Talk:United States war crimes

Air raids on civilian population

Citing Nazis who claim US air raids on civilian populations in Germany a war crime, is this a joke? What next, adding a Nazi viewpoint to "balance" the Holocaust article? This nonsense needs to be removed. --Nug (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is normal when discussing war to mention complaints made by one side, especially when that side was a signatory to the Geneva Convention. We also correctly mention how the claim was adjudicated. TFD (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, Nug. One thing I would say, though, is that it is not clear from the article how American the Dresden bombing was. I probably snoozed through the relevant bit of GCSE history, but I thought that was basically a British thing. Formerip (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion came up before.[1] Surprised to see Nug's arguments though. Since R. J. Rummel called the bombings of Japan and Germany war crimes, I would have thought Nug would expect that we treat it as a fact. TFD (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why you would be surprised. It is a fact that air raids on civilian populations resulted in mass killings, but whether a mass killing is deemed illegal, and thus criminal, is matter of POV when there is no judicial determination on the matter. It would appear that in this case Rummel's opinion is minority POV elevated to fact by TFD. --Nug (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above, "It is not presented in the article as a fact. TFD (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)" WP:WEIGHT "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Note too the article does not mention Rummel. TFD (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would we remove something that is backed by reliable sources based on nothing other than your claim that it is a "joke"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV, forming part of WP:NPOV, takes pains to specify that

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Of course, that means we should include any relevant claims, weighted appropriately. If notable scholars describe the atomic bombings as war crimes, that should be included with appropriate weight given to any non-fringe sources that dispute this view. This also holds for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This argument should be considered since the Allied War Crimes Page has removed the bombings of cities from it's sectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Why_was_the_using_of_aircraft_to_bomb_cities_war_crimes_in_this_article.3F at the very least some continuity should be maintained68.171.31.244 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias

I have a complaint against this article. This is a very biased article because only the United States is the only country with a Wikipedia article that lists war crimes. It is complete unreasonable bias for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that prides itself on knowledge and neutrality, to have an article chronicling the war crimes of the United States while simultaneously having no such article for the war crimes committed by other nations such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Isreal, Iran, or any other nation. In my opinion, this article is really a front for Anti-American sentiment. signed Anonymous, June 18, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.216.42 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There are war crimes articles for many other countries, even a category for war crimes committed by country. Feel free to add more. TFD (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above: Category:War crimes committed by country. (Hohum ^@) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling crimes by historians

"These actions have been (retrospectively) called crimes by some historians." - this is ridiculous. Why historians not housekeepers for example? I'd like to remind all of you, that crime is an act which is forbidden and punishable by law. If some behavior is not forbidden by law, it can't be called crime. What historians know about law? Especially, if they called crime in case of act which is not expressis verbis forbidden by law? --Matrek (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dresden

Eh, where's the bombing of Dresden?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.213 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It's over in British war crimes where it might belong if it was actually a war crime. The U.S. bombed legitimate targets in Dresden.

But, as with much of this stuff, most people who call that a war crime tend to support war crimes when the side they favor does it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the authors in reliable sources who see the Dresden bombing as genocide are Nazis. TFD (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they were Nazis. Nor am I talking only about the reliable sources.

In any case, here's the timeline with the basic targets:

Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Timeline

It's not a war crime to bomb railway yards.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with your comment "most people who call that a war crime tend to support war crimes when the side they favor does it"? (I assume from your phrasing you were referring to the UK bombing.) TFD (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

They were two separate issues. That's why I put "In any case" between them.

My comment was about those who are too quick to accuse the U.S. or the U.K. of war crimes, but it might well apply to those who accuse anybody of war crimes. It's a bit funny, considering how critics of current (or recent) U.S. policy are happy to accuse the U.S. of being too quick to accuse GTMO detainees of war crimes as several former detainees had their charges downgraded upon appeal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your belief that Americans who oppose the prisons in Guantanamo Bay are supporters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is incorrect. TFD (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This is 2014, not 2001 when abstract ideals might have been enough. Just as the Bush and Obama administrations have each established a record, the supporters and critics have established records as well. We know when people chose to support the laws of war and when they chose not to support the laws of war. Note that I said that in the past tense.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association made a presentation to the U.S. Supreme Court that said the lack of due process for prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal. No reliable source says that the lawyers of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth are mostly supporters of al Qaeda and the Taliban. TFD (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess it matters when they said that. They've had due process since 2004/2005 with the CSRTs. The Supreme Court also gave them judicial review after 2008's Boumediene v. Bush decision, but still said it was reasonable for CSRTs to come first (we are in a war, after all). By now, the detainees have had every bit of due process they need.

