Presidental War Crimes

sunmaster14 said:
Broad approval? Does the law recognize such a concept? Also, this event was undoubtedly a war crime. Perhaps the most blatant war crime I've ever seen committed in real time by a US administration. And the efforts to justify it were nauseating as well.
Click to expand...

You did say "every".

So I'm sort of hoping for a rundown. I said since 1950 because I'm trying to be nice about it.

So start with Truman and work your way up.....
 
sunmaster14 said:
Broad approval? Does the law recognize such a concept? Also, this event was undoubtedly a war crime. Perhaps the most blatant war crime I've ever seen committed in real time by a US administration. And the efforts to justify it were nauseating as well.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I loathe the way Democrats will hand-wave away wars run by Democratic presidents. Through two terms Bill Clinton was constantly bombing various countries on several continents, but to listen to some people we were living in a complete Pax Americanus until George Bush was elected.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think it will be hard to successfully acuse Obama of war crimes. This is not because he's such an angel, but because his method of choice of attacks (drones) provides a stark asymmetry between the amount of information and evidence known to the Pentagon / CIA and any local researchers.
It's easy to show that drone attacks are not indiscriminate, and it's easier to avoid stupid mistakes.
By the measures we have, drones also do reduce collateral damage.
Click to expand...

You have not managed to distinguish in any meaningful way a drone attack from a garden variety war crime. Drone attacks are clearly war crimes unless they're undertaken in a war zone against enemy combatants. That is simply not the case for many hundreds of them that Obama has authorized. It would be untenable to allow countries simply to bomb whomever they deemed to be a security threat, where ever they were at the time. Who is to say who is a security threat, and how would civilians know to keep away from that threat so as to avoid becoming collateral damage?

Guantanamo Bay continues to be a breach of the Geneva Convention, of course, but I'm not aware of any more "renditions" being carried out.
Click to expand...

Gitmo is not a breach of the Geneva Conventions, since the people held there are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. They have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants, and we can do pretty much anything we want with them consistent with our laws. Of course torturing them is proscribed under the UN Convention Against Torture, although not by the Geneva Conventions per se.
 
NoahFence said:
Fair point.

5?
Click to expand...

The only President in recent memory that I thought might not have was Carter, but I had always believed he played a larger role in encouraging Iraq to attack Iran, thus precipitating the bloodiest conflict since the Vietnam War. In doing some Googling just now, it seems that historians have changed their mind about Carter's role in instigating that war. That being said, this article makes a prima facie case that his administration committed war crimes.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The only President in recent memory that I thought might not have was Carter, but I had always believed he played a larger role in encouraging Iraq to attack Iran, thus precipitating the bloodiest conflict since the Vietnam War. In doing some Googling just now, it seems that historians have changed their mind about Carter's role in instigating that war. That being said, this article makes a prima facie case that his administration committed war crimes.
Click to expand...

Does there need to be a declared state of war to have war crimes?
 
Cleon said:
Honestly, I loathe the way Democrats will hand-wave away wars run by Democratic presidents. Through two terms Bill Clinton was constantly bombing various countries on several continents, but to listen to some people we were living in a complete Pax Americanus until George Bush was elected.
Click to expand...

I agree that the bombing of the Sudan factory might well have been a war crime.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You have not managed to distinguish in any meaningful way a drone attack from a garden variety war crime. Drone attacks are clearly war crimes unless they're undertaken in a war zone against enemy combatants. That is simply not the case for many hundreds of them that Obama has authorized. It would be untenable to allow countries simply to bomb whomever they deemed to be a security threat, where ever they were at the time. Who is to say who is a security threat, and how would civilians know to keep away from that threat so as to avoid becoming collateral damage?
Click to expand...

but it's hard to get proof when the only footage of the attack is buried under piles of TOP SECRET classifications.
I'm not saying that they could not be considered war crimes, I'm just saying that such an accusation would not stick in front of the Tribunal in The Hague.

sunmaster14 said:
Gitmo is not a breach of the Geneva Conventions, since the people held there are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. They have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants, and we can do pretty much anything we want with them consistent with our laws. Of course torturing them is proscribed under the UN Convention Against Torture, although not by the Geneva Conventions per se.
Click to expand...

