Presidental War Crimes

[sunmaster14]

Are you calling it a war crime because you don't agree with the principles of justification, or because you don't agree that the justification is applicable in this case?

The justification was inapplicable in this case. The only credible claim NATO made about the TV station is that it was transmitting pro-Serbian propaganda. So? That's not enough to justify attacking it. If facilities and people being used to transmit propaganda (as defined by the other side) are considered legitimate military targets, then pretty much anything is. There would certainly be nothing to distinguish CNN or Fox News or NBC from a legitimate military target. At least when the US attacked Al Jazeera during the Iraq War, the Bush administration claimed it was a mistake.

 

[theprestige]

The justification was inapplicable in this case. The only credible claim NATO made about the TV station is that it was transmitting pro-Serbian propaganda. So? That's not enough to justify attacking it. If facilities and people being used to transmit propaganda (as defined by the other side) are considered legitimate military targets, then pretty much anything is. There would certainly be nothing to distinguish CNN or Fox News or NBC from a legitimate military target. At least when the US attacked Al Jazeera during the Iraq War, the Bush administration claimed it was a mistake.

Interesting. I was actually serving in a US PSYOP unit at the time of this attack. We deployed Psyop Specialists to Yugoslavia in support of the UN peacekeeping mission there. To me there was never any doubt that the kind of propaganda effort carried out by my unit was a military activity very different in quality from the kind of reporting--even favorable reporting--carried out by civilian news organizations. And to me there was never any doubt that the kind of propaganda activity we were engaged in made us legitimate military targets, in a way that civilian news organizations are not.

Depending on the content of the "pro-Serbian" propaganda, I would consider it an overwhelming justification for attacking the station. And if they were doing it out of uniform, or behind civilian cover, I'd accuse them of war crimes too.

 

[sunmaster14]

Interesting. I was actually serving in a US PSYOP unit at the time of this attack. We deployed Psyop Specialists to Yugoslavia in support of the UN peacekeeping mission there. To me there was never any doubt that the kind of propaganda effort carried out by my unit was a military activity very different in quality from the kind of reporting--even favorable reporting--carried out by civilian news organizations. And to me there was never any doubt that the kind of propaganda activity we were engaged in made us legitimate military targets, in a way that civilian news organizations are not.

Depending on the content of the "pro-Serbian" propaganda, I would consider it an overwhelming justification for attacking the station. And if they were doing it out of uniform, or behind civilian cover, I'd accuse them of war crimes too.

If you're actually in Yugoslavia, and you weren't invited, then of course you're a military target. I don't think that has anything to do with what specifically you were doing there. A medic in the army, even one attending to a wounded soldier on the battlefield, is also a legitimate military target, but that doesn't mean that doctors at a hospital in Belgrade are.

 

[quixotecoyote]

A medic in the army, even one attending to a wounded soldier on the battlefield, is also a legitimate military target.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

 

[CORed]

I'm gonna go, just off the top of my head, with William Henry Harrison. I have a feeling he didn't commit any war crimes.

Probably not as President (he died after about a month in office, IIRC), but he was a general involved in conflicts with Indians before he was President, so he might have committed war crimes as a general.

 

[Border Reiver]

If you're actually in Yugoslavia, and you weren't invited, then of course you're a military target. I don't think that has anything to do with what specifically you were doing there. A medic in the army, even one attending to a wounded soldier on the battlefield, is also a legitimate military target, but that doesn't mean that doctors at a hospital in Belgrade are.

Actually, no. Medics and medical facilities are prohibited targets under the laws of war. There are exceptions - if a medic is taking part in offensive operations they are a legitimate target, if a hospital is being used for military purposes, storing munitions or being used as a headquarters for instance, then the hospital is a legitimate target.

 

[Cleon]

A medic in the army, even one attending to a wounded soldier on the battlefield, is also a legitimate military target,

I don't disagree with your overall point, but I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate.

 

[caveman1917]

Obama with his drones. And pretty much any other US president, yes.

 

[caveman1917]

Article 4 - Third Geneva Convention defines lawful enemy combatants.
Article 5 - Third Geneva Convention defines unlawful enemy combatants.

The term is not problematic in the slightest.

This article 5, right?

ARTICLE 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Article 4 - Third Geneva Convention defines lawful enemy combatants.
Article 5 - Third Geneva Convention defines unlawful enemy combatants.

The term is not problematic in the slightest.

Let's add the content.

Article 5: The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

So no one, according to the Convention, is to be considered "unclassified" and therefore unprotected. When in doubt as to which specific laws, or none, might apply, recognition of common humanity and human rights is always appropriate.

 

[caveman1917]

Let's add the content.

I just did.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate.

