War Crimes

[FunkyTown]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama 'examining Afghan killings'

Wow. I can't believe how angry this news article made me. Thousands of soldiers buried in a mass grave, massacred after surrendering - Some shot dead in shipping containers, others left to suffocate, all done by a guy on the CIA's payroll.

When this gets investigated, if it turns out he did it(And since the mass graves exist, SOMETHING happened, that's for sure), he should be tried for war crimes and executed and the people who backed him should be fired.

"Nobody said no to an investigation, but nobody ever said yes, either. The first reaction of everybody there was, 'Oh, this is a sensitive issue; this is a touchy issue politically.'"

was the reaction of Pierre Prosper, the US Envoy on war crimes under George Bush. Thousands of surrendered soldiers suffocated and killed? I'd say that's a touchy subject. If any one of those soldiers had been a brother, sister, father or cousin of mine and someone referred to their murder as a 'Touchy issue politically', I would have lost it. Can you imagine if a few thousand American Soldiers had surrendered in Afghanistan and were treated like this? The sky would be raining bombs right now. Afghanistan would be glass.

[ryanmercer]

All I'm going to say is... they were enemy combatants... they were killed... that is war, that is not crime. If they were non-coms maybe it would have been wrong... but all of these people that want to say what is just, what is fair, what is legal in war... HELLLLLOOOOOO it is WAR. It's ok to kill people one way, but not another?

Sure, if all the bodies found were say 5 years old... ok sure then it would have been a 'crime' against morals not a 'war crime'.

In this case... they were able-bodied known enemy combatants. They were executed.

"Can you imagine if a few thousand American Soldiers had surrendered in Afghanistan and were treated like this?" It is WAR... ok, here... we can arm our soldiers with flowers bouquets, and they can approach armed enemy combatants offering flowers... and they'll get cut down with a wall of bullets. It isn't a playground tiff, it is WAR. The enemy WOULD kill, or torture, or torture and kill anyone of us that surrendered... now, do you want a bunch of these guys to surrender to us, then we ship them off to prison camps or prisons... so that they can sit there for weeks, months, years missing their families hating us more and more every day, so that if they ever are let go they can go preach hatred for the Americas to anyone that will listen creating a mass ove anti-Americans that would stop at nothing to ensure your death?

War is violent. People die in war.

Fighters in that region aren't forces to underestimate. They have been repelling armies from their lands for a thousand years. During 9 crusades in the area against mostly Muslim forces... there were very few instances in where they were nice to invading forces that lost to them. Even Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, known for a few instances of battlefield compassion (one instance he was attacking a fortress and learned that a couple had married... he ordered the tower they were in not be attacked, basically leveled the rest of the fortress, then gave them wedding gifts from his own treasury.) would be ruthless to enemy soldiers that were overrun or surrendered.

"Thousands of soldiers buried in a mass grave, massacred after surrendering". Next time they catch a mess of enemy combatants, we'll send them over to your house for you to keep an eye on.

Just my two cents.

[ryanmercer]

And what about THIS 'war crime'

Mountain Meadows massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by the local Mormon militia on 11 September 1857. It began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party except for seventeen children under eight years old—about 120 men, women, and children—were killed. After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain, their children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of their possessions auctioned off at the Latter Day Saint Cedar City tithing office.

[FunkyTown]

And what about THIS 'war crime'

Mountain Meadows massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by the local Mormon militia on 11 September 1857. It began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party except for seventeen children under eight years old—about 120 men, women, and children—were killed. After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain, their children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of their possessions auctioned off at the Latter Day Saint Cedar City tithing office.

Enemy combatants killed in combat are different than captured enemies who surrendered being slaughtered. Oh, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a terrible crime and everyone involved should have been tried and hung for it.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you would bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Do you know any LDS prophets who condoned it even then?

The answer to that is 'No'. Slaughtering innocents is never the right thing to do. It is always wicked, it is always evil, there is never any excuse.

