Should military leadership be held responsible for warcrimes?
- Thread starter NedreckSavant
- Start date
IZHUMINTER
New member
1. Criminal responsiblity doesn't work that way. If I tell my subordinate to go down to the store and pick up a case of Coke, and he chooses to do so at gunpoint, I am not in any way responsible for his crime. If I send my subordinate, whom is trained on what is and is not permissable regarding the treatment of prisoners into an interrogation room and he beats the crap out of a detainee, I am not responsible for his act. However, it is my duty to supervise him to prevent such acts and to see his is tried and punished should they occur.
2. It has never been "open season on ALL iraqi's" and torture has NEVER been okay. Are there some sick, twisted individuals who overstep their bounds? Sure there are, just like in the LAPD, or Sing-Sing or at your local DMV. When one of them gets caught, nobody realistically asks for the Mayor or the Governor to step down...they ask for the offender's head on a pike.
As Chief Executive, the President has over four million employees. If we do as you suggest, he could be held liable for every criminal act they commit. Here's a hypothetical for you: A bunch of Immigration agents are working overtime because of the new focus on enforcement. They go out for a few beers to blow off some steam, one of them has too much to drink and no one takes his keys, and he runs into a school bus killing four kids. Logically, who is at fault?
2 cents before lockout
The term war crime has undergone a tremendous expansion recently. Primarily due to its use by the political left and the mass media's unquestioning repetition of everything they say. Another problem is that our enemies today don't have the personal and national honor to wear unifroms.
As far as the statement "war crimes being the norm", and "mindset of a war criminal", these are highly emotionally charged phrases, and indicate a predisposition toward judgement that the rest of your question claims to deny. In other words, it SOUNDS like you have already made your mind up, while you claim otherwise.
What is a "war crime"?
For some people, those who rant about the "illegal, immoral war..etc..", virtually everything our troops do is a war crime. To them, our mere presence in country is a crime. This can be (and is) argued, but it has no place in a discussion of "war crimes".
War crimes are crimes, outside the normal customs of war. Mistreatment of prisoners and genocide are examples. Just because some one calls something a war crime (because it is a bad thing, and happens during a war), does not make it an actual war crime. Bad thing happen in war. Generally, this is why we try to avoid war.
We are living is a sensitive age. Or at least SOME people are. things that offend their sensitivities are, to them, crimes, and in war, war crimes.
Abuse of prisoners. Considered a war crime. However, not everybody sees it the same way as some do now. Look at history. Look at the Nurenburg trials. War Crimes, and how they were defined then, as compared to now. Abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Graib (sp?) prison. Called a war crime, and soldier prosecuted for the mental torture of prisoners.
During WWII, abuse of prisoners was things such as starvation, beating, unwarranted execution, and medical experiments. Forced labor, for soldiers, not officers, was not. Forcing a prisoner to march around naked was not a war crime. Throwing a naked prisoner in a tank of ice water to see how long he lived, was.
Genocide, seems pretty self explanatory, doesn't it. But it depends on how you define it. Rounding up a village of civilians and shooting them is a war crime. Shooting individual civilians during combat is not a war crime. It is sadly, just one of those things. A mistake. A tragedy, but not a war crime, as this is a normal occurance in war.
Bombs dropped from aircraft have killed hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of civilians, and these are not considered war crimes. They are within the normal customs of war.
The situation in Iraq is further confused by the fact that the enemy (whatever term you use for them) do not wear uniforms, they dress just like the civilians, they represent no recognised government with which discussion is possible, are not signatories to any international treaties on the conduct of war and they do not recognise any of the rules of war, as recognised by those nations who have signed the treaties, makes it a very difficult situation for determining the proper course of action.
In answer to your question on whether or not the Bush administration, and/or military leadership is responsible for war crimes, the answer is:
Yes, under the recognised conditions of chain of command responsibility. By that I mean, the highest level of command that ordered, or KNOWINGLY allowed war crimes to be committed is responsible.
Is the President responsible for war crimes? In the general sense, that as Commander in Chief he is responsible for ALL military actions, yes. In the legal sense, if he ordered them, (and it can be proven) yes. If they went on with his knowledge (of the specific action), yes. Otherwise, no.
