Talk:United States war crimes

Poor article

I added an opener to hopefully create an article that is not just junk rhetoric. War is a natural process, violent and strewn with death in all forms. Covering that with simplistic stories of heroism is foolish. However crying war crime every time you do not agree with conflict is also a fools errand. Let make this a bit more dispassionate and factual. There are many valid accusations of war crimes that need to be discussed, but in a way that the common reader can get the idea of the accusations and the failings of the accusations as well. Personal agendas be damned. The US is not an "innocent", it is a Nation that has taken part in the largest conflicts of history, killed millions of people (many justified, some not) and it deserves to have the light of day opened on it like every other nation and their conflict. It is in this context that we all win by understanding better ourselves and our history. Takashi Ueki (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Lai

You've got the My Lai paragraphs repeated. That's what I corrected. I support the article - and any other unbiassed accounts of war crimes. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bombing

How can something that didn't exist before it happened be a war crime? I seriously doubt that the given sources support this. The article presents one side of a hotly debated topic as fact. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we even need to invade Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.156.116 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war is a war crime?

Isn't it? Its an act of unprovoked aggression according to the Nuremberg Tribunal. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reliable sources for this? Otherwise its just original research. Mr.Z-man 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush Administration

The Iraq war is absolutely in itself NOT a war crime. The so called "1991 Gulf War" did not end until the Iraq invasion of 2003 was completed. No armistice was ever signed, just a cease-fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.27.111 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User 76.19.37.34 : You deleted this entire section without giving reasons. Please give reasons for deletion. Thank you. If there is a part of the section you would like to delete, please give reasons for that also. Thank you. Please respond to this discussion, and perhaps we can work something out that would satisfy both of us. Thank you.Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that user's reason, but I agree that it doesn't belong. This article is about "War crimes committed by the United States" not wish-fulfillment for critics of the Bush administration.

It takes some kind of a court to convict someone for war crimes. Bush had a large team of lawyers dotting the i's and crossing the t's, and congressional approval from Congress that had its own teams of lawyers. A few sleazy lawyers may disagree but they don't count.

Bush is leaving office in a few days. His critics had better find something else to do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Randy2063,

269 war crimes are specifically outlined in Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.^[1]

The Foreword to this book was written by Benjamin B. Ferencz.

Benjamin B. Ferencz has suggested in an interview given on August 25, 2006, that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.^[2]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an American lawyer, was an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, Germany. Later, he became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. From 1985 to 1996, he was Adjunct Professor of International Law at Pace University.

In the article The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq you will find this quote:

“The UK, Australia, and Poland are all state parties to the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for the violation of any relevant international criminal laws. Because the United States is not a state party, Americans cannot be prosecuted by the court (except for crimes that take place in the territory of a state that has accepted the court's jurisdiction, or situations that are referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council, where the US has a veto).”

Then in the article United States and the International Criminal Court you will find this quote:

”After the Rome Statute reached the requisite 60 ratifications in 2002, President George W. Bush "unsigned" the Rome Statute on May 6, 2002. ^[3]A treaty that is not ratified is not legally binding.”^[4]

The above collection of quotes, when taken together, show that if a country doesn't want to be subject to a court's Ethic of Reciprocity, it can simply not be a "state party" to that court and "unsign." Nevertheless, "unsigning" from such a court does nothing to erase nor hide the hypocrisy which accompanies such a move. See Ethic of Reciprocity.

Coming up in 2009 there will be a chance to change the above situation. See Review Conference of the International Criminal Court Statute. Hopefully in the future the US will eventually join the international community. There are movements within the US to do so. See American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court.

Going on to other questions about my edit, I have to admit that choosing a heading is problematic. See Wikipedia:Headings#Section_headings. Instead of using the general heading “George W. Bush Administration,” I suppose I could have used a more specific title like Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse.

On a slightly different topic: I noticed that other wikipedia articles on the war crimes of specific countries are often about war crimes that have taken place 30 years ago or more. This makes me think that Wikipedia editors will be more likely to allow that type of edit. Nevertheless the massacres in Vietnam were no less real whether they are one hour old or 30 years old. This fact has implications for the more recent war crimes which are often quickly edited out of Wikipedia because they are still freshly controversial.

Hopefully Wikipedia editors are neutral enough not arbitrarily exclude more powerful countries from the following long list of countries that already have war crimes attached to them in Wikipedia: See Ethic of Reciprocity and the list below:

Country listings

On a more general vein, here is a list of helpful links:

References

^ Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
^ Glantz, A.: Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor, OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed 2006-12-12.
^ International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
^ Definition of key terms used in the UN Treaty Collection

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

None of that shows Bush to have been convicted of a war crime. Bill Clinton had neither UNSC nor NATO approval for the Kosovo War but that doesn't mean we list him, too. Anybody can write a book.

