5 ms·

Not only that but it is considered a war crime to torture from my understanding. So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US b

by 14 5y ago

Not only that but it is considered a war crime to torture from my understanding. So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. We need to lead on a moral high ground.

yardie 5y ago
Russia is basically stating the justification for the invasion of Ukraine by saying the US did it first in Iraq. The US has already proven how toothless the UN Security Council is and Russia is reinforcing that idea.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Wasn't that the point? That no country inside it could be acted against (veto), as otherwise neither China, Russia, nor the US would have agreed to join?
krageon 5y ago
The US is friends with the regime that has the war crime tribunal, and Russia is not. In the end such things are disappointingly simple.
- detaro 5y ago
  Neither the US nor Russia (nor China) recognize Den Haag as having authority over them. The US even has a law authorizing the president to use military force to prevent it from prosecuting US service members. It's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to any of those countries. And even outside of that, has ever anyone been prosecuted that didn't comprehensively loose the respective war?
- belter 5y ago
  The US is not a friend of the country as it made a law saying they would invade the Netherlands if required. "The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands. " "U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law" https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
BbzzbB 5y ago
Well the US isn't a party to the ICC so it can't be sued by it over war crimes in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
- tux3 5y ago
  "Okay. But That's Worse. You, You Do Get How That's Worse, Right?" — NBC, The Good Place
- harryf 5y ago
  It doesn’t need a treaty for something to be clearly wrong… and like wrong at any level. I mean the poster at the top of this thread immediately tries to make some justification… > This is the kind of stuff that probably makes some people’s job down the pipe easier and at the same time undermines the Western civilization. No! It’s just wrong! We should never do this to other human beings. Period. But you want a GOOD reason why not ? Because the people you trained to torture abroad one day return home and get jobs like security outside the nightclub your teenage kids are going to. You’re literally training psychopaths which later get unleashed on the public at home. Also we know torture doesn’t work for information gathering. It’s only useful as a tool of oppression. Which is why we’re actually using it. But seriously. I can’t believe I need to make the case against torture. It’s just wrong.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    The show "24" was an advertisement for torture. I got sucked in at first because it was a bit of a twist and exciting, but soon stopped out of disgust when I realized what was going on.
    - harryf 5y ago
      Exactly. And it came out Nov 6th 2001... not even a month after 9/11. Probably did a lot to shape an angry publics willingness to use torture as a tool in retribution. The writers of 24 (and later Homeland) talk about it here https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/magazine/the-creators-of-homeland-exorcise-the-ghost-of-24.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/magazine/the-creators-of-...
krisoft 5y ago
> So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. I don't understand what you are saying here. More than one group can commit war crimes.
- willis936 5y ago
  This is referred to as "Whataboutism". Russia has a colorful history of using it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#History
  - nicholasnorris 5y ago
    I feel like it's still worth considering that despite the existence of this strategy, acknowledging it doesn't necessarily repair the damage of being seen as hypocritical. Evoking "whataboutism" could even be seen as a sort of counter-deflection in some cases.
    - willis936 5y ago
      The solution is simple: don't use whataboutism. Acknowledge history and context and appreciate that moral relativism absolves no one of their own actions. This case of excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine because the US commits war crimes is gold medal mental gymnastics and really only makes sense in the context of the history of Russian propaganda.
      - soraminazuki 5y ago
        > This case of excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine I double-checked the parent comments and not a single person did that.
  - parthdesai 5y ago
    No, it's called pointing out hypocrisy
- bashinator 5y ago
throwaway894345 5y ago
I absolutely agree about leading from the moral high ground. It's been frustrating talking with ordinary Russians who are reluctant to condemn (even anonymously) that their invasion of Ukraine (including the targeted murder of civilians) is an atrocity because the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses and without UN approval. Of course, it's a significant error of degree to conflate these anomalies in US behavior with the standard behavior of Russia or China or whomever, but by behaving above-board we make it harder for bad faith people to conflate American behavior with that of various dictatorships. EDIT: On the subject of dictatorships and the UN, there's a brief but insightful essay I recently came across recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30687498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30687498 > So many member states are themselves dictatorships that engage in horrible human rights violations—and they stick together. The latter point is key: the worst countries are far more united in protecting human rights abuses than the democracies are in protecting human rights.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  > Of course, it's a significant error of degree to conflate these anomalies in US behavior with the standard behavior of Russia or China or whomever, Why so? Perhaps for Iraq you've forgot about the fact that VP Cheney's former company made significant gains from that lie? The idea that one side's lies and unjustified violence are better than the other side's is why the wars and hypocrisy continue. Either we - the ones being served cake - call all BS or we don't. But ongoing mediocre excuses for mediocrity aren't working. /rant
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > The idea that one side's lies and unjustified violence are better than the other side's is why the wars and hypocrisy continue. First of all, I'm advocating for American behavior to remain beyond reproach and I favor prosecuting the American officials who misled the American public in the case of the Iraq war. That said, I heartily reject the binary categorization between unblemished and blemished countries because all countries fall into the latter group. Of course there are differences in the quantity and degree of lying and unjustified violence that your scheme glosses over--the idea that no country is better than say, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Maoist China serves only gives rhetorical cover to the worst offenders/offenses: "who is Canada to criticize Nazi Germany considering its track record of unjustified violence against its own native population?". This is the worst kind of race-to-the bottom rhetoric.
krapp 5y ago
>So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. One can be a hypocrite and also be correct. Either a nation is committing war crimes, or they aren't. Either it's morally justified to oppose war crimes, or it isn't. You can't argue that the US should be punished for war crimes without also arguing that the US and NATO are correct to oppose Russian war crimes. Otherwise, the argument is that Russia should be allowed to commit war crimes because the US gets to, which is at best an extremely childish way of viewing the world, wholly separated from morality.

