4 ms·

That is not a war crime. Keep in mind that the Allies lied about all kinds of things during WWII in order to legitimize our involvement, and that we killed mil

That is not a war crime. Keep in mind that the Allies lied about all kinds of things during WWII in order to legitimize our involvement, and that we killed millions of people during the war. Countries always lie about war and people always die in war, those are just facts.

sofixa 5y ago
Yes, the Allies comitted war crimes in WWII, i don't see how that matters for modern war criminals. Conspiracy against peace is a real war crime, including in the US.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  I guess you and I must disagree. Either you think war crimes are no big deal, because according to your broad reading of "conspiracy against peace" pretty much anyone who participates in any war is a criminal, or else you think there is no justifiable war whatsoever. Personally I think WWII was entirely justified, that the Allies had to win that war, and that fighting to win meant that large numbers of people would die. I also believe that war crimes are a big deal and that it is wrong to conflate "war crimes" with "doing something wrong" or "participating in war I disagreed with" or "being on the wrong side of the war."
  - sofixa 5y ago
    I'll quote the definition for you: > crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. > An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this. Meaning that defensive wars are OK. Conspiring against the peace, aka waging a war of aggression, is not. Which is why the Allies fighting against the Axis aren't war criminals for being in the war, but for their actions there ( unrestricted submarine warfare, the Laconia incident, the bombings of civilian targets including Nuremberg, etc.). The Axis' war crimes including them starting the wars ( against Poland, Soviet Union, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.) and their despicable behaviour in them ( Holocaust, treatment of civilians and POWs, bombing of civilian targets, etc).
    - jl6 5y ago
      Note that in all the various calls for war crime prosecutions for the Iraq war, Colin Powell is rarely if ever named as one of the accused.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Quoting Wikipedia: > Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.[61] It's hard to deny he worked hard to justify an illegal war of aggression, which, as we've established is a war crime.
        jl6 5y ago
        It should be really easy to find some examples of people attempting to put him on trial, given such a slam dunk case.
        sofixa 5y ago
        Please name one american war criminal higher than a soldier killing innocents in the dozens ( like someone who ordered a war or a strike or torture or kidnapping or whatever) who was actually tried and served time for his crimes. That just doesn't happen with US war criminals, so the question is moot.
        jl6 5y ago
        I didn't ask for a successful prosecution, I just asked for examples of people attempting to put him on trial. Here are 4 arguments, drawn from 10 seconds of Googling, put forward for trying Bush and other members of his administration. The usual names are here - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet: https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/criminal-complaint-in-geneva-against-george-w-bush-what-has-trial-done/ https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/criminal-complain... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/usa.warcrimes https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/usa.wa... https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-play-putting-george-w-bush-on-trial-for-war-crimes https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-play-putting-george-w-bush... https://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/put_the_evil_bastards_on_trial_the_case_for_trying_bush_cheney_and_more_for_war_crimes/ https://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/put_the_evil_bastards_on_tr... And here's a "tribunal" in Malaysia who actually did convict Bush and Blair in absentia: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-t... Notably absent from all these perp lists? Colin Powell.

sofixa 5y ago

Yes, the Allies comitted war crimes in WWII, i don't see how that matters for modern war criminals. Conspiracy against peace is a real war crime, including in the US.

betterunix2 5y ago
I guess you and I must disagree. Either you think war crimes are no big deal, because according to your broad reading of "conspiracy against peace" pretty much anyone who participates in any war is a criminal, or else you think there is no justifiable war whatsoever. Personally I think WWII was entirely justified, that the Allies had to win that war, and that fighting to win meant that large numbers of people would die. I also believe that war crimes are a big deal and that it is wrong to conflate "war crimes" with "doing something wrong" or "participating in war I disagreed with" or "being on the wrong side of the war."
- sofixa 5y ago
  I'll quote the definition for you: > crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. > An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this. Meaning that defensive wars are OK. Conspiring against the peace, aka waging a war of aggression, is not. Which is why the Allies fighting against the Axis aren't war criminals for being in the war, but for their actions there ( unrestricted submarine warfare, the Laconia incident, the bombings of civilian targets including Nuremberg, etc.). The Axis' war crimes including them starting the wars ( against Poland, Soviet Union, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.) and their despicable behaviour in them ( Holocaust, treatment of civilians and POWs, bombing of civilian targets, etc).
  - jl6 5y ago
    Note that in all the various calls for war crime prosecutions for the Iraq war, Colin Powell is rarely if ever named as one of the accused.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Quoting Wikipedia: > Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.[61] It's hard to deny he worked hard to justify an illegal war of aggression, which, as we've established is a war crime.
      - jl6 5y ago
        It should be really easy to find some examples of people attempting to put him on trial, given such a slam dunk case.
        sofixa 5y ago
        Please name one american war criminal higher than a soldier killing innocents in the dozens ( like someone who ordered a war or a strike or torture or kidnapping or whatever) who was actually tried and served time for his crimes. That just doesn't happen with US war criminals, so the question is moot.
        jl6 5y ago
        I didn't ask for a successful prosecution, I just asked for examples of people attempting to put him on trial. Here are 4 arguments, drawn from 10 seconds of Googling, put forward for trying Bush and other members of his administration. The usual names are here - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet: https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/criminal-complaint-in-geneva-against-george-w-bush-what-has-trial-done/ https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/criminal-complain... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/usa.warcrimes https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/usa.wa... https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-play-putting-george-w-bush-on-trial-for-war-crimes https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-play-putting-george-w-bush... https://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/put_the_evil_bastards_on_trial_the_case_for_trying_bush_cheney_and_more_for_war_crimes/ https://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/put_the_evil_bastards_on_tr... And here's a "tribunal" in Malaysia who actually did convict Bush and Blair in absentia: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-t... Notably absent from all these perp lists? Colin Powell.