War Crimes

[Aesa]

Just FYI... historically inaccurate movie...

That's certainly true. The founding father's were against any kind of standing army existing whatsoever, and that is why the revolution of 1776 was fought by 5% of the population as independent militia -- not some commissioned group of assassins.

That is a sovereign army, if there must be any. You are not drafted. If you care for the cause of your homeland enough you fight when you can and when you want to. Worked pretty well in 1776. Now we have armies that are at the beck-and-call of the corporate empire we call our "government."

I don't know what else to say. Just a very big sigh on my part. Oh, and in-case anyone would attack me and say "at least have respect for the men and women that serve in the armed forces." I do respect them. The majority of people that serve as police, military men and so forth are good people. I stand against the manipulative institution that put them there in the first place, by offering a college education (which is often essentially useless outside of military operations); financial benefits and so forth.

Every soldier, is an innocent victim.

Obama and Bush Foreign Policy W/ Ron Paul: Opposites Really DO Attract!

Edited July 14, 2009 by Aesa

[FunkyTown]

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.

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.

Yep. It's silly for people here to be arguing that these are allegations without proof on one hand while saying 'It's not so bad' on the other hand. Get the investigations, tell the whole world what happened and we'll see then what the world thinks.

It's scary to me that the argument 'Anything is fine in wartime - Killing civilians, massacreing prisoners of war, torture, poisoning water supplies, raping puppies and burning churches.' is being used by church members while the ideals put forth by the bible and great men such as Abraham Lincoln are being defended by the atheist. No offense Godless, I don't think Atheism necessarily means a lack of moral compass. I mean that Christianity is supposed to necessitate a moral compass similar to that of Christ.

[ryanmercer]

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.

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.

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.

Go pick up a paper, or any book published on Guantanamo since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq... you'll find all the proof you want, with verifiable sources, that people were handing people in left and right for just the reward money. Many of those we had at Guantanamo that were innocent were turned in that way, and we knew they were innocent, and there is ample amount of proof we knew they were innocent... but *shrugs* stuff happens.\

As far as what history books... I do medieval reenactment... pre 17th century (really about 8th to 17th, however most SCAdians don't go back as far and generally start around the 12th century). I'm well read on what does exist for the period.

As far as a time when people were burnt for being witches... you do realize this happened even in the U.S. up until at least the 1700's, and witch-hunts carried well into the late 1800's.

Edited July 14, 2009 by ryanmercer

[FunkyTown]

Go pick up a paper, or any book published on Guantanamo since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq... you'll find all the proof you want, with verifiable sources, that people were handing people in left and right for just the reward money. Many of those we had at Guantanamo that were innocent were turned in that way, and we knew they were innocent, and there is ample amount of proof we knew they were innocent... but *shrugs* stuff happens.\

As far as what history books... I do medieval reenactment... pre 17th century (really about 8th to 17th, however most SCAdians don't go back as far and generally start around the 12th century). I'm well read on what does exist for the period.

As far as a time when people were burnt for being witches... you do realize this happened even in the U.S. up until at least the 1700's, and witch-hunts carried well into the late 1800's.

Yyyes. Stuff happens.

Ryan? The church and scriptures are always telling us to be more Christ-like. Would Jesus support torturing and killing enemy soldiers?

No? Because we're supposed to be like him. We will make mistakes, but we should never excuse ourselves from those mistakes. Jesus would not have killed those people.

The people who committed these acts were war criminals. This should be investigated and prosecuted.

[Aesa]

The people who committed these acts were war criminals. This should be investigated and prosecuted.

As they say, with "free-will" comes the consequences of it.