In theory yes. In practice no. A wounded soldier is protected too, except that a wounded soldier who still has his gun and is reasonably considered to still be a threat is a legitimate military target. If the wounded soldier a medic is attending to is a legitimate target, then so is the medic attending to him. In fact, because the rule governing protection of battlefield medics is so unworkable, the US armed forces don't generally bother with having their medics meet the requirements for protected status under the Geneva Conventions (my emphasis added):

Traditionally, most United States medical personnel also wore a distinguishing red cross, to denote their protection as non-combatants under the Geneva Convention. This practice continued into World War II. However, the enemies faced by professional armies in more recent conflicts are often insurgents who either do not recognize the Geneva Convention, or do not care, and readily engage all personnel, irrespective of non-combatant status. As their non combatant status is not respected, many US medics no longer wear non combatant markings. This can enable medics to be used as medically trained soldiers, fighting aggressively rather than just in self defence. [8] Combat Medics in the United States Army and United States Navy Hospital Corpsmen are virtually indistinguishable from regular combat troops, except for the extra medical equipment they carry.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Something we may need to establish....
...what is your stance on the all executive clause and the commander in chief clause? After a declaration of war can congress regulate how captured enemies are probed for intelligence? Can they further regulate what weapons are used? Can they outlaw flanking?

Further, is there anything in war congress cannot Constitutionally permit?

 

[Border Reiver]

Something we may need to establish....
...what is your stance on the all executive clause and the commander in chief clause? After a declaration of war can congress regulate how captured enemies are probed for intelligence? Can they further regulate what weapons are used? Can they outlaw flanking?

Further, is there anything in war congress cannot Constitutionally permit?

Yes, Congress cannot authorize the US forces to breach the various treaties to which it has already agreed to that form the Laws of Armed Conflict - such as the treaty forbidding the use of torture, and the treaties concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. And yes, there are also treaties that regulate permissible weapons, such as the Hague Conventions that preclude the use of projectiles designed to fragment or expand on entering the body.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, Congress cannot authorize the US forces to breach the various treaties to which it has already agreed to that form the Laws of Armed Conflict - such as the treaty forbidding the use of torture, and the treaties concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. And yes, there are also treaties that regulate permissible weapons, such as the Hague Conventions that preclude the use of projectiles designed to fragment or expand on entering the body.

I thought if anyone made a case, it would be on some sort of rights grounds. But I think your post is wrong. I am pretty sure since the head money cases that it has officially been recognized that treaties do not enjoy a priveliges position above future congressional actions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I thought if anyone made a case, it would be on some sort of rights grounds. But I think your post is wrong. I am pretty sure since the head money cases that it has officially been recognized that treaties do not enjoy a priveliges position above future congressional actions.

Can another person chime in? Am I crazy and border retriever right?

 

[Puppycow]

Not sure why perfidy made the Wiki list. Seems like something you'd expect as a matter of course from a politician.

That one made me wonder, but it turns out it has a more specific definition in war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy

In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deception in which one side promises to act in good faith (such as by raising a flag of truce) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy is exposed (such as by coming out of cover to attack the enemy coming to take the "surrendering" prisoners into custody). Perfidy constitutes a breach of the laws of war and so is a war crime, as it degrades the protections and mutual restraints developed in the interest of all parties, combatants, and civilians.

There's also a specific article in the Geneva Conventions that deals with it:

Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Article 38. – Recognized emblems
1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.

Article 39. – Emblems of nationality
1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.

 

[Brainster]

How about the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son?

I actually agree with Obama's actions in this case, but holy crap, killing an American citizen abroad without any judicial oversight strikes me as something a lot of liberals would be protesting if Bush had done it. And then, two weeks later, killing his 16-year-old son, also an American citizen? Again, a proper decision in my estimation, but unlikely to be viewed as such by liberal thinkers under a Republican administration.

 

[Puppycow]

How about the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son?

I actually agree with Obama's actions in this case, but holy crap, killing an American citizen abroad without any judicial oversight strikes me as something a lot of liberals would be protesting if Bush had done it. And then, two weeks later, killing his 16-year-old son, also an American citizen? Again, a proper decision in my estimation, but unlikely to be viewed as such by liberal thinkers under a Republican administration.

I don't know, maybe. Which article of which international convention that defines war crimes does that fall under?

Personally I don't consider their citizenship to be a relevant factor. If an American citizen had enlisted in the German army in World War 2, they would be just as legitimate a target as any German soldier.

 

[Border Reiver]

I thought if anyone made a case, it would be on some sort of rights grounds. But I think your post is wrong. I am pretty sure since the head money cases that it has officially been recognized that treaties do not enjoy a priveliges position above future congressional actions.

Treaties, once ratified by Congress, are part of your countries national legal system - essentially not following the treaties is breaking US law once ratified.

For example, the US really wants to have the option to use land mines as part of their military operations. This is why they have not ratified the Ottawa Treaty (Land Mines Ban Treaty) - if the US does sign and ratify the treaty, then any use of non-command detonated mines by US forces is illegal and the commanders ordering their use are subject to criminal sanctions.