Is the military command responsible, yes, just like the President. At the lowest level. If it was ordered, or they had specific knowledge and allowed it, yes. Otherwise no. If a platoon massacres a village, and the company commander had no knowledge he is not legally responsible. If the battalion commander had no knowledge, the battalion commander is not responsible. Neither is his boss, the General. The responsible party is legally the platoon commander. Higher level commanders have an ethical and moral responsiblity for the actions of their subordinates, and they pay a price (their career) when their subordinates disobey orders and commit war crimes, but they are not legally responsible, unless they ordered it or knowingly allowed it to take place.
FYI, my personal opinion is that the MPs running that Iraqi prison (that I can't spell) should not have been prosecuted for "war crimes" The prisoners, while humiliated, and threatened were not (as far as any info I have seen) physically harmed. The should have been prosecuted, because what they did was wrong, but it should not have been given the label "war crimes".
The term war crime has undergone a tremendous expansion recently. Primarily due to its use by the political left and the mass media's unquestioning repetition of everything they say. Another problem is that our enemies today don't have the personal and national honor to wear unifroms.
As far as the statement "war crimes being the norm", and "mindset of a war criminal", these are highly emotionally charged phrases, and indicate a predisposition toward judgement that the rest of your question claims to deny. In other words, it SOUNDS like you have already made your mind up, while you claim otherwise.
What is a "war crime"?
For some people, those who rant about the "illegal, immoral war..etc..", virtually everything our troops do is a war crime. To them, our mere presence in country is a crime. This can be (and is) argued, but it has no place in a discussion of "war crimes".
War crimes are crimes, outside the normal customs of war. Mistreatment of prisoners and genocide are examples. Just because some one calls something a war crime (because it is a bad thing, and happens during a war), does not make it an actual war crime. Bad thing happen in war. Generally, this is why we try to avoid war.
We are living is a sensitive age. Or at least SOME people are. things that offend their sensitivities are, to them, crimes, and in war, war crimes.
Abuse of prisoners. Considered a war crime. However, not everybody sees it the same way as some do now. Look at history. Look at the Nurenburg trials. War Crimes, and how they were defined then, as compared to now. Abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Graib (sp?) prison. Called a war crime, and soldier prosecuted for the mental torture of prisoners.
During WWII, abuse of prisoners was things such as starvation, beating, unwarranted execution, and medical experiments. Forced labor, for soldiers, not officers, was not. Forcing a prisoner to march around naked was not a war crime. Throwing a naked prisoner in a tank of ice water to see how long he lived, was.
Genocide, seems pretty self explanatory, doesn't it. But it depends on how you define it. Rounding up a village of civilians and shooting them is a war crime. Shooting individual civilians during combat is not a war crime. It is sadly, just one of those things. A mistake. A tragedy, but not a war crime, as this is a normal occurance in war.
Bombs dropped from aircraft have killed hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of civilians, and these are not considered war crimes. They are within the normal customs of war.
The situation in Iraq is further confused by the fact that the enemy (whatever term you use for them) do not wear uniforms, they dress just like the civilians, they represent no recognised government with which discussion is possible, are not signatories to any international treaties on the conduct of war and they do not recognise any of the rules of war, as recognised by those nations who have signed the treaties, makes it a very difficult situation for determining the proper course of action.
In answer to your question on whether or not the Bush administration, and/or military leadership is responsible for war crimes, the answer is:
Yes, under the recognised conditions of chain of command responsibility. By that I mean, the highest level of command that ordered, or KNOWINGLY allowed war crimes to be committed is responsible.
Is the President responsible for war crimes? In the general sense, that as Commander in Chief he is responsible for ALL military actions, yes. In the legal sense, if he ordered them, (and it can be proven) yes. If they went on with his knowledge (of the specific action), yes. Otherwise, no.
Is the military command responsible, yes, just like the President. At the lowest level. If it was ordered, or they had specific knowledge and allowed it, yes. Otherwise no. If a platoon massacres a village, and the company commander had no knowledge he is not legally responsible. If the battalion commander had no knowledge, the battalion commander is not responsible. Neither is his boss, the General. The responsible party is legally the platoon commander. Higher level commanders have an ethical and moral responsiblity for the actions of their subordinates, and they pay a price (their career) when their subordinates disobey orders and commit war crimes, but they are not legally responsible, unless they ordered it or knowingly allowed it to take place.
FYI, my personal opinion is that the MPs running that Iraqi prison (that I can't spell) should not have been prosecuted for "war crimes" The prisoners, while humiliated, and threatened were not (as far as any info I have seen) physically harmed. The should have been prosecuted, because what they did was wrong, but it should not have been given the label "war crimes".