[EruditioSalvatus]

Go pick up a paper, or any book published on Guantanamo since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq... you'll find all the proof you want, with verifiable sources, that people were handing people in left and right for just the reward money. Many of those we had at Guantanamo that were innocent were turned in that way, and we knew they were innocent, and there is ample amount of proof we knew they were innocent... but *shrugs* stuff happens.\

Probably not the best time to bring it up but this reminds me of a great joke:

*Russia, 1962*

Two of the People's Farmers live next to each other and like all neighbors they've had differences. The first neighbor, Fredric, calls the KGB and yells, "my neighbor, he's hiding diamonds in his work shed." The next day, the KGB storm the second neighbor's yard and smash the work shed to pieces and, of course, find no diamonds.

Not to be out done, the second neighbor picks up the phone a few weeks later and says, "KGB, yes this is Klaus, my neighbor is hiding refugees in his storm cellar!" A what do you know, the KGB come out the next day to Fredric's house and remove everything from his storm shed, but find no refugees.

A few weeks later Fredric and Klaus meet in the middle of the dirt road giving each other piercing glares.

"You get that shed chopped down for fire wood?" Fredric cautiously asks.

"Da, you get everything moved out of your storm cellar?" Klaus inquires.

"Oh, da. We have a good thing going, do you think the KGB will wise up before I can get them to cut all of my wheat fields?" Fredric ponders...

[EruditioSalvatus]

On a more serious note, I've lived in countries where 'death squads' move about unheeded to do practically whatever they wish to whomever they wish; places currently in the news about how malicious and corrupt the 'police force' is. There is a very decided line between 'acceptable war behavior' and 'unacceptable war behavior' (honourable and rules-following are a bit too happy of adjectives to use). I've seen both from both countries of the first world to the third and I've seen united states soldiers kick children when they're unarmed and down and tribesmen give quarter to unprovisioned enemies.

In short, yes there should be some form of investigation and, evidence willing, discipline. Unfortunately, this bring little comfort to victims' families and doesn't act as an effective deterrent for anyone with the same mindset.

[NeuroTypical]

Every soldier, is an innocent victim.

Why did I just get the image in my head of those PETA kids who got mauled trying to "free" the mountain lions from captivity?

I strongly disagree that people exercising their free will, just automatically all become victims.

LM

(Oh - that's right - the image came right after I thought of replying to this comment with a suggestion that Aesa go find some US soldiers and tell them that.)

[Aesa]

Why did I just get the image in my head of those PETA kids who got mauled trying to "free" the mountain lions from captivity?

I strongly disagree that people exercising their free will, just automatically all become victims.

LM

(Oh - that's right - the image came right after I thought of replying to this comment with a suggestion that Aesa go find some US soldiers and tell them that.)

I know some US soldiers that agree with me, Loudmouth! I have many friends who are in the military (not only the US military) and have realised what a corrupt, manipulative establishment it is -- and plan to get out as soon as is possible!

The majority who join the military are not exercising their free-will at all, because they're subject to influences (some of which I think I mentioned earlier in the thread -- such as patriotic manipulation, financial incentives, advertising being in the military like a war computer game, an adventure, etc,.) and on free-will -- to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read because your ability to make an unbiased decision is based on what you've been exposed to. If a person has only been exposed to the status-quo for the most part all of their lives -- you know, support the troops, love your president/prime-minister, do it because it's godly (which is especially ridiculous), etc,. -- they do not have the intellectual basis to make a decision that would even slightly resemble free-will. Instead, they are subject to the wishes of another (whether that be a single person, political ideology, institution, etc,).

[NeuroTypical]

The majority who join the military are not exercising their free-will at all, because they're subject to influences (some of which I think I mentioned earlier in the thread -- such as patriotic manipulation, financial incentives, advertising being in the military like a war computer game, an adventure, etc,.) and on free-will -- to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read because your ability to make an unbiased decision is based on what you've been exposed to. If a person has only been exposed to the status-quo for the most part all of their lives -- you know, support the troops, love your president/prime-minister, do it because it's godly (which is especially ridiculous), etc,. -- they do not have the intellectual basis to make a decision that would even slightly resemble free-will. Instead, they are subject to the wishes of another (whether that be a single person, political ideology, institution, etc,).

