3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You cant be too shocked about stuff that has an a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You cant be too shocked about stuff that has an actual wikipedia article ...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
>Panjwai massacre,[1] occurred in the early hours of 11 March 2012, when United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales murdered sixteen civilians and wounded six others in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan He was sentenced to life without parole. >The Maywand District murders were the murders of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers from June 2009 to June 2010 Five of the Army soldiers faced murder charges while seven others were charged with participating in a coverup. War is waged by people. War crimes are inevitable but it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. How should the "US" be held accountable?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  >it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. That's easy to claim when you're the one doing the investigation. By refusing to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, the US has signalled it will not be held responsible for war crimes unless it's convenient for it. That decision is not great for the US's optics. I say that as someone whose ancestors were invaded by both US and Soviet forces, and I happen to think US forces really are less likely to commit war crimes - but that seems more a result of rugged individuals holding themselves to a higher standard, "The US" seems to have acted as badly as any other large, unaccountable institution would.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  So we have gone from 'there were none' to 'we punished those' where next? 'Well that guy over there did worse' 'It was only 100 civilians' 'There could have been a bad guy amongst them' 'Oops I did it again' That list was wikipedia, so pretty limited in scope and skewed to cases that have been charged and prosecuted.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Military service members committing crimes during war is not new but it's far different than war crimes being ordered from the top of the US govt. The closest thing is the prisoner mistreatment but even then, those soldiers did things that were definitely not authorized.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      Guess I didnt have 'its not a crime if it wasnt ordered by he commander in chief' on your list of potential excuses. lol at 'war crimes are inevitable'
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        I make no excuses. Those who commit war crimes should be held to account- and they almost always are. This thread seems to want senior US leadership held to account for war crimes when they never ordered anything illegal. War crimes are inevitable- war is waged by humans and humans make mistakes or do bad things to one another. Humans are not perfect. It's about what you do about them when you discover them. We have soldiers serving life sentences without parole for war crimes.
        shapefrog 5y ago
        > and they almost always are I would suggest that <1% of war crimes (number pulled directly out of thin air) are held to account. There are approximately 200,000 civilians dead as a result of these wars. Some 'legitimate' collateral damage, some because soldiers like to shoot people, some because they were journalists in their office, some because they went to the wrong wedding. While the investigator, judge, and jury of these potential crimes are the people perpetrating them themselves we have absolutely no idea of what proportion are or are not investigated let alone punished. Certainly, the evidence of cases that have received public attention (see the collateral murder video and 'investigation' as just one such example) shows a pattern of lies and coverups to justify gross incompetence or outright psychopathic behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You cant be too shocked about stuff that has an actual wikipedia article ...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

>Panjwai massacre,[1] occurred in the early hours of 11 March 2012, when United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales murdered sixteen civilians and wounded six others in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan He was sentenced to life without parole. >The Maywand District murders were the murders of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers from June 2009 to June 2010 Five of the Army soldiers faced murder charges while seven others were charged with participating in a coverup. War is waged by people. War crimes are inevitable but it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. How should the "US" be held accountable?

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
>it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable. That's easy to claim when you're the one doing the investigation. By refusing to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, the US has signalled it will not be held responsible for war crimes unless it's convenient for it. That decision is not great for the US's optics. I say that as someone whose ancestors were invaded by both US and Soviet forces, and I happen to think US forces really are less likely to commit war crimes - but that seems more a result of rugged individuals holding themselves to a higher standard, "The US" seems to have acted as badly as any other large, unaccountable institution would.
shapefrog 5y ago
So we have gone from 'there were none' to 'we punished those' where next? 'Well that guy over there did worse' 'It was only 100 civilians' 'There could have been a bad guy amongst them' 'Oops I did it again' That list was wikipedia, so pretty limited in scope and skewed to cases that have been charged and prosecuted.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Military service members committing crimes during war is not new but it's far different than war crimes being ordered from the top of the US govt. The closest thing is the prisoner mistreatment but even then, those soldiers did things that were definitely not authorized.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    Guess I didnt have 'its not a crime if it wasnt ordered by he commander in chief' on your list of potential excuses. lol at 'war crimes are inevitable'
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      I make no excuses. Those who commit war crimes should be held to account- and they almost always are. This thread seems to want senior US leadership held to account for war crimes when they never ordered anything illegal. War crimes are inevitable- war is waged by humans and humans make mistakes or do bad things to one another. Humans are not perfect. It's about what you do about them when you discover them. We have soldiers serving life sentences without parole for war crimes.
      - shapefrog 5y ago
        > and they almost always are I would suggest that <1% of war crimes (number pulled directly out of thin air) are held to account. There are approximately 200,000 civilians dead as a result of these wars. Some 'legitimate' collateral damage, some because soldiers like to shoot people, some because they were journalists in their office, some because they went to the wrong wedding. While the investigator, judge, and jury of these potential crimes are the people perpetrating them themselves we have absolutely no idea of what proportion are or are not investigated let alone punished. Certainly, the evidence of cases that have received public attention (see the collateral murder video and 'investigation' as just one such example) shows a pattern of lies and coverups to justify gross incompetence or outright psychopathic behavior.