I know that some critics still argue we should ignore the matter of the laws of war, and pretend they're criminal defendants. It was actually in appeasement to those critics that the government tried to curve fit war crimes charges that are now being appealed.

If those Commonwealth lawyers still claim today that the detainees don't have due process then they'll have to live with the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with them. And if they want detainees to have more rights than legally required, particularly while (as is often the case) they're unwilling to demand anything substantive of our enemies, then yes, they are supporting our enemies. Orwell actually said as much during WWII.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW: There's the other half of my previous statement: We know when people chose to support the laws of war and when they chose not to support the laws of war. For this, we'd need to look at when they stood wrt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. For example, it would be good to know their position on Amnesty's relationship to Cageprisoners. If they supported Amnesty's position, or merely chose to remain quiet, then that goes into the mix.

Randy2063 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Following your reasoning, the Supreme Court must support the Taliban and al Qaeda by ruling against the U.S. government. The reality is that all governments sometimes break their own laws, soldiers commit war crimes and pointing it out when it happens does not mean one supports the other side. TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I said.

It is appropriate to demand that the U.S. follow the law. It is wrong to demand that the U.S. go beyond the law while not demanding the same of our enemies. The Supreme Court was interpreting the law. If the Justices who ruled that way were intentionally bending the law then that would be a different story.

The government wasn't intentionally breaking the law. These were simple disagreements over interpretation. In the case of 2006, the appeals court had actually ruled the other way. Once the Supreme Court made those decisions, the administration followed them properly. It doesn't compare to the horrors that Amnesty is willing to tolerate of its friends.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International documents human rights abuses in all countries, and are not supporters of the Taliban or al Qaeda. Here is an article about their accusations against the Taliban. I like your defense btw: they didn't know that while depriving people of their inalienable rights would be illegal in the U.S. or its overseas territories it would be illegal in Guantanamo Bay. TFD (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That report from 2010 must have been in production during the big kerfuffle. Has Amnesty worked with any of its friends in Cageprisoners on the problems that they reported? Nope. Why not? Because they know that their partners don't feel the same way about issues that should be basic principles.

You act as though the U.S. withheld an obvious inalienable right. It was a legitimate position that due process was limited, and the Court even said their 2008 ruling was a special case that does not apply elsewhere (e.g. Bagram). As it is, all they got after that is that a federal judge reviews the cases afterwards. Due process remains limited to the laws of war. And it is a war that Amnesty's partners support.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW: This is why the comment from one year ago today, Talk:United States war crimes#Calling crimes by historians, is important.

It is judges who rule on what is, and what is not, a war crime. Most of this article's section United States war crimes#"War_on_Terror" is laughable hogwash. Much of it was duplicated from Command responsibility#War on terror, which was itself only a pipe dream.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think that no one acquitted by a U.S. court or never charged or died before all their appeals ran out can possibly have committed any crimes. TFD (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about criminal law. There's never been any question that the U.S. can hold enemy combatants until the end of the war. There's never been any requirement that enemy combatants must be given full trials in order to be detained. Before 9/11, no one seriously argued it should be otherwise.

In fact, the AR 190-8 manual, from which the CSRT was based, and which was written to comply with the laws of war, was last modified before 9/11. It uses the preponderance of the evidence standard just like the CSRT.

The only reason we even need the CSRT is because our enemies (and Amnesty's friends) don't support the laws of war, and aren't willing to identify themselves properly upon capture as would be required to get POW status.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"are or may be" illegal; recent revert

The reason why this term is completely unnecessary, is because you are applying a qualifier to the legality of those actions, and the compatibility of those actions with the Geneva conventions is not in doubt; if anything is in doubt, it is whether you can apply those labels to US actions, or whether the Geneva conventions apply. So, the qualifier is poorly chosen. Also, the statement only says "adopted some measures," so it is not saying everything the US did was illegal; therefore, the qualifier is doubly unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is specifically saying that "applying "unlawful combatant" status to prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and enhanced interrogation methods" are not merely illegal, but illegal under Geneva. The first is obviously not illegal when applied to actual unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court only ruled that they need a tribunal first, not even a full trial, and the Geneva Conventions had nothing to do with it. Plus, the Court found that only Common Article 3 applies, which pretty much only has unlawful combatants.