Chaingunner
New member
Absolutely NOT.
Anyone who commits a war crime of his own volition should be punished for it. The excuse "such and such an officer told me to do it," is completey invalid...In boot camp, you're taught the differences between lawful and unlawful orders, and they give you a basic rundown of the Geneva Conventions, particularly regarding POWs. There's no excuse for any of this nonsense.
Now on the other hand, if a superior knows of abuse and says nothing about it, he should be charged with conspiracy the same crimes as his subordinates. What makes me upset is that there probably were quite a few officers who WERE knowledgable of such acts and who WERN'T punished, on the basis that they're officers. Officers being excused for offenses because they're officers isn't anything new, and it happens all the time in all branches of the military.
Anyone who commits a war crime of his own volition should be punished for it. The excuse "such and such an officer told me to do it," is completey invalid...In boot camp, you're taught the differences between lawful and unlawful orders, and they give you a basic rundown of the Geneva Conventions, particularly regarding POWs. There's no excuse for any of this nonsense.
Now on the other hand, if a superior knows of abuse and says nothing about it, he should be charged with conspiracy the same crimes as his subordinates. What makes me upset is that there probably were quite a few officers who WERE knowledgable of such acts and who WERN'T punished, on the basis that they're officers. Officers being excused for offenses because they're officers isn't anything new, and it happens all the time in all branches of the military.
Fyi
After the end of the Allied occupation of Germany, when West Germany reformed its' army (Bundeswehr), they instituted classes for the officers specifically addressing the differences between a LEGAL order, and a MORAL order. A legal order CAN be immoral, and I guess, after some of the stuff that happened in WWII, the Germans wanted to be sure their new officer corps understood the difference.
After the end of the Allied occupation of Germany, when West Germany reformed its' army (Bundeswehr), they instituted classes for the officers specifically addressing the differences between a LEGAL order, and a MORAL order. A legal order CAN be immoral, and I guess, after some of the stuff that happened in WWII, the Germans wanted to be sure their new officer corps understood the difference.
Blackwater OPS
New member
You will find that most MPs, charlie MOS cagekickers who are NOT really MPs aside, will not hesitate to slap the cuffs on anyone violating the USMJ or commiting war crimes. That includes those who would give blatently illegal orders. This is, in fact, how those in Iraq who "tortured"
prisoners were caught, tried and punished. This results in few such occurences, to call them the "norm" is ignorant.
prisoners were caught, tried and punished. This results in few such occurences, to call them the "norm" is ignorant.War Crimes...
While this could be debated for hours on end and I'm sure it has by people with a lot higher Rank then me. I consider this matter one for the people that are there or that have been there.
I don't know if any of you have served in the Military or not but it's a whole different World that you live in. It could never be explained to someone who hasn't done a Few years and it's very easy to sit right here in front of your Computer in your House/Apartment/Condo with some kind of Climate control and the ability to go to the store and eat whatever you want or go out side or go for a drive the list goes on and on and Debate weather what One or Two or even 20 people did in a Country Far Far away, where there Friends get blown apart in front of there Face's and every Car you get next to could be your last breath.
Unless you have been there and have put yourself in each on of these peoples situations and/or had there training then I don't feel you really have a right to judge them.
When asking who should be held Responsible... Thats the Easy part the Commander and Chief is held responsible he is the Highest Ranking there fore ultimately he is Responsible, But **** Rolls Down Hill so he doesn't go to Jail for it.
There are better things to do with your Life then try to put the Blame on somebodys head in a situation your only Reading about on the INTERNET.
Instead tell Someone you Love them, Go for a Drive, Eat a Steak and maybe go for a Walk in the Rain....
While this could be debated for hours on end and I'm sure it has by people with a lot higher Rank then me. I consider this matter one for the people that are there or that have been there.
I don't know if any of you have served in the Military or not but it's a whole different World that you live in. It could never be explained to someone who hasn't done a Few years and it's very easy to sit right here in front of your Computer in your House/Apartment/Condo with some kind of Climate control and the ability to go to the store and eat whatever you want or go out side or go for a drive the list goes on and on and Debate weather what One or Two or even 20 people did in a Country Far Far away, where there Friends get blown apart in front of there Face's and every Car you get next to could be your last breath.
Unless you have been there and have put yourself in each on of these peoples situations and/or had there training then I don't feel you really have a right to judge them.
