order for the men to carry out, then why are they not as guilty as others that have taken the same actions.

Answer:

Harry Truman did not start either World War II or the Korean War. Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Japanese government could have surrendered earlier, negating the possibility of further war. The killing stopped once Japan surrendered, and the humane treatment of a defeated Japan demonstrates that Harry Truman was no war criminal.

MacArthur? What were his "crimes"? War crimes implies such deeds as military aggression (the Pearl Harbor attack), such brutal treatment of prisoners of war as the Bataan Death March, such crimes against civilians as the Nanjing massacre, or the pervasive looting of occupied countries. A general who commands massacres or expropriations, fails to stop them if he has the power, or covers up such crimes after they happen is of course culpable.

Which Bush? '41' or '43'? --Paul from Michigan 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Truman: "who started it" is not the point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Records released in the last decade show clearly that the whole "it was done to end the war and saved lives" argument was a crock: the Japanese were already negotiating a surrender with the Soviets because the US would not speak to them, and this was well before the decision was made to drop the bombs(the US were insisting on "unconditional surrender" with no negotiation). 59.167.59.181 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Keir.

[edit] RE: Tamil Nation page

FYI: That is not a racist article it basically shows pictures of war crimes committed by one group to another. Just like one would find on a Jewish Holocaust website about Hitlers atrocities. Whoever is reading this, please feel free to visit the link and see for yourself at http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/warcrimes/index.htm Wiki Raja (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not an advertisement, but a report on Sri Lanka's war crimes. Therefore, this is not a conflict of interest but a link to a similar topic of interest. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no mention of classes

some of the articles linking to this one mention various classes of war crimes. from the yasukuni shrine article: "A total of 12 convicted and 2 suspected Class A war criminals". this article has no mention of classes of war crimes. either this article needs to be edited to include this information or the other articles should have such labelling removed if it is not the standard. thbsp (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) thbsp

[edit] Terminology

Can a war crime be committed without the criminals being brought to justice at a trial? This is more of a rhetorical question than a serious one, but it was brought up by user:Molobo at a recent talk page. (see Pawlokoma massacre). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

Should be really clean-up and actually rewritten. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK (becaue my cleanup was decided to be "vandalism" by "patrollers")

Decide what is vandalism and what is crap. Bye. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, you fight for neutrality. Obviously, your work was not a vandalism but a good faith editing. But in the cases like that you should make a few changes at a time and wait for reaction. If there are objections, you should discuss. If you do not have time to discuss, do not do it. RR warring and accusations do not help anyone involved including you. Just relax and do something else, please.Biophys (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's als still not everything re: Saddam's execution removed in my version (and should be). Saddam was tried and executed only for crimes against humanity and not war crimes (he was also in Iraq all the time, and so the sentence here is a double nonsense). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also clean-up/re-write this still further, but hey, "vandalism". --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right about Saddam. People ususlly do not understand this distinction.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies! Didnt see any edit summary and was groggy eyed after too many vandal edits, I guess. I read it properly now, and I apologise for that revert. Thanks Biophys for pointing it out! Prashanthns (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you then remove warning at the talk page of 84.234.60.154?Biophys (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Prashanthns (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe the article, further reading, see also, and external links should be about the theory and laws of the crimes of war, not about incidents (controversial or not, doesn't matter). It's not "List of war crimes" article. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine to provide here the link to "List of war crimes" (a closely related subject) and mention a few most notable cases as it is. If you think the list of notable cases should be modified, or some other changes are needed, please do yourself, but remember that others might object.Biophys (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Kaltenbrunner

Surely Kaltenbrunner does not count as a head of state or head of government. As far as I'm aware, Hitler was head of state and of government during his lifetime, and after he killed himself, Donitz was head of state, and Goebbels was Chancellor for a day before he killed himself, when Schwerin-Krosigk took over, and remained in office until the regime disbanded.125.239.179.99 (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of asking a question if no one can be bothered to answer? If there isn't a reply soon, I'll change it. (And this is the same person. The IP address just seems to have changed slightly for some reason.)125.239.167.18 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)