[Aesa]

"All I'm going to say is... they were enemy combatants... they were killed... that is war, that is not crime."

Every murderous act is a crime. If we lived in a world that was truly sane, all the world's people would say that there must be innumerable ways that we can solve problems other than killing one another.

Unfortunately we don't live in a sane world, and our nations don't know how to solve many so called national and so called foreign problems without murder.

Instead it seems right to say "if it's war, the normal rules of morality do not apply ... seek and kill."

I, for one, appreciate the great human concern FunkyTown shows. There have been millions slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan (and ofcourse, many other places) and we should be disgusted with the whole lot of it. There are no winners in war, friends, both sides are victims no matter who 'wins'.

"During 9 crusades in the area against mostly Muslim forces..."

What practical (acceptable) reason was there for the crusade? What a horrid act those crusades were.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Aesa

[bytor2112]

Brutal. Sounds like prosecuting might be very difficult......I wonder if the Northern Alliance General is still around or what kind of support he enjoys in Afghanistan. Seems like these countries solve their problems with little regard for human life. How do people become so cold? I guess after a while they become anesthetized to the violence.

[Aesa]

I guess after a while they become anesthetized to the violence.

Let's be honest. Can you sincerely tell of a government that has not?

Something of interest:

Edited July 13, 2009 by Aesa

[NeuroTypical]

I have no problem with war criminals being brought to justice, no matter whose side they were on.

There's not really enough information in this story to tell whether a war crime was commited or not. (Words mean things, despite emotionally charged statements like "Every murderous act is a crime")

LM

[Just_A_Guy]

By all means, investigate.

But I'm dubious of the idea of one ally punishing war crimes of soldiers who were on another ally's payroll.

Should the Soviets have been allowed to put our boys on trial for some of the things that went on in Germany and Italy during the closing stages of World War 2?

We knew--or should have known--that we were climbing into bed with slippery fellows when we started the action in Afghanistan. If we don't like the way they do business, we shouldn't do business with them anymore. It's that simple.

[Prodigal_Son]

I think the outrage is justified. If these troops SURRENDERED, there was no way mass executions could be condoned. That's not how things work, not even war.

[FunkyTown]

Okay. It blows me away that I'm one of the few who think that committing war crimes requires that someone go on trial.

The Nuremberg Trials were not something created to waste time. It was because, even in war, there are some things that aren't done.

Great men came together and signed the Geneva Convention; Abraham Lincoln commissioned the Lieber Code for union soldiers.

For me? Anything that goes against the Rome Statute - An international agreement signed by 120 nations - That would be a war crime. Even in war, some rules must be followed.

Interestingly, the US opted out of the Rome Statute, alongside 6 other nations such as the strongly pro-human rights nations of Iraq, China, Qatar and India.

If war must exist, I would rather be like Winston Churchilll than Benito Mussolini.

[NeuroTypical]

For me? Anything that goes against the Rome Statute - An international agreement signed by 120 nations - That would be a war crime. Even in war, some rules must be followed.

"Must". What an odd word. It tends to mean something along the lines of: "obviously, people will do it because the consequence of not doing it is worse". It's so easy to disagree with a "must" statement. I wonder Funky, exactly why do you think nations "must" follow a set of rules of warfare? What obvious consequence comes of breaking this edict (as it has always been broken across human history)?

As I grow up, it becomes clearer that such blanket "must" edicts don't really mean much, without the "rough men who stand ready to do violence on the behalf" of the edict-giver. In other words, courts, justice, fairness - if they exist to any extent at all - it is because people with guns will go make the rulebreakers obey or make them dead.

Perhaps if you understand that, you might understand why folks are so passionate about the US refusing to be part of the world court.

Interestingly, the US opted out of the Rome Statute, alongside 6 other nations such as the strongly pro-human rights nations of Iraq, China, Qatar and India.

I am very grateful that my country refuses to be a part of a system wich weakens our sovereignty. We're the USofA, the constitution is the law of the land. Americans first, citizens of the world second. We'll enact and enforce our own "musts", thank you.