When asking who should be held Responsible... Thats the Easy part the Commander and Chief is held responsible he is the Highest Ranking there fore ultimately he is Responsible, But **** Rolls Down Hill so he doesn't go to Jail for it.
There are better things to do with your Life then try to put the Blame on somebodys head in a situation your only Reading about on the INTERNET.
Instead tell Someone you Love them, Go for a Drive, Eat a Steak and maybe go for a Walk in the Rain....
Just dont ever tell my daughter shes a war criminal, shes liable to take a poke atcha! ERICNedreck, I could have told ya how this would play out...
Consider your same scenario, but put in civilian terms. A bad cop beats and tortures a suspect. Who should be charged for the abuse? The individual officer? His watch commander? The Chief? The Mayor? The AG? The Governor?
Who?
By the logic you have displayed, we should be burning Governors at the stake anytime an individual officer goes bad and commits a crime.
As others have noted, that's not the way it works.
Consider your same scenario, but put in civilian terms. A bad cop beats and tortures a suspect. Who should be charged for the abuse? The individual officer? His watch commander? The Chief? The Mayor? The AG? The Governor?
Who?
By the logic you have displayed, we should be burning Governors at the stake anytime an individual officer goes bad and commits a crime.
As others have noted, that's not the way it works.
I'm typing this in Ramadi, Iraq.
I really resent this leading type of question. If the question had been a general one about soldiers and war in general, I think it could have been a lively discussion, bringing in such topics as the Nuremburg Trials and the Mai Lai massacre.
However, the question was no more than a thinly veiled dig at our forces and furtherance of the same old MoveOn.org leftist propaganda. Inspite of a few, rare incidents, "warcrimes" are not common place or generally accepted here. In fact, our guys go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and I've had some of my Marines and Corpsmen wounded trying to get civilians out of the line of fire.
Civilians get hurt because the terrorists hide behind them.
If you wish to have a discussion about the laws of war and what constitutes a warcrime, fine. I've studied quite a bit on the matter. I will however, call anyone on the leftist lies intended to besmirch me or my guys.
NavyDoc out.
I really resent this leading type of question. If the question had been a general one about soldiers and war in general, I think it could have been a lively discussion, bringing in such topics as the Nuremburg Trials and the Mai Lai massacre.
However, the question was no more than a thinly veiled dig at our forces and furtherance of the same old MoveOn.org leftist propaganda. Inspite of a few, rare incidents, "warcrimes" are not common place or generally accepted here. In fact, our guys go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and I've had some of my Marines and Corpsmen wounded trying to get civilians out of the line of fire.
Civilians get hurt because the terrorists hide behind them.
If you wish to have a discussion about the laws of war and what constitutes a warcrime, fine. I've studied quite a bit on the matter. I will however, call anyone on the leftist lies intended to besmirch me or my guys.
NavyDoc out.
Superhornet
New member
When you are the victor, there are no war crimes.....
DunedinDragon
New member
Yeah...I think Nedreck has already determined there are war crimes without the benefit of judicial process or even lawful examination of the facts. He cites some press statements, but of course we have no way to cross-examine those witness statements.
So, Nedreck, if someone makes a statement that you molest little girls should you AND YOUR PARENTS be held accountable? After all, that appears to be all the evidence you deem necessary to indict an entire military and political structure, it should certainly be enough for indicting just one person along with those responsible for his upbringing.
If you are truly wanting to generate a discussion on responsibility and legal liabilities, then do some research on the legal definition of negligence and chain of responsibility. If you run a company that has specific rules, training and punishment actions against sexual harrassment, but one of your employees disobeys those rules, should you be held accountable? Does that answer your question?
So, Nedreck, if someone makes a statement that you molest little girls should you AND YOUR PARENTS be held accountable? After all, that appears to be all the evidence you deem necessary to indict an entire military and political structure, it should certainly be enough for indicting just one person along with those responsible for his upbringing.
If you are truly wanting to generate a discussion on responsibility and legal liabilities, then do some research on the legal definition of negligence and chain of responsibility. If you run a company that has specific rules, training and punishment actions against sexual harrassment, but one of your employees disobeys those rules, should you be held accountable? Does that answer your question?
I see this thread was started at 2:16 PM, did you get started a little early yesterday?
Guns and alcohol don't mix. IMO, TFL and alcohol aren't a very good combination either.
A few weeks ago I think this thread starter would have been a prime candidate for a "clownie".
