3 ms·

>Well, yeah. War is bad You're implying that wars have no rules. This is very much not true, not legally and not morally. You should read the 4th Geneva Conven

>Well, yeah. War is bad You're implying that wars have no rules. This is very much not true, not legally and not morally. You should read the 4th Geneva Convention to disabuse yourself of this dangerous misconception: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380 >In wars, principled stands don't win And excessively unprincipled stands can get you sent to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes. Now, I'm not saying that deleting some files is a war crime. What I'm saying is that your reasoning for why it is legitimate is flawed. I even doubt that you would agree with your own reasoning given some other examples. E.g., would you not agree that while we can ask McDonalds to stop doing business in Russia, it would be a crime for them to start poisoning their Russian customers?

AnonCoward4 5y ago
> E.g., would you not agree that while we can ask McDonalds to stop doing business in Russia, it would be a crime for them to start poisoning their Russian customers? In the current climate I am not sure anymore that people would disagree with poisoning Russians. Here in Germany they started to purge everything Russian (except people) and also agitating against Russians in general. It feels like we learned nothing from WW2. From what I've seen there seem to be worldwide movements in that regard, that are even overboard for cold war propaganda. edit: added "except people"
- z1nc 5y ago
  I've seen a few people in the media specify that the war's about Putin's aggression, rather than Russian aggression. But I doubt that they're the majority. Russophobia sells better. We've got people vandalizing businesses [1] and sending threats in the US as well. That doesn't help anyone in Ukraine, if that's really their goal. It certainly doesn't affect Russia's economy if a restaurant in another country takes a dive. The point of the sanctions is to hurt Russia's government (and therefore their military). There's a cost to sanctions as well for Russian citizens who have nothing to do with the war, but I've yet to see an alternative solution beyond escalating the conflict. [1] https://www.axios.com/russian-businesses-us-vandalism-threats-bdde1c92-d661-48d5-9157-c540964b00fb.html https://www.axios.com/russian-businesses-us-vandalism-threat...
klibertp 5y ago
> And excessively unprincipled stands can get you sent to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes. Unless you're from the US, in which case the US will invade Netherlands to get you out of there. Apparently, there is a law (from 2002 IIRC) which allows the US to do this legally. Same goes for Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a lot more countries that did not sign (or ratify) the Rome Statute. > One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third states without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[149] The co-operation of the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature.[150] For Russia, China, and the US there's literally nothing that can be done: while the "members of UN Security Council" are "compelled to co-operate" with the ICC, these members can veto anything that comes up. In other words, if you're from one of non-signatories, you can willfully kill, torture, subject to inhumane treatment, perform biological experiments, steal and destroy property, take hostages, unlawfully confine, transfer, and deport, and even willfully cause great suffering without fear of any kind of prosecution. Does Geneva Convention make a difference? I only learned about ICC and Rome Statute, and it was disheartening enough for me to stop reading, so it's a genuine question.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  >Does Geneva Convention make a difference? Yes I think it does. Whatever the limits of enforcement, it means something that all the countries you mention are signatories to the Geneva Conventions I - IV. Even if these countries refuse to extradite their citizens to The Hague, it doesn't necessarily protect war criminals from prosecution in their own countries. They are still breaking the law.
  - the_why_of_y 5y ago
    Several countries have implemented some form of Universal jurisdiction for severe crimes like genocide, meaning their courts may prosecute regardless of nationality of the accused or country where the supposed crime happened. Of course the practical problem is getting hold of the suspected war criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-spotlight-on-france-s-war-crimes-unit.html https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-sp...

AnonCoward4 5y ago

> E.g., would you not agree that while we can ask McDonalds to stop doing business in Russia, it would be a crime for them to start poisoning their Russian customers? In the current climate I am not sure anymore that people would disagree with poisoning Russians. Here in Germany they started to purge everything Russian (except people) and also agitating against Russians in general. It feels like we learned nothing from WW2. From what I've seen there seem to be worldwide movements in that regard, that are even overboard for cold war propaganda. edit: added "except people"

z1nc 5y ago
I've seen a few people in the media specify that the war's about Putin's aggression, rather than Russian aggression. But I doubt that they're the majority. Russophobia sells better. We've got people vandalizing businesses [1] and sending threats in the US as well. That doesn't help anyone in Ukraine, if that's really their goal. It certainly doesn't affect Russia's economy if a restaurant in another country takes a dive. The point of the sanctions is to hurt Russia's government (and therefore their military). There's a cost to sanctions as well for Russian citizens who have nothing to do with the war, but I've yet to see an alternative solution beyond escalating the conflict. [1] https://www.axios.com/russian-businesses-us-vandalism-threats-bdde1c92-d661-48d5-9157-c540964b00fb.html https://www.axios.com/russian-businesses-us-vandalism-threat...

klibertp 5y ago

> And excessively unprincipled stands can get you sent to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes. Unless you're from the US, in which case the US will invade Netherlands to get you out of there. Apparently, there is a law (from 2002 IIRC) which allows the US to do this legally. Same goes for Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a lot more countries that did not sign (or ratify) the Rome Statute. > One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third states without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[149] The co-operation of the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature.[150] For Russia, China, and the US there's literally nothing that can be done: while the "members of UN Security Council" are "compelled to co-operate" with the ICC, these members can veto anything that comes up. In other words, if you're from one of non-signatories, you can willfully kill, torture, subject to inhumane treatment, perform biological experiments, steal and destroy property, take hostages, unlawfully confine, transfer, and deport, and even willfully cause great suffering without fear of any kind of prosecution. Does Geneva Convention make a difference? I only learned about ICC and Rome Statute, and it was disheartening enough for me to stop reading, so it's a genuine question.

fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>Does Geneva Convention make a difference? Yes I think it does. Whatever the limits of enforcement, it means something that all the countries you mention are signatories to the Geneva Conventions I - IV. Even if these countries refuse to extradite their citizens to The Hague, it doesn't necessarily protect war criminals from prosecution in their own countries. They are still breaking the law.
- the_why_of_y 5y ago
  Several countries have implemented some form of Universal jurisdiction for severe crimes like genocide, meaning their courts may prosecute regardless of nationality of the accused or country where the supposed crime happened. Of course the practical problem is getting hold of the suspected war criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-spotlight-on-france-s-war-crimes-unit.html https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-sp...