LM

[dazed-and-confused]

i am a baby-boomer, born in 1952...and grew up with WWII movies and documentaries, many talking about the EVIL propaganda machine of the nazis against the jews during that time......and one day i realised, to my horror, that we, the u.s., ALSO had an EVIL propaganda machine.....i have shunned politics and politicians ever since for the liars they all are........just my opinion

[dazed-and-confused]

btw.......also being a combat veteran, i know something about the depth of emotion of purpose and fear and anger and survival that takes hold of you in combat........something NO civilian will EVER know...

[Guest Godless]

btw.......also being a combat veteran, i know something about the depth of emotion of purpose and fear and anger and survival that takes hold of you in combat........something NO civilian will EVER know...

Very well put.

Also, as a combat veteran, it infuriates me to see stories like this. It is this sort of ignorance and inexcusable recklessness that stirs up hatred towards US soldiers and puts our lives in danger in war zone. I truly hope that the person/people responsible for this heinous act are persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[ryanmercer]

The fact of the matter is it was done during war. It was part of the war. There are no such things as rules of war... there is chivalry, there his honor... chivalry and honor are not part of the battlefield, they are a pleasantry that some choose to participate in... generally those that want to suffer the greatest losses.

If you are going to be killing people... displacing people... overthrowing people... what right do you have to make rules, and say that when these rules aren't followed it is a crime. Killing people is killing people, if you want to be chivalrous and play by the rules of war that is fine... however in the Middle-East you must NEVER expect the enemy to fight by the same rules...

Afterall... it is a war crime to shoot at people in a place of worship... so what do they do... they fire at our troops from the cover of Masjids (mosques)... know why? They are the smart ones, they realize war is about surviving, not playing nice.

[Guest Godless]

The fact of the matter is it was done during war. It was part of the war. There are no such things as rules of war... there is chivalry, there his honor... chivalry and honor are not part of the battlefield, they are a pleasantry that some choose to participate in... generally those that want to suffer the greatest losses.

If you are going to be killing people... displacing people... overthrowing people... what right do you have to make rules, and say that when these rules aren't followed it is a crime. Killing people is killing people, if you want to be chivalrous and play by the rules of war that is fine... however in the Middle-East you must NEVER expect the enemy to fight by the same rules...

Afterall... it is a war crime to shoot at people in a place of worship... so what do they do... they fire at our troops from the cover of Masjids (mosques)... know why? They are the smart ones, they realize war is about surviving, not playing nice.

This isn't the Dark Ages. There are rules that we must adhere to. One of those rules is that we don't kill enemy combatants who have surrendered. It is rules like these that separate us from the insurgents we're fighting. They don't follow the rules, and as a result their own people are turning against them and giving information to us that they had previously withheld. They trust us because we abide by the rules. If General Dostum did what the article said he did, then he needs to be brought to justice (preferably by firing squad). If the rest of the region sees that we're allying ourselves with such a man, it's only a matter of time before they turn against us and the progress we've been making in Iraq and Afghanistan begins to unravel. We are not ruthless killers. We are soldiers. Indiscriminate killing is unacceptable.

[ryanmercer]

This isn't the Dark Ages. There are rules that we must adhere to. One of those rules is that we don't kill enemy combatants who have surrendered. It is rules like these that separate us from the insurgents we're fighting. They don't follow the rules, and as a result their own people are turning against them and giving information to us that they had previously withheld.

Their people aren't turning against them, they are being paid to most likely... a lot of the people detained as terrorists at the start of Freedom were innocent people that were turned in simply for the REWARD MONEY. Got a problem with your neighbor... tell them he's a terrorist and get a cash reward of more money then you will make in SEVERAL YEARS. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here as well... this man may or may not have done it, but I bet money was the motivating factor in turning him in.