:barf:kingudaroad
New member
Navydoc
Welcome to TFL. Great job exposing this thread for what it is. Boldface leftist propaganda that would have been locked down if not for the editing of a very patient moderator. Even though we have smeared lipstick all over this pig of a thread, it didn't make it any prettier.:barf:
I'm proud to have all of you representing me in Iraq Navydoc. Thank you! Keith
Welcome to TFL. Great job exposing this thread for what it is. Boldface leftist propaganda that would have been locked down if not for the editing of a very patient moderator. Even though we have smeared lipstick all over this pig of a thread, it didn't make it any prettier.:barf:
I'm proud to have all of you representing me in Iraq Navydoc. Thank you! Keith
Ben Swenson
New member
Okay, so if you admit he doesn't encourage war crimes, let's move on to the other possible reason to punish him for the actions of others. Do you believe he is tolerating (as in, refusing to allow offenders to be prosecuted) such behavior from the men and women in his employ?
Hold on a second here ... you're making excuses for the actual war criminals, but you've got the rope ready to lynch Bush because he was responsible for declaring the war? You don't want to punish the perpetrator, just some guy who had absolutely no personal knowledge or association with the unlawful action until after it was committed?
Doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. As I said before, it strikes me that your mindset is that Bush deserves to be punished and you're just looking for any excuse to do so.
As I said before, Bush should be held responsible if he encourages or tolerates such behavior. I don't see any believable evidence that he or his administration does.
More, I don't see any believable evidence that "war crimes are the norm and not the exception" or that there is an "open season on ALL iraqi's and torture's still okay." Oh, I know what the DNC is saying, but in my view, despite the fact that I do not support the war in Iraq for a variety of reasons I feel that it is being conducted as honorably as a war can be conducted in the glaring light of international media.
Overall, it is destined to fail, of course. No man, nation or religion will bring peace to that slice of the world. Ever. Hatred of Jews, Westerners and each other is deeply ingrained into the people there. No matter what good we do in the short term (and we are doing massive amounts of good), I predict that within a decade of our pulling out, Iraq will either return to tyrannical rule (secular or Islamic) or get stomped all over by its neighbors and ... surprise, surprise ... come under tyrannical rule (secular or Islamic) until we bail it out again. That's not worth the cost of the war (in human and financial terms) to me.
I do not hold Bush or the majority of the current Republican party in high esteem. I don't like the war, I don't like the spending spree and I don't like the attacks on civil liberties. The worst part? They're far better than the alternative.
I'm not going to violate OPSEC and list the ROE (Rules of Engagement) for Iraq but everybody over there carries a ROE card that has them listed out. They're fairly specific and no one in theatre is ignorant of them. Anything that could be considered a war crime, and many things that don't rise to that level, are forbidden under the ROE.
Not saying that they're aren't sometimes violations. My point is that war crimes are not the norm and are certainly not the policy. There are instances where violations become, not common, but less rare in a particular unit. That is ALWAYS a unit leadership failure. I don't mean the general or colonel, and certainly not NCA. I mean the local, on the ground leadership failure of sergeants and unit commanders.
I deployed to Iraq as a 1SG and came home minus one eye after an IED. And you know what? After the explosion my troops didn't shoot everything in sight. They secured the scene, recovered and evacuated the wounded. They did the same thing after every IED we hit, using their weapons when required and appropriate. And THAT is the norm for US soldiers. Oh, they also treat, and evacuate if necessary, civilian wounded. I deeply resent the statement that I and my soldiers routinely commit war crimes. That's about as clearly as I can state my feelings on the matter without descending into abuse and profanity.
Not saying that they're aren't sometimes violations. My point is that war crimes are not the norm and are certainly not the policy. There are instances where violations become, not common, but less rare in a particular unit. That is ALWAYS a unit leadership failure. I don't mean the general or colonel, and certainly not NCA. I mean the local, on the ground leadership failure of sergeants and unit commanders.
I deployed to Iraq as a 1SG and came home minus one eye after an IED. And you know what? After the explosion my troops didn't shoot everything in sight. They secured the scene, recovered and evacuated the wounded. They did the same thing after every IED we hit, using their weapons when required and appropriate. And THAT is the norm for US soldiers. Oh, they also treat, and evacuate if necessary, civilian wounded. I deeply resent the statement that I and my soldiers routinely commit war crimes. That's about as clearly as I can state my feelings on the matter without descending into abuse and profanity.