3 ms·

Summary execution of captured soldiers (i.e. without adherence to the rule of law etc.) is a war crime. Fact. That you have no problem with it is not surprising

Summary execution of captured soldiers (i.e. without adherence to the rule of law etc.) is a war crime. Fact. That you have no problem with it is not surprising, and pisses all over what America would like to believe it stands for. What some Americans wish it did stand for. Be better. Not just better at killing.

cm2187 9y ago
This is very theoretical. Like if you send a platoon to get into some taliban fighter’s home and execute him in front of his kids it’s a war crime, but if instead you just flatten the house with a bomb it’s not. Well in option 1 the kids get to live, I’d argue it’s preferable to option 2.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  What if, when you captured this soldier, that apparently this platoon of yours can do, you just didn't summarily execute him? That's really my suggestion. Try to not murder people, when you have that option. As opposed to the OP option of summary execution of captured soldiers. I don't see that this is theoretical. We watched this play out in practice for many years. Turns out that running around executing people really doesn't help. Or maybe we just didn't do it enough? We do seem to be well beyond the point of listening to reality nowadays; maybe we just need to shout ideology louder. Like ISIS.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    I am not convinced ISIS will be defeated by inviting their fighters to a polite debate where we will attempt to convince them of the error of their ways.
    - philipov 9y ago
      With bastions of egalitarian democracy like the US, who needs tyrants?
    - monocasa 9y ago
      You're not trying to convince current ISIS soldiers, but instead the potential future members of their ranks that are being inundated with propaganda about how hypocritical American policy is. Winning ultimately will be more about drying up their sources for new recruits so that a war of attrition has some effect.
- wfo 9y ago
  Well with option 1, you create a whole family of terrorists who will (with some justification) hate and try to destroy the United States for the rest of their lives which will later become the justification for endless war, so if you're someone who profits from or enjoys war and death and misery it sounds pretty good I suppose.
barry-cotter 9y ago
The US is not a signatory to Additional Protocol II. There’s no legal reason they can’t execute partisans for being partisans. If you’re not part of the uniformed armed forces of a signatory of the Geneva Conventions your participation in hostilities is illegal and once those facts have been determined partisans can be legally executed. The USA seems very unlikely to do so but that’s policy, not law.

cm2187 9y ago

This is very theoretical. Like if you send a platoon to get into some taliban fighter’s home and execute him in front of his kids it’s a war crime, but if instead you just flatten the house with a bomb it’s not. Well in option 1 the kids get to live, I’d argue it’s preferable to option 2.

EliRivers 9y ago
What if, when you captured this soldier, that apparently this platoon of yours can do, you just didn't summarily execute him? That's really my suggestion. Try to not murder people, when you have that option. As opposed to the OP option of summary execution of captured soldiers. I don't see that this is theoretical. We watched this play out in practice for many years. Turns out that running around executing people really doesn't help. Or maybe we just didn't do it enough? We do seem to be well beyond the point of listening to reality nowadays; maybe we just need to shout ideology louder. Like ISIS.
- cm2187 9y ago
  I am not convinced ISIS will be defeated by inviting their fighters to a polite debate where we will attempt to convince them of the error of their ways.
  - philipov 9y ago
    With bastions of egalitarian democracy like the US, who needs tyrants?
  - monocasa 9y ago
    You're not trying to convince current ISIS soldiers, but instead the potential future members of their ranks that are being inundated with propaganda about how hypocritical American policy is. Winning ultimately will be more about drying up their sources for new recruits so that a war of attrition has some effect.
wfo 9y ago
Well with option 1, you create a whole family of terrorists who will (with some justification) hate and try to destroy the United States for the rest of their lives which will later become the justification for endless war, so if you're someone who profits from or enjoys war and death and misery it sounds pretty good I suppose.

barry-cotter 9y ago

The US is not a signatory to Additional Protocol II. There’s no legal reason they can’t execute partisans for being partisans. If you’re not part of the uniformed armed forces of a signatory of the Geneva Conventions your participation in hostilities is illegal and once those facts have been determined partisans can be legally executed. The USA seems very unlikely to do so but that’s policy, not law.