Legitmate Act of War or Warcrime? You decide. - Page 5




 
--
 
December 26th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
War Crimes should be an Internationally judged moral issue and not have to rely on previously defined rules and treaties. There should be the ability to frame new retrospective "Rules" as needs be, because the legislators cannot foresee all possible eventualities.

These issues should be judged case by case rather than trying to rely on a few rules that try to cover everything. This leaves too many "legal" loopholes.

What is the difference between "revenge" and "punishment" No doubt most criminals would say that their punishment is no more than society's revenge upon them.

I'm not saying I know the answer, but what do you think?

I feel that most of the better known War Criminals could be judged and sentenced under a moral code, in a few minutes based on "Scienter" (previous knowledge) rather than the years often taken now. e.g. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein etc. This is no different to judging them "In Absentia".

"Scienter" is already an acknowledged legal principle, and has been for over a hundred years.

Summary justice??... maybe,... but that's all some people need and deserve.
December 26th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
War Crimes should be an Internationally judged moral issue and not have to rely on previously defined rules and treaties. There should be the ability to frame new retrospective "Rules" as needs be, because the legislators cannot foresee all possible eventualities.

These issues should be judged case by case rather than trying to rely on a few rules that try to cover everything. This leaves too many "legal" loopholes.

What is the difference between "revenge" and "punishment" No doubt most criminals would say that their punishment is no more than society's revenge upon them.

I'm not saying I know the answer, but what do you think?

I feel that most of the better known War Criminals could be judged and sentenced under a moral code, in a few minutes based on "Scienter" (previous knowledge) rather than the years often taken now. e.g. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein etc.

"Scienter" is already an acknowledged legal principle, and has been for over a hundred years.

Summary justice??... maybe,... but that's all some people need and deserve.

In a Utopian society that would work but circumstance seems to trump morals for example we hung some Germans for killing Jews, Gypsies and the like but recruited others who were just as bad von Braun, Claus Barbie etc. because that benefited us, we killed even fewer Japanese who slaughtered allied POWs and Chinese like it was going out of fashion because we needed allies against the Russians who were apparently on our side 6 months earlier.
December 26th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
In a Utopian society that would work but circumstance seems to trump morals for example we hung some Germans for killing Jews, Gypsies and the like but recruited others who were just as bad von Braun, Claus Barbie etc. because that benefited us, we killed even fewer Japanese who slaughtered allied POWs and Chinese like it was going out of fashion because we needed allies against the Russians who were apparently on our side 6 months earlier.
That was the reason why I said "Internationally judged", rather than Judged by the victors. I feel that would stop a lot of this type of thing.

It certainly wouldn't solve everything, but I feel we could make it better than what we have now. The only way to get better is to keep improving the system, and in a Globalised world, this is the way things seem to be heading any way.
--
December 26th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
That was the reason why I said "Internationally judged", rather than Judged by the victors. I feel that would stop a lot of this type of thing.

It certainly wouldn't solve everything, but I feel we could make it better than what we have now. The only way to get better is to keep improving the system, and in a Globalised world, this is the way things seem to be heading any way.
The problem is that it would require a victorious power to accept judgment of an independent body and we have all seen how well that works in the last 10 years, for this to work it would require an independent body with an enforcement capability and that just isn't possible.
December 26th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The problem is that it would require a victorious power to accept judgment of an independent body and we have all seen how well that works in the last 10 years, for this to work it would require an independent body with an enforcement capability and that just isn't possible.
If they did mot accept the judgement, they in turn wouldmake themselves liable for similar charges, thus becoming a pariah in the eyes of the world.

It ain't exactly a Prison sentence, but i'm sure that there are ways to add teeth to this judgement if need be.

I couldn't imagine NZ or Australia getting into this situation, but I don't imagine that they would enjoy the oprobrium of being of being held up as a pariah in the eyes of the civilised world.
December 26th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
But again you are stuck with the problem of a weak organisation because you realistically have no method of enforcement.

I have no doubt that people will point to the UN but that wouldn't be accurate as the UN was set up as forum where things were discussed and moderated removing the need for war.
December 26th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Never the less, I still think that it is the direction to move. We only have to look what happens to other countries who receive wide condemnation.

At the very least we are making it obvious to them what the world really thinks of them. There are very few countries that really just don't care what is thought of them.

It would also be a good indicator as to how civilised these countries really are.
December 26th, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
Monty..............It is the victor whose laws will apply, and in the case of Nuremberg it was the Allied forces with America and Britain holding the sway and as their laws are basically the same. Still are you saying that Allies should also try their leaders for pursuing the war and doing it to them with greater vigour than they could do it to you. Most of the the incidents that happened during the war that the Allied forces have pointed at them as a war crime, had already been inflicted on the allies by the Axis powers.
 


Similar Topics
WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ!!
In '74 Thesis, The Seeds Of McCain's War Views
Two Decades Late
Estimates Of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close To Ballpark
Is War A Part Of A War Crime?