From where I'm standing, you can't have free will unless you are "subject to influences". The scriptures tell me we've all got the Light of Christ, and know good from evil. If there's a scripture out there that says culture, media, or video games can indoctrinate the Light of Christ out of you, I haven't seen it yet.

Do you have any scriptural support for the notion that only book smart people have "true free-will"? That just seems, well, totally wrongheaded and false to me.

Does anyone else on this board support the notion that "to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read"?

LM

[Aesa]

From where I'm standing, you can't have free will unless you are "subject to influences". The scriptures tell me we've all got the Light of Christ, and know good from evil. If there's a scripture out there that says culture, media, or video games can indoctrinate the Light of Christ out of you, I haven't seen it yet.

Do you have any scriptural support for the notion that only book smart people have "true free-will"? That just seems, well, totally wrongheaded and false to me.

Does anyone else on this board support the notion that "to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read"?

LM

I support it based on the scientific method, which I am not afraid to say I hold far above scripture.

[Guest]

I know some US soldiers that agree with me, Loudmouth! I have many friends who are in the military (not only the US military) and have realised what a corrupt, manipulative establishment it is -- and plan to get out as soon as is possible!

The majority who join the military are not exercising their free-will at all, because they're subject to influences (some of which I think I mentioned earlier in the thread -- such as patriotic manipulation, financial incentives, advertising being in the military like a war computer game, an adventure, etc,.) and on free-will -- to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read because your ability to make an unbiased decision is based on what you've been exposed to. If a person has only been exposed to the status-quo for the most part all of their lives -- you know, support the troops, love your president/prime-minister, do it because it's godly (which is especially ridiculous), etc,. -- they do not have the intellectual basis to make a decision that would even slightly resemble free-will. Instead, they are subject to the wishes of another (whether that be a single person, political ideology, institution, etc,).

If this is the case, then only 5% of the population is eligible to vote.

Of course, I'm just making up the 5% number... but you get the point.

[Traveler]

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.

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. Perhaps the worse war crimes of modern history were committed in Cambodia and were associated Vietnam. Jane Fonda was associated more with the perpetrators those war criminals and suffered nothing for it. Likewise for the former presidential candidate John Carry who should not have even been able to run for president because of his involvement for meetings directly with enemy combatants during a time of conflict – but President Clinton gave him a presidential pardon.

2. The American civil war introduced the concepts of war crimes in modern warfare as prophesied by Joseph Smith.

3. Some experts estimate that Russia murdered over 100,000 of its own citizens in what best could be described as war crimes – except there was no war.

4. The movie “Behind Enemy Lines” was based on a true story but few realize that President Clinton was the president willing to allow an American navy pilot to be murdered as part of the cover up of war crimes against civilians in a war that President Clinton was backing those that committed the war crimes.

5. When the aspirin factory was bombed in Somalia was bombed it was under direct order by then President Clinton in full knowledge of conflicting intelligence. The UN classified the loss of civilian lives as a war crime.

6. I hope it is noted the times that the former President Clinton was involved in what could be described as war crimes – yet current President Obama in admitting that the US has done thing that should not have been done and having apologized for such errors has refused to recognize those in his same political party for their involvement – and at the same time has spoken out directly on weatherboarding that is not officially classified by the UN as a war crime. Sort of strain at a knat and swallow a camel kind of thing.

7. This is a summary of my list – War crimes are only spoken of against a country when one of two things occurs. First are against a country and it leaders and military that lose a war. And second as propaganda against political opponents to justify or hide crimes of those in power.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

.....

The majority who join the military are not exercising their free-will at all, because they're subject to influences (some of which I think I mentioned earlier in the thread -- such as patriotic manipulation, financial incentives, advertising being in the military like a war computer game, an adventure, etc,.) and on free-will -- to have true free-will you'd have to be very well read because your ability to make an unbiased decision is based on what you've been exposed to. ......