You say this isn't the dark ages... that is correct... but I don't get the reference. The dark ages weren't a savage and barbaric time, they were a time with very little recorded history, very little progress in arts and science. In fact... look at the militaries of just about every 'dark ages' and you will see they were some of the most chivalrous around.

And while KILLING the enemy isn't necessarily the most ideal situation... it was a solution... and not necessarily a bad one. I'm sure given the choice, ever last one of them would have chosen death over the 3rd world prison they were headed to. And all of you that are quick to judge don't even have a good amount of solid facts on the situation.

"Newsweek reports deaths occurred from suffocation among prisoners packed one on top of another in the containers; testimony gathered by New York Times suggests prisoners were also fired on and killed while inside containers" That's great... what sources did Nesweek get this information. What credibility do those that gave testimony to the New York Times have?

"Alleged survivors told Newsweek they were so desperate with thirst that they licked perspiration from each other's bodies " is there proof to this? Notice they say ALLEGED survivors. How many bodies were actually found?

"The estimates of the number who died range from several hundred to 2,000. " that is a rather large range... They might as well say "estimates range from 1 person to 1 million persons"

Have they positivel identified those in the 'mass grave' as being these prisoners... perhaps they are individuals that were actually killed by the ENEMY and they are trying to point the finger at US... just like Ahmadinejad claims that the Holocaust was created by Hollywood and the Jewish media and never happened.

This journalist Robert Young Pelton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is even on record saying that the confinement was necessary as many of them were STILL ARMED.

It's rather fishy... "Doran’s documentary Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death documents the evidence based largely on the work of award-winning Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who says he has seen video evidence of the survivors of the convoy being executed in the desert under supervision of US soldiers, but claims the video was stolen from him, in an incident where he was nearly beaten to death because of his possession of the tape. Doran himself admitted in an interview with Stefan Steinberg that he in fact had absolutely no evidence that American troops were involved in the alleged shootings [1],"

1. Interview with Jamie Doran, director of Massacre at Mazar

[Guest]

So, I was watching this movie, The Patriot, right... with Mel Gibson. Probably R-rated so most of you probably haven't seen it. But, it was kinda eye-opening to see the British following the "rules of war" and then the Americans doing unorthodox guerrilla warfare stuff. Yeah, the British thought the Americans were barbarians who do not follow the rules of war then too. But, it was the only way for them to win against a well-stocked British Army.

My take on the matter? The rules is not what the international community makes. The rules is what you make for your own sovereignty. So, for a Canadian/Afghan/British/whatever to say Americans are not following the "rules of war" is kinda silly to me. Now, an American saying their soldiers do not reflect their country's identity is well and good. Because, in a war, an American soldier bears the flag of the United States of America and with that comes a specific identity.

The Philippines has waged war with Spain, Japan, and America. Spain used religion to subdue the population. Japan looted, burned, and just wiped everything out, civilians or military. Americans defeated the military and rebuilt the country. That was their identity. An American soldier, therefore, does not rape and pillage. Not because the Geneva Convention says so, but because they are Americans and it is against the American ideals. So that, even when an Iraqi would hide in schools and mosques while bombing American soldiers, an American soldier would still uphold the American identity of respecting Mosques, etc. Because there are just things that America doesn't do no matter the cost.

But, like a church, the American ideal is good, but it is still comprised of human individuals - and each of them may be capable of utmost stupidity, even to the point of evil. But, I know for a fact, that it is not American inspired.

I am Filipino, but I love America. It is truly, the beacon of freedom, the beacon of liberty, the beacon of prosperity, the beacon of hope, the home of the prophets in these latter days.

[ryanmercer]

So, I was watching this movie, The Patriot, right... with Mel Gibson. Probably R-rated so most of you probably haven't seen it. But, it was kinda eye-opening to see the British following the "rules of war" and then the Americans doing unorthodox guerrilla warfare stuff. Yeah, the British thought the Americans were barbarians who do not follow the rules of war then too. But, it was the only way for them to win against a well-stocked British Army.