by 14 5y ago

yardie 5y ago

Russia is basically stating the justification for the invasion of Ukraine by saying the US did it first in Iraq. The US has already proven how toothless the UN Security Council is and Russia is reinforcing that idea.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Semaphor 5y ago
Wasn't that the point? That no country inside it could be acted against (veto), as otherwise neither China, Russia, nor the US would have agreed to join?

krageon 5y ago

The US is friends with the regime that has the war crime tribunal, and Russia is not. In the end such things are disappointingly simple.

detaro 5y ago
Neither the US nor Russia (nor China) recognize Den Haag as having authority over them. The US even has a law authorizing the president to use military force to prevent it from prosecuting US service members. It's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to any of those countries. And even outside of that, has ever anyone been prosecuted that didn't comprehensively loose the respective war?
belter 5y ago
The US is not a friend of the country as it made a law saying they would invade the Netherlands if required. "The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands. " "U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law" https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

BbzzbB 5y ago

Well the US isn't a party to the ICC so it can't be sued by it over war crimes in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

tux3 5y ago
"Okay. But That's Worse. You, You Do Get How That's Worse, Right?" — NBC, The Good Place
harryf 5y ago
It doesn’t need a treaty for something to be clearly wrong… and like wrong at any level. I mean the poster at the top of this thread immediately tries to make some justification… > This is the kind of stuff that probably makes some people’s job down the pipe easier and at the same time undermines the Western civilization. No! It’s just wrong! We should never do this to other human beings. Period. But you want a GOOD reason why not ? Because the people you trained to torture abroad one day return home and get jobs like security outside the nightclub your teenage kids are going to. You’re literally training psychopaths which later get unleashed on the public at home. Also we know torture doesn’t work for information gathering. It’s only useful as a tool of oppression. Which is why we’re actually using it. But seriously. I can’t believe I need to make the case against torture. It’s just wrong.
- pstuart 5y ago
  The show "24" was an advertisement for torture. I got sucked in at first because it was a bit of a twist and exciting, but soon stopped out of disgust when I realized what was going on.
  - harryf 5y ago
    Exactly. And it came out Nov 6th 2001... not even a month after 9/11. Probably did a lot to shape an angry publics willingness to use torture as a tool in retribution. The writers of 24 (and later Homeland) talk about it here https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/magazine/the-creators-of-homeland-exorcise-the-ghost-of-24.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/magazine/the-creators-of-...

krisoft 5y ago

> So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. I don't understand what you are saying here. More than one group can commit war crimes.

willis936 5y ago
This is referred to as "Whataboutism". Russia has a colorful history of using it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#History
- nicholasnorris 5y ago
  I feel like it's still worth considering that despite the existence of this strategy, acknowledging it doesn't necessarily repair the damage of being seen as hypocritical. Evoking "whataboutism" could even be seen as a sort of counter-deflection in some cases.
  - willis936 5y ago
    The solution is simple: don't use whataboutism. Acknowledge history and context and appreciate that moral relativism absolves no one of their own actions. This case of excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine because the US commits war crimes is gold medal mental gymnastics and really only makes sense in the context of the history of Russian propaganda.
    - soraminazuki 5y ago
      > This case of excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine I double-checked the parent comments and not a single person did that.
- parthdesai 5y ago
  No, it's called pointing out hypocrisy
bashinator 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

I absolutely agree about leading from the moral high ground. It's been frustrating talking with ordinary Russians who are reluctant to condemn (even anonymously) that their invasion of Ukraine (including the targeted murder of civilians) is an atrocity because the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses and without UN approval. Of course, it's a significant error of degree to conflate these anomalies in US behavior with the standard behavior of Russia or China or whomever, but by behaving above-board we make it harder for bad faith people to conflate American behavior with that of various dictatorships. EDIT: On the subject of dictatorships and the UN, there's a brief but insightful essay I recently came across recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30687498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30687498 > So many member states are themselves dictatorships that engage in horrible human rights violations—and they stick together. The latter point is key: the worst countries are far more united in protecting human rights abuses than the democracies are in protecting human rights.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
> Of course, it's a significant error of degree to conflate these anomalies in US behavior with the standard behavior of Russia or China or whomever, Why so? Perhaps for Iraq you've forgot about the fact that VP Cheney's former company made significant gains from that lie? The idea that one side's lies and unjustified violence are better than the other side's is why the wars and hypocrisy continue. Either we - the ones being served cake - call all BS or we don't. But ongoing mediocre excuses for mediocrity aren't working. /rant
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > The idea that one side's lies and unjustified violence are better than the other side's is why the wars and hypocrisy continue. First of all, I'm advocating for American behavior to remain beyond reproach and I favor prosecuting the American officials who misled the American public in the case of the Iraq war. That said, I heartily reject the binary categorization between unblemished and blemished countries because all countries fall into the latter group. Of course there are differences in the quantity and degree of lying and unjustified violence that your scheme glosses over--the idea that no country is better than say, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Maoist China serves only gives rhetorical cover to the worst offenders/offenses: "who is Canada to criticize Nazi Germany considering its track record of unjustified violence against its own native population?". This is the worst kind of race-to-the bottom rhetoric.

krapp 5y ago

>So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. One can be a hypocrite and also be correct. Either a nation is committing war crimes, or they aren't. Either it's morally justified to oppose war crimes, or it isn't. You can't argue that the US should be punished for war crimes without also arguing that the US and NATO are correct to oppose Russian war crimes. Otherwise, the argument is that Russia should be allowed to commit war crimes because the US gets to, which is at best an extremely childish way of viewing the world, wholly separated from morality.