Is this a covert admission that you have been influenced and manipulated in your decisions and posts? Or do you consider yourself the exception.

BTW I served with the 186 Engineering Battalion (US Army – 1964-1965) during the Vietnam conflict and if you are interested I did lose comrades and friends in combat.

Unlike many I believe that before someone becomes a citizen and can vote they be required to serve in the military. The main reason is so that citizens are not influenced and manipulated in the political decisions – less caught up in making decisions based on propaganda and more based on actual experience. There is something about actual experience that tends to give a person a more “realistic” point of view than someone that think they know because they have done what they call research.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Unlike many I believe that before someone becomes a citizen and can vote they be required to serve in the military.

Starship Troopers eh?

[NeuroTypical]

Supposedly that book is pretty popular in Israel. I read it because an Israeli introduced my buddy to it, who gave me a copy.

[ryanmercer]

]Unlike many I believe that before someone becomes a citizen and can vote they be required to serve in the military.

So screw the people that are incapable of serving due to health or physical limitations? Yeah, that's not only fair, but brilliant too. NOT!

[ryanmercer]

Supposedly that book is pretty popular in Israel. I read it because an Israeli introduced my buddy to it, who gave me a copy.

Starship Troopers?

If so go read EVERYTHING Heinlein wrote... almost as great as his inspiration (Edgar Rice Burroughs... tarzan books were crap, but the first 5 John Carter of Mars books rocked, and ERB is who inspired RAH)

[NeuroTypical]

So screw the people that are incapable of serving due to health or physical limitations? Yeah, that's not only fair, but brilliant too. NOT!

Ya know ryan, the military has desk jobs too... What's the ratio? For every front line combat troop, there are something like 9 support people?

Is that fair and brilliant enough for ya?

[ryanmercer]

Ya know ryan, the military has desk jobs too... What's the ratio? For every front line combat troop, there are something like 9 support people?

Is that fair and brilliant enough for ya?

Yeah they military also has physical fitness REQUIREMENTS, weight REQUIREMENTS, etc. Desk job or not they are REQUIREMENTS that EVERYONE must meet.

I couldn't enlist, but I did my time as a federal employee, my mother is a federal employee, my father served the state for nearly 20 years until his death(couldn't serve in Vietnam, flat foot), both grandfathers and we had family members fight in every war from the Revolution to the Korean war. Limiting voting rights to individuals that enlist is well... just... foolish and unfair to a significant portion of the population.

[Dravin]

Yeah they military also has physical fitness REQUIREMENTS, weight REQUIREMENTS, etc. Desk job or not they are REQUIREMENTS that EVERYONE must meet.

If he's taking his cue from Starship Troopers though then everyone can serve. One of the examples that comes up in the books is about a blind wheel chair bound person (can't remember if their are any other things physically wrong with him) and they mention giving him the job of counting the hairs on furry caterpillars by touch, basically if you physically couldn't do a standard MOS they'd think something up for you even if it means spending your term of service scrubbing down floors with a toothbrush or polishing door handles at the Pentagon.

[ryanmercer]

If he's taking his cue from Starship Troopers though then everyone can serve. One of the examples that comes up in the books is about a blind wheel chair bound person (can't remember if their are any other things physically wrong with him) and they mention giving him the job of counting the hairs on furry caterpillars by touch, basically if you physically couldn't do a standard MOS they'd think something up for you even if it means spending your term of service scrubbing down floors with a toothbrush or polishing door handles at the Pentagon.

Yes because scrubbing floors and polishing door handles, or counting hairs on a caterpillar is relevant to the defense of the country and a reason to determine if someone can or can not vote. Still, bad idea.