So, what Ferencz is effectively saying is that the U.S. can never go to war unless its enemy's arms suppliers agree. We hadn't seen that one before.

Ferencz's participation in the war crimes trials doesn't mean much. WWII was a different environment for international relations. The far-left, that had previously claimed to be "anti-war" during the Hitler-Stalin pact, suddenly shifted to pro-war after Hitler invaded the USSR. The National Lawyers Guild itself flipped so far as to support the internment of Japanese-Americans. Now, the NLG is one of the groups joining those against Bush. That says quite a bit about the legitimacy of that cause.

In any case, Bush hasn't had his war crimes trial, and we haven't had sufficient time for history to make its own judgment. Therefore, he can't be called a war criminal.

One amusing irony about these charges against Bush is that it illustrates better than anything how readily the ICC could have been misused against the U.S. I'm sure President Obama will be more receptive to playing along with the ICC when it's useful but I also sure he's learned that it can never be fully trusted.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Reimer's entry 3

I, too, am wary of Obama.

If I understand you correctly, both you and I are very aware that no single person possesses objectivity: neither Bush, nor Obama, nor you, nor I.

With that I agree. That is precisely why we need a principle such as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

Even though I, too, am wary of how much objectivity the International Criminal Court can achieve, I believe that it is a relatively better attempt than many previous attempts to embrace the Ethic of Reciprocity. That is my reason for hoping that the American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court is eventually successful in bringing the US into the International Criminal Court so that the US can truly be part of a truly global community.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocity is the key. A relatively better attempt isn't even close to being good enough. The rest of the world hasn't made any attempt at showing reciprocity since WWII. They're not even trying. As critical as I may be about President Obama, he's far and away more trustworthy than they are.

The collection of politicians, bureaucrats, and thugs behind the ICC simply don't have the moral standing to judge the U.S. They'd need to clean up their act, and then show that they're not lying when they say they care about human rights.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of 269 War Crimes listed by Michael Haas

"Eminent jurists, professional legal organizations, and human rights monitors in this country and around the world have declared that President George W. Bush may be prosecuted as a war criminal [now that he has left] office for his overt and systematic violations of such international law as the Geneva and Hague Conventions and such US law as the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws. George W. Bush, War Criminal? identifies and documents 269 specific war crimes under US and international law for which President Bush, senior officials and staff in his administration, and military officers under his command are liable to be prosecuted. Haas divides the 269 war crimes of the Bush administration into four classes: 6 war crimes committed in launching a war of aggression; 36 war crimes committed in the conduct of war; 175 war crimes committed in the treatment of prisoners; and 52 war crimes committed in postwar occupations."[1]^[1]

^ Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might belong with conspiracy theories but the writer isn't even notable for that. It will never be taken seriously. There will never be a real war crimes charge against President Bush.

First, the war was legal. Bush received congressional authorization. The people who think we shouldn't fight fascism may like to say there wasn't sufficient intelligence, but that's true about every war. Congressional leaders had every bit as much access to that intelligence as Bush had.

Second, the DoD's conduct of the war had proper legal guidance. Even if you look at the high profile so-called "evidence," it reveals memos and other documents where the legal theories were debated. Some of those legal theories were overruled within the White House itself. In what way is it any kind of a surprise that some other legal rationale was found acceptable, but that some non-notable left-wing loon would write a book about how he disagrees?

Third, even waterboarding (the so-called "torture") was conducted with legal scrutiny and congressional oversight. The lawyers rejected techniques they believed met the legal definition of torture, and they approved those which did not. Nancy Pelosi has been very vocal in her opposition to waterboarding, but she is also one of the members of Congress who had been briefed before it was used. She was re-elected handily, and she remains the Speaker of the House. This means the majority of Democrats approve. So you can see, while some left-wing politicians and activists may like to spin this "torture" meme, there really aren't any teeth to it. Everything was handled legally.

And finally, the war continues under President Obama's new administration. He says he'll close GTMO, but he's really only promising to move those detainees into the U.S. His new Attorney General and Solicitor General had both testified that detainees can legally be held without trial until the end of the war. The real war crime is to defend fascism.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War Crimes

The intro defines war crimes as serious crimes committed by the American Army's leadership, units and individual members of the American armed forces, particularly murder and rape. ... each of these fits into that definition, with the possible exception of the shooting of the seven civilians at the checkpoint (might be classified as 'merely an accident' by some people), which I have removed until we reach consensus on whether or not it classifies as a war crime. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to change the title or rewrite the header. It's not a war crime "committed by the U.S." if the U.S. investigates with the intent to prosecute as was the case in Mahmudiyah.