Just FYI... historically inaccurate movie, as is Braveheart... although Braveheart is very to the 18th power inaccurate.

[ryanmercer]

duplicate post.

[Moksha]

All I'm going to say is... they were enemy combatants... they were killed... that is war, that is not crime.

I thought that between the Geneva and the Hague conventions and the Nuremberg Trials, that a line of demarcation between war combat and outright butchery had been established. While I realize that war-lords such as this were not signatories, the establish ideas can still be used to tell which is which.

[ryanmercer]

I thought that between the Geneva and the Hague conventions and the Nuremberg Trials, that a line of demarcation between war combat and outright butchery had been established. While I realize that war-lords such as this were not signatories, the establish ideas can still be used to tell which is which.

Yes, and there is no outright butchery here. Men were put into containers, where they allegedly suffocated to death. Many of them were still allegedly armed. Some where allegedly shot. Those that were shot were allegedly armed.

A lot of allegedly statements... contaminated mass graves... in a region that has had soviet invasion, countless civil wars, tribal conflicts, etc etc in recent years with no solid proof other than testimonies, that these remains belong to people that ALLEGEDLY were of those prisoners.

[Just_A_Guy]

Okay. It blows me away that I'm one of the few who think that committing war crimes requires that someone go on trial.

The Nuremberg Trials were not something created to waste time. It was because, even in war, there are some things that aren't done.

Great men came together and signed the Geneva Convention; Abraham Lincoln commissioned the Lieber Code for union soldiers.

For me? Anything that goes against the Rome Statute - An international agreement signed by 120 nations - That would be a war crime. Even in war, some rules must be followed.

Interestingly, the US opted out of the Rome Statute, alongside 6 other nations such as the strongly pro-human rights nations of Iraq, China, Qatar and India.

If war must exist, I would rather be like Winston Churchilll than Benito Mussolini.

I'm not against trials per se, Funky. But I think it's a very fair question to ask who ought to be conducting those trials.

[Guest Godless]

Their people aren't turning against them, they are being paid to most likely... a lot of the people detained as terrorists at the start of Freedom were innocent people that were turned in simply for the REWARD MONEY. Got a problem with your neighbor... tell them he's a terrorist and get a cash reward of more money then you will make in SEVERAL YEARS. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here as well... this man may or may not have done it, but I bet money was the motivating factor in turning him in.

An interesting theory. Do you have anything to back it up with? FYI, we've been offering incentives for turn-ins for, oh, about 6-7 years now, and only in the last two years have we started seeing a significant amount of cooperation from the local populations. I think it has less to do with rewards and more to do with people being fed up with the local militants killing civilians left and right.

You say this isn't the dark ages... that is correct... but I don't get the reference. The dark ages weren't a savage and barbaric time, they were a time with very little recorded history, very little progress in arts and science. In fact... look at the militaries of just about every 'dark ages' and you will see they were some of the most chivalrous around.

What history books are you reading? Modern literature and film has grossly romanticized that period of time. And while you're correct about the lack of recorded history, I think it's safe to say that people were a lot more barbaric and violent back then, especially by today's standards. We're talking about a culture that burned people alive for following the wrong religion. A culture that burned people alive for suspicion of "witchcraft". A culture that didn't separate enemy soldiers from non-combatants in time of war. Rather, whole villages were burned to the ground with no regard for the civilian occupants.

I made this comparison because it sounds eerily similar to your idea of what war is supposed to be. I'm trying to make the case that we've progressed significantly since then. We don't kill civilians. We don't execute prisoners without trial. And we certainly shouldn't support people who do these things.

A lot of allegedly statements... contaminated mass graves... in a region that has had soviet invasion, countless civil wars, tribal conflicts, etc etc in recent years with no solid proof other than testimonies, that these remains belong to people that ALLEGEDLY were of those prisoners.

That's why we're conducting investigations. We don't know for sure what happened, but we're trying to find out because we believe in responsibility and accountability.