[Dravin]

I'm not saying its a good idea, just if they are taking cues from the book Starship Troopers then the point, "Not everyone can join and thus you are limiting voting to the healthy in body and mind" has been addressed (everyone can join not just the sound in body and mind), if they are taking their cue from it, if not it is a valid point and needs to be addressed. Of course there are other points to be addressed, such as yours that taking in people to do scut work just to get a vote isn't the place of the military. *shrug*

Edited July 18, 2009 by Dravin

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

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.

Hmmm....not exactly. I'm majoring in History right now, and the period known as the Dark Ages (sometimes measured from the Fall of Rome to the Renaissance, other times to the Early Medieval Period) was one of the most brutal periods in our history. We had Germanic invasions of England, France, Italy, the Balkans, Spain and Africa. We have examples of Vandalic (we get the word Vandals from this) forces sacking Rome, as well as Atilla the Hun ravaging centra/western Europe.

We have the Ostrogoths overthrowing the Western Roman Empire, establishing a Kingdom in Italy, afterwhich the Eastern Empire came in and brutalized Italy for the next five hundred years, give or take a century. In Spain we have the breakdown of social order, with the Visigothic/Vandalic nobility replacing Roman law with their own. As inheritance was not codified in their laws, the death of a warlord ment a new civil war.

In Armenia we have the slaughter of Christians by the Sassinid Empire, done partly to snub Constantinople's inability to do anything about it.

In the area of what is now France and Modern Germany we have Charlemagne, often considered the epitome of chivalry, slaughter several thousand Saxons in one day because of their refusal to convert to Christianity.

I could go on...but...

That's certainly true. The founding father's were against any kind of standing army existing whatsoever, and that is why the revolution of 1776 was fought by 5% of the population as independent militia -- not some commissioned group of assassins.

Mmmm.....I would be careful saying that.

Alexander Hamilton is the prime example...but there were a few others who weren't against the idea of a standing army. The Founding Fathers were much less unified than people like to imagine.

[FunkyTown]

I'm... Unsure of what your argument is here, Traveler.

Is it:

A) The Democrats committed warcrimes too, therefore it's perfectly acceptable to murder surrendered soldiers and suffocate them en masse.

or;

B) Jane Fonda is a war criminal and we should prosecute her, too!

or;

C) Very bad people commit war crimes and sometimes they get away with it, so why shouldn't we?

Your final sentence makes it seem like nothing in war should ever be prosecuted unless you're on the losing side. Would that be accurate? 'Do not prosecute any crimes if on the side of the winners.' Is that accurate as to your stance?

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. Perhaps the worse war crimes of modern history were committed in Cambodia and were associated Vietnam. Jane Fonda was associated more with the perpetrators those war criminals and suffered nothing for it. Likewise for the former presidential candidate John Carry who should not have even been able to run for president because of his involvement for meetings directly with enemy combatants during a time of conflict – but President Clinton gave him a presidential pardon.

2. The American civil war introduced the concepts of war crimes in modern warfare as prophesied by Joseph Smith.

3. Some experts estimate that Russia murdered over 100,000 of its own citizens in what best could be described as war crimes – except there was no war.

4. The movie “Behind Enemy Lines” was based on a true story but few realize that President Clinton was the president willing to allow an American navy pilot to be murdered as part of the cover up of war crimes against civilians in a war that President Clinton was backing those that committed the war crimes.

5. When the aspirin factory was bombed in Somalia was bombed it was under direct order by then President Clinton in full knowledge of conflicting intelligence. The UN classified the loss of civilian lives as a war crime.

6. I hope it is noted the times that the former President Clinton was involved in what could be described as war crimes – yet current President Obama in admitting that the US has done thing that should not have been done and having apologized for such errors has refused to recognize those in his same political party for their involvement – and at the same time has spoken out directly on weatherboarding that is not officially classified by the UN as a war crime. Sort of strain at a knat and swallow a camel kind of thing.

7. This is a summary of my list – War crimes are only spoken of against a country when one of two things occurs. First are against a country and it leaders and military that lose a war. And second as propaganda against political opponents to justify or hide crimes of those in power.

The Traveler