Extraordinary rendition and EIT are cloudy issues, and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly either.

These references look like they're pre-Hamdan, which means they're only personal opinions promoted during NGO fundraising. It shouldn't be confusing readers who might think it was the law.

The references are still available via archive.org. But if they say what this article says they say, I don't see it. That needs to be clarified.

Please note that, although I don't believe the current text is true, I do not want it removed completely. I am more interested in finding the references that said these things, and ensuring that they're not lost and forgotten. The pre-Hamdan whining should be exhibited, not lost history. If the references can't be tied to these statements then we should find other references because I believe that people used to think this stuff was true.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Friend, I think you're missing the point. All that statement is saying is that some US actions were illegal. Therefore, unless you're saying that all actions were not illegal, then the qualifier is unnecessary. If there are questions about specific instances, then they should be discussed in specific paragraphs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not saying that some are illegal. It's saying that those specific items are illegal under Geneva. The first one surely isn't, although part of the confusion was probably over the critics' initial insistence that the full GCs should apply, which the Court ultimately didn't buy. If that's the cause of this error (and I think it is), then that makes it worse because the article should never have portrayed the critics' mere opinions as being fact.

Just to be clear: Yes, none of the decision-making for unlawful combatant status were illegal under Geneva. That's true even in cases where a federal judge later ruled that it didn't satisfy the guidelines. Tribunal members are not committing war crimes simply by having a slightly different opinion on what constitutes a preponderance of the evidence. And this is supposed to be an article about actual war crimes.

Aside from all that, the reference listing needs to be clarified. Using one reference for multiple sources may look pretty but it doesn't help the reader find a specific citation.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't; it says some illegal actions have been committed, and then discusses all those that may have been considered illegal. So, the place for a qualifier is in the specific paragraphs. Also, the word of a federal judge does not count for too much here; it is secondary sources, and particularly academic opinion, which matters. The citation style may be terrible, but that is another argument; personally, I have no issues if you clean that up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that.

I realize that nobody takes these articles seriously anymore but we still don't use academics' allegations of contemporary war crimes as though they were fact. Reporters and analysts would open themselves up to lawsuits if they used flexible definitions. This is real life, and standards are important. And when critics don't like the way the law actually is, they often seek to get the law changed. That's harder to do when people fail to take war crimes seriously.

I'm not only talking about Wikipedia. HRW and Amnesty, for example, had been insistent that the main Geneva Conventions should be in effect for this war. You can see this in the old sources (which is why I cautioned about old opinions). But when the Court ruled that this war was under Common Article 3, HRW and Amnesty pivoted so that they could continue their work under that set of rules. And if you'll remember, the Bush administration didn't agree with the decision either, but they followed the law accordingly.

The letters "e.g." mean "for example." It doesn't mean "possible examples whose veracity we can't vouch for."

You use the phrase "may have been considered illegal" here in talk, but the article isn't saying that. It doesn't say some sleazy Ward Churchill-types pretend they're illegal. It says they are examples of things that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Note that we're talking about two claims being made: Illegality, but not merely under U.S. and/or international law, but also under the GCs.

Sadly, critics of the war stopped pretending to care about the GCs after 2006, but this stuff still needs to be documented.

That's only one problem. You also misunderstand that there are two things wrong with these references. The difficulty of verification is only one of them. The other is that I don't see that it attempts to verify them. In other words, these appear to be unreferenced statements.

When I said I'd like to leave them there for now, my intent was so that we always remember who it was making these claims. That can't happen without a valid reference.

If you can find who in those references actually said those three items are examples of things the Geneva Conventions calls illegal, you need to point them out. Some actual links to the text in the GCs would be nice, too, although that would only be a nice bonus (WP demands secondary references first).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)