Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[theprestige]

I'm saying that they literally qualify under the definition in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The source there being the UN.

So it's not whether it fits some vernacular or hyperbole or metaphor or whatever use. I'm saying that it literally fits the definition in the actual law, which is really the only one that matters. Bob can handwave until he gets sore arms muscles, his redefinition doesn't override the actual legal definition.

And I'm saying let's note that, and move on to the actual news and import of what Russia is doing in Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to keep going back and forth with the same arguments about the same definitions. If anyone wants to do that, they should take it to some other thread. Please. I'm begging you, Hans.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And I'm saying let's note that, and move on to the actual news and import of what Russia is doing in Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to keep going back and forth with the same arguments about the same definitions. If anyone wants to do that, they should take it to some other thread. Please. I'm begging you, Hans.

The mods moved the question here

 

[theprestige]

The mods moved the question here

I'm sure their hearts were in the right place, but the question sure isn't.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In the part you quoted, it said with intent to destroy. That means if you do it for some other reason....like trying to compel a government to surrender....it isn't genocide. It is just your normal war crime.

Evidence that Russia is doing it for some other goal and not genocide?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Evidence that Russia is doing it for some other goal and not genocide?

As I was saying, it doesn't even matter. In fact the whole Bob sideshow was just a case of not knowing what intent means in law, and going off a fully irrelevant tangent based on just that: not knowing what it's about.

I could detail, but since theprestige asked so nicely...

 

[dudalb]

The Russian people are being treated like the way you grow mushrooms:
Kept in the dark and fed nothing but crap.

 

[theprestige]

Evidence that Russia is doing it for some other goal and not genocide?

Maybe it's felony genocide - unintentional genocide arising from the commission of another criminal act.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nope, it's literally just genocide, if it was clear that you ARE committing one of the acts defined as genocide in Article II.

There is no such notion as "felony genocide", nor is there, strictly speaking, an "unintentionally" degree of mens rea. Well, sorta. What you might call "unintentionally" in common vernacular gets split between
- recklessly, i.e., it might not have been intended to happen, but it should have been bloody obvious that it's possible if you go and do that. Or
- negligently, i.e., nobody had any idea it'll happen when they ordered, well, whatever they ordered there

But in this case (or really any case), once it has been pointed out that that's what's happening, it can't go below "knowingly". I might plead recklessness if my trolley car ran over a bunch of people (like in that philosophy problem) while I wasn't looking, but if it's been repeatedly pointed out and I still don't hit the brakes, that's pretty much by definition "knowingly". Which, as I was saying is enough to be tried and convicted for genocide.

Also note that in criminal law it's generally irrelevant if you had some political motivation or what, other than to infer what degree of culpability is supportable. If I break into a butcher's shop and thrash the place, it's rather irrelevant whether I'm a militant vegan activist or just a drunk idiot trying to impress other people. If I'm a known vegan activist, it may just support the idea that it probably was purposeful rather than a heat of the moment idiocy, but that's about it.


But basically the degrees of culpability go like this:

- strict liability: it doesn't matter if you even knew, as long as you did the deed, you're liable. Used in such cases as sex with minors. (And one could debate how just that is -- and many do -- but I'm just saying how that law works.)

- purpose (confusingly enough also called intentional): if I put a bomb in my luggage and check it in, specifically to murder my boss who's on that plane, it's intentional for the murder of said boss

- knowing: the death of the pilots, stewardesses and other passengers may not have been my intention per se, but it's hard to argue that I didn't KNOW they're going to die too. So for their deaths my degree of "mens rea" is 'only' "knowingly".

- reckless: the plane gets delayed because of a storm, my bomb goes off in the airport and kills a luggage handler. It should have been bloody obvious that it's a possibility, even if it wasn't supposed to go that way. (Also in the USA it would very likely get upgraded to "felony murder", since it's a death that was the result of a felony.)

- negligence: dunno, something where I probably should have taken better precautions, but it's plausible that it never crossed my mind that things could go that way. Note that this is generally treated as synonymous with "criminal negligence", but unlike the vernacular use, that doesn't actually mean criminally liable. Kinda like "legally drunk" doesn't mean it's actually legal.


Standard disclaimer: not actual legal advice. Consult with an actual lawyer if you intend to kidnap a bunch of Ukrainian children

 

[Allen773]

Yes, and it's consistent with Russian attempts to try to erase Ukrainian cultural identity

Which Putin and his supporters in and outside of Russia have been very open about.

"Ukraine is not a real country", "Ukraine is part of Russia", etc.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nope, it's literally just genocide, if it was clear that you ARE committing one of the acts defined as genocide in Article II.

Okay. I'm having difficulty finding examples where either the UN, or anyone with expertise, labeling something genocide that didn't have the goal of destroying the group.

