5 ms·

That is not what you were asked. You were asked, if you accept "oops" as a valid excuse, is it possible to successfully prosecute any war crime? Can you think

by jlgreco 13y ago

That is not what you were asked. You were asked, if you accept "oops" as a valid excuse, is it possible to successfully prosecute any war crime? Can you think of any examples of war crimes where "oops" could not be used as a defense? "If you go into a field and there's a bunch of women and children (unarmed!, and I hate that I have to mention that...) then there is no valid military purpose to an air strike." If you accept "oops" as an excuse, then guess what? That air strike was an "oops".

mpyne 13y ago
The air strike was an 'oops'. The order to give the air strike was a war crime. Another very obvious example was the My Lai massacre itself. It's really hard to find a valid military purpose for either carrying out the order to bayonet a child, or giving the order to kill a child. But the fog of war is not as hazy on the ground. During WWII (which was admittedly a total war) you could drop all the bombs you wanted at a tank factory and still manage to hit the school a kilometer away. That wouldn't have made dropping the bombs a war crime by any stretch of the imagination though; the raid itself had a valid military purpose.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Do me a favor and actually look up what happened in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. Hint: Fuck all.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Yes, the perpetrators got off with essentially no punishment whatsoever, the U.S. tried to cover it up, one of the very few heroes was actually punished even further for allowing the story to come out. All deplorable, and a very deep stain to have associated with the U.S. for all time. But what does that have to do with the definition of a war crime?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      How the fuck do you think this is about the definition of war crimes? This is about what we consider valid defenses, and our ability to prosecute war crimes. Do you not understand how our absolute failure to prosecute the My Lai Massacre might be relevant to how we prosecute war crimes? Christ, it is almost as though you have absolutely no interest in understanding what people are saying to you.

by jlgreco 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

The air strike was an 'oops'. The order to give the air strike was a war crime. Another very obvious example was the My Lai massacre itself. It's really hard to find a valid military purpose for either carrying out the order to bayonet a child, or giving the order to kill a child. But the fog of war is not as hazy on the ground. During WWII (which was admittedly a total war) you could drop all the bombs you wanted at a tank factory and still manage to hit the school a kilometer away. That wouldn't have made dropping the bombs a war crime by any stretch of the imagination though; the raid itself had a valid military purpose.

jlgreco 13y ago
Do me a favor and actually look up what happened in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. Hint: Fuck all.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yes, the perpetrators got off with essentially no punishment whatsoever, the U.S. tried to cover it up, one of the very few heroes was actually punished even further for allowing the story to come out. All deplorable, and a very deep stain to have associated with the U.S. for all time. But what does that have to do with the definition of a war crime?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    How the fuck do you think this is about the definition of war crimes? This is about what we consider valid defenses, and our ability to prosecute war crimes. Do you not understand how our absolute failure to prosecute the My Lai Massacre might be relevant to how we prosecute war crimes? Christ, it is almost as though you have absolutely no interest in understanding what people are saying to you.