Mukaradeeb was obviously an accident of war. It is plainly ridiculous to include this no matter what the header says.

Haditha looks like it could be criminal negligence but it's still quite likely to be ruled an accident. The sequence of events that we know about indicates that they didn't kill the civilians they knew to be civilians. Negligence can be a crime, which is why there is still one case pending, but it isn't a "war crime".

It wasn't all that long ago that people who oppose U.S. policy were still acting like they cared about the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. After all that talk, it's a bit late to start using a wobbly definition of war crime.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Haditha massacre -- how exactly do you classify walking around and shooting two dozen unarmed civilians as "negligence" or an "accident"? And why exactly do we need to rewrite the introduction in order to make your argument valid? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were they just casually "walking around"? And did they know those were all "unarmed civilians"? Or, had those Marines been fired upon, and then entered those houses expecting to find the gunmen? As I said, the laws of war apply. That requires making rapid choices based upon first impressions of what the situation is.

Some combat decisions will inevitably be wrong. This is why friendly fire occurs, and it's one of the reasons civilians get killed (another being that the war's critics have actively encouraged the use of women and children as human shields). Innocent mistakes are not a crime.

The Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." The sad thing is, many of these events could have been avoided if the war's critics had asked their fascist friends to respect the laws of war. They've made plenty of friends among the enemy, and they have yet to make such a request even though almost six years have passed, and many thousands have been killed.

I'll let you keep Mahmudiyah for now. The problem with the title is that it implies these were war crimes committed by the U.S. government itself. In the case of Mahmudiyah, the Marines were prosecuted after one confessed, another brought it up through the chain of command. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to all of your questions are in the article Haditha massacre. This had nothing to do with "combat decisions" -- I highly doubt that these Marines accidentally mistook the two year old children they killed as "enemy combatants". They lied about it initially claiming that a terrorist had killed most of these people with a roadside bomb ... "I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny" -- that's a quote from a kid that watched them execute his grandparents at close range. Does that sound like a "bad combat decision"? Just because you think they were "fascists" (perhaps you should look up the definition of that word too), is no reason to claim that it is not a war crime. I, personally, have a hard time believing that a two-year old kid and the abovementioned kid's grandparents were "fascists" and brought this on themselves ... this fits the definition of a war crime in every way, and unless you have a good reason ("It's not a war crime because I say so. And if the definition says it is, we need to change the definition." is not good reasoning.) you need to stop reverting my edits which have been backed up. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors should not be determining what is and what isn't a war crime. If no reliable sources call an event a war crime, we shouldn't either. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps some WP editors should be called upon to give their expert testimony against the Marine still charged with negligent homicide.

The event was called the "Haditha massacre" back when the only ones talking about it were the leftists and Islamists (feel better?) who were trying to spin the story. (Please note that I never called an innocent victms a fascist (epithet) -- although "innocent" may not be applicable to all 24.) Since then we've had testimony from all sides, as well as a forensic examination of the blood splatters that cast doubt on the Iraqi version of the story.

This doesn't in any way mean they were legitimate targets. It's simply that mistakes are likely to occur in war, and they should be expected to happen a lot with an enemy that is never asked by their friends to respect the laws of war.

Again, as it stands now, most of the Marines were acquitted. One is still awaiting trial for negligent homicide. To call it a deliberate war crime or "massacre" violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every act of war a crime?

This seems limited. Isn't every act of war a war crime? Stars4change (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a pacifist, you may well have that opinion, but in international law war crimes have a rather specific meaning. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a whitewash.

Seriously, with more than million innocent souls lost in wars of Iraq and Afganistan alone, with god knows how many displaced, people cannot come up with better list of "PERCEIVED" American war crimes, and with way more than 50 MILLION people dead in OVERT and COVERT American military actions after 1945 with more than 90% of viticms being civilians, NO WAR CRIMES? Right.. AFAIK, during ww2, even the siege of Leningrad was considered a war crime, Americans siege whole nations, Iraq, Cuba, (north) Korea, to a degree Iran.. so on, and all the historic events, these just on going, and im sure there is plenty more if one starts to look, then there are the issue of "war of aggression", and starting a war with out delaration of a war so on, these are some of the "crimes" many Japanese and Germans hanged, nevermind that the Brits and Americans engineered the situation to go to that point, but anyways, this kind of activity is almost daily for USA, bodies keep piling on their tens of millions yet after 1945 USA hasnt been in a state of war ONCE.

[1] Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

[glantz-2] Glantz, A.: Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor, OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed 2006-12-12.

[3] International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

[4] Definition of key terms used in the UN Treaty Collection

[5] Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-36499-0 / 978-0-313-36499-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]