 

[Crossbow]

Okay. I'm having difficulty finding examples where either the UN, or anyone with expertise, labeling something genocide that didn't have the goal of destroying the group.

Groups that practice genocide should be destroyed because groups that practice genocide need to be destroyed.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Okay. I'm having difficulty finding examples where either the UN, or anyone with expertise, labeling something genocide that didn't have the goal of destroying the group.

Well, since Putin likes to talk about Nazis, how about the actual Nazis' Generalplan Ost? The end goal was to provide food for Germany in the short term, and farmland for German settlers in the long term. See the whole Lebensraum thing. Exterminating the slavs was only means to that end.

Nürnberg doctors' trial? The goal was to get medical data.

If you think those aren't grouped under the genocide that was the holocaust... yeh, you might be very uninformed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, since Putin likes to talk about Nazis, how about the actual Nazis' Generalplan Ost? The end goal was to provide food for Germany in the short term, and farmland for German settlers in the long term. See the whole Lebensraum thing. Exterminating the slavs was only means to that end.

Nürnberg doctors' trial? The goal was to get medical data.

If you think those aren't grouped under the genocide that was the holocaust... yeh, you might be very uninformed.

I would say the goal of ost was explicitly genocide. I don't think people would look at that plan and say genocide was not a goal.

There is probably a non-genocide way to do that plan.

And while the operations of the camps for extermination was genocide, and doctors has roles in that, it is unclear if the specific item of medical testing would be genocide (rather than another, more specific, crime against humanity). ETA: And I'm assuming when you brought up testing, you were walking the finest of lines to not include testing that was explicitly about advancing a racial superiority agenda.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nope. More like it's irrelevant to the point. It's

A. still technically not the same as having genocide as a goal, and

B. didn't stop doctors from being tried for other stuff like hypothermia research, to try to save the lives of Luftwaffe pilots shot down in the north sea with that medical data.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But fine, anyway. There are more recent and actually clearer examples. E.g., the genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. The stated goal and how the ISIL called it was a campaign of forced religious conversion. And sure enough, everyone had the choice to convert to Islam. And whoever refused was killed (the men) or forced into sexual slavery (the women.) But there's no reason to believe that the ISIL wouldn't have very much preferred that they convert.

Nevertheless, it's classified as a genocide by the UN.


But anyway, it's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter what you believe is meant by intent, it only matters what the law says. And I told you that in detail in message #48. Those degrees of "mens rea" are what the law calls intent. It's lawyer jargon, really. Arguing whether it qualifies under a common vernacular meaning of intent is as pointless as if I were to say that someone doesn't qualify as a "Java programmer" unless they programmed a coffee machine.

And your message #50 is just a case of argument from ignorance and red herring combined.
1. Your not knowing some cases doesn't really say much. I mean, I don't know species of south american insects, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
2. It still doesn't change what the law says. Even if there were no cases yet when a certain law has been applied, it still doesn't mean you can just redefine what it says.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But fine, anyway. There are more recent and actually clearer examples. E.g., the genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. The stated goal and how the ISIL called it was a campaign of forced religious conversion. And sure enough, everyone had the choice to convert to Islam. And whoever refused was killed (the men) or forced into sexual slavery (the women.) But there's no reason to believe that the ISIL wouldn't have very much preferred that they convert.

Nevertheless, it's classified as a genocide by the UN.

That would also clearly be genocidal in objective.

I don't think you have hit on an example yet where parties are not pursuing genocide for the sake of genocide.

it only matters what the law says. And I told you that in detail in message #48. Those degrees of "mens rea" are what the law calls intent.

You are discussing intent in terms of US criminal law and other national legal systems. That isn't evidence that it qualifies for intent under the UN.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You are discussing intent in terms of US criminal law and other national legal systems. That isn't evidence that it qualifies for intent under the UN.

I already told you what qualifies under the Rome statutes, which is what applies in the international criminal court in Hague. To repeat myself: if you knew it will happen in the course of whatever you ordered there, then it qualifies as genocide. There is no requirement for it to be the primary goal or anything.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I already told you what qualifies under the Rome statutes, which is what applies in the international criminal court in Hague. To repeat myself: if you knew it will happen in the course of whatever you ordered there, then it qualifies as genocide. There is no requirement for it to be the primary goal or anything.

Intent is higher in genocide under the UN convention requiring specific intent.
from the UN

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique.

 

[Craig4]

I do hope President Zelenskyy was able to take some time away from resisting "de-nazification" to enjoy Passover with his family.

 

[Allen773]

I do hope President Zelenskyy was able to take some time away from resisting "de-nazification" to enjoy Passover with his family.

For what it’s worth, many of the same people who parrot Putin’s self-evidently absurd “de-Nazification” talking points are eager to compare Israel to the Nazis.