4 ms·

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 be

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.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        >According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civil...
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        shapefrog 5y ago
        Honestly if you are benchmarking america against the bahviour of the Taliban you have really lost your way.
    - blunte 5y ago
      > they never ordered anything illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos You can't have it both ways. You are either responsible for the management and oversight of your organization (corporation, country, etc.), and thus accountable, or you are negligent. So criminal intent, or criminal negligence.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Ok
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > This thread seems to want senior US leadership held to account for war crimes when they never ordered anything illegal Even if it were the case ( it isn't), look up the Command responsibility principle. There's established precedent for it.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Aren't Guantanamo and the CIA torture program war crimes for you?

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.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      >According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civil...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - shapefrog 5y ago
        Honestly if you are benchmarking america against the bahviour of the Taliban you have really lost your way.
  - blunte 5y ago
    > they never ordered anything illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos You can't have it both ways. You are either responsible for the management and oversight of your organization (corporation, country, etc.), and thus accountable, or you are negligent. So criminal intent, or criminal negligence.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Ok
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > This thread seems to want senior US leadership held to account for war crimes when they never ordered anything illegal Even if it were the case ( it isn't), look up the Command responsibility principle. There's established precedent for it.
sofixa 5y ago
Aren't Guantanamo and the CIA torture program war crimes for you?