That is what we call them, but that is a problematic term to say the least. There is no international definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", it's a term Cheney's lawyers pulled out of their collective asses.
To put it another way: to hold any US citizen anywhere without due process we would consider a violation of international law.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why would that be a War Crime?
Click to expand...

Rescuing kidnap victims is not listed in any of the War Crimes rules I have seen - and because of lot's of idiocy about Israel some 6-8 years back I learned hem real good!!! No trouble remembering them. Especially the stupidest responses needing them to clarify for people who have/had no idea what they were in the first place. First problem, it is only required that civilians not be specifically targeted, it is not required that you do not fire into/bomb civilian areas IF there are military operating from them, hiding in them, command centers in them, communications centers in them (etc.). In each of those situations, their military is committing a war crime. Honest, I do not make this stuff up. but way too many people think civilians are fully protected but they are not. The neat part is that any military doing things in the areas their civilians live in are, by law, war criminals. Not the other side that is going after them.
Great, but unfortunate, examples would be Dresden and Nagasaki both of which had much war production throughout them making them perfectly legitimate targets according to the words of the Laws/Rules of Warfare. They are not, of course the only ones.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You have not managed to distinguish in any meaningful way a drone attack from a garden variety war crime. Drone attacks are clearly war crimes unless they're undertaken in a war zone against enemy combatants. That is simply not the case for many hundreds of them that Obama has authorized. It would be untenable to allow countries simply to bomb whomever they deemed to be a security threat, where ever they were at the time. Who is to say who is a security threat, and how would civilians know to keep away from that threat so as to avoid becoming collateral damage?



Gitmo is not a breach of the Geneva Conventions, since the people held there are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. They have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants, and we can do pretty much anything we want with them consistent with our laws. Of course torturing them is proscribed under the UN Convention Against Torture, although not by the Geneva Conventions per se.
Click to expand...

Please check out the R.O.W. on that. According to any version of them that I have read that is not correct. Anyone operating as the military of a country is subject to those rules thus is a legitimate target and are themselves guilty of a violation if they are hiding among civilians. i.e. it is a war crime to have any military/war operations in civilian areas and having same makes the civilian area a legal war zone. There is a large list of things that do that and I will happily repeat them in these threads again!!!!! As to the requirements : they are limited by the technology/science available to minimize civilian casualties, but civilian casualties in such are considered by the ROW to be on their own military for being where the civilians were. i.e. you can't hide among the civilians.
 
It is also a violation to not be wearing a specific identifiable uniform of the country you are a soldier of. Essentially if you are not a legal soldier but are not clearly identifiable as one you may be considered to be a spy.............
 
theprestige said:
What about the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Carried out without UN sanction. Killed around 500 civilians. Attacking military targets can still be a war crime, if proper care is not taken to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.
Click to expand...
within the limits of the weaponry able to be brought onto the target and the ability to determine which areas are fully/exclusively civilian.

And if the military is in a civilian area and not in very identifiable locations the military of the attacked has committed a war crime the way that particular rule (and I love it!!!) works*..........




*I do not want civilians harmed and I want cowards that hide among them found and removed, thus my loathing of Hamass and related.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
That is what we call them, but that is a problematic term to say the least. There is no international definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", it's a term Cheney's lawyers pulled out of their collective asses.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fuelair said:
within the limits of the weaponry able to be brought onto the target and the ability to determine which areas are fully/exclusively civilian.

And if the military is in a civilian area and not in very identifiable locations the military of the attacked has committed a war crime the way that particular rule (and I love it!!!) works*..........
Click to expand...
I know how the rule works. But it's not enough to simply claim the rule was followed. It's important to be able to show that all appropriate efforts were made to limit civilian casualties. To be able to show that the casualties that occurred were justified by the military significance of the target. To be able to show that the weapons used were both the best available and proportional to the military value of the attack.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Broad approval? Does the law recognize such a concept? Also, this event was undoubtedly a war crime. Perhaps the most blatant war crime I've ever seen committed in real time by a US administration. And the efforts to justify it were nauseating as well.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom