Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

Where did I say it was a good system?

[Saint Marcus]

Does this mean American civilian contractors being killed is "legal"? Also, the person shot was not a mercenary because of point D. He was an Iraqi sunnite, not a foreign soldier.

You are using definitions of the rules of war from a bygone era, back in the first half of the 20th century. Nowadays, in the first half of the 21st century, things are completely different. Even the guys in current US administration don't follow those rules (as they've stated repeatedly) since the nature of this age and the conflicts in it is drastically different. The US Administration recognises this. The terrorists recognise this. The UN reconises this. That's why people have been tried for warcrimes in conflicts not officially described as wars.

Yep.

In what way wasn't the Korean War a war? Or hell, the Vietnam War for that matter! If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. Despite what officials have called it back then.

By whom?

They are called Civil Wars. Also, again, people have been tried with commiting war crimes during civil wars.


So again, vodkakov and Kuciwalker, since neither of you has addressed this: People have been tried with war crimes in conflicts that weren't officially labeled as wars, nor considered by you to be wars.

[vodkakov]

I have addressed this by saying that:
"I accept your point about official declarations, but this particular case is not a war, it is counter-insurgency and therefore should and would not have the same 'rules of war' applied to it (see point about spies in the first paragraph)."
But you've not acknowledged that there is a difference between a war and counter-insurgency....

I use the Geneva Convention to highlight that if it is a war, the following rules would apply. Therefore, it is counter-insurgency.

Also, I only said IF the person were a foreign fighter, they would be a mercenary. Logically, this would mean, if they were Iraqi, they were not a mercenary.

[Kuciwalker]

In what way wasn't the Korean War a war?

Actually, IIRC, there was a declaration of war, so it is one.

Or hell, the Vietnam War for that matter! If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. Despite what officials have called it back then.

You forget that the same officials who decide whether or not it is a war also get to decide policy - so what they call it matters.

They are called Civil Wars. Also, again, people have been tried with commiting war crimes during civil wars.

Because the one with the most guns decided to call it a war anyway.

You don't seem to understand the fact that those in power get to decide these things, and so it doesn't really matter whether you think it's rational or not.

[Saint Marcus]

Vodkakov: By your definition, what Slobodan did in Kosovo wasn't a war. By your definition, it was a counter-insurrgency campaign against the UCK and their supporters. However, he is being tried for warcrimes in The Hague.

So again: People have been tried with war crimes in conflicts that weren't officially labeled as wars, nor considered by you to be wars.

[Kuciwalker]

But those with guns considered them wars.

[Saint Marcus]

the UN has no guns, Kuci.

[vodkakov]

Er... no, what the Serbs did in Kosovo was genocide, which doesn't even class as a "war crime" - it's a crime against humanity, as it can occur without armed conflict. The Kosovo campaign was not counter-insurgency, as the Serbs did not act merely against the UCK, but also to remove all Albanians, the crime committed was genocide, which is not a war crime, but a 'crime against humanity'. A counter-insurgency is targetted against one or more groups, which threaten order in an area.

No where have I said that what occured was not illegal, as in a counter-insurgency it is still illegal. The difference I am trying to raise is the difference between a crime in a war and a crime during a counter-insurgency. I do not see why you have such a problem accepting this...

[vodkakov]

And Slobodan is also being tried for crimes pre-Kosovo... which occured during an armed conflict in Bosnia etc. Those were his war crimes, as it was a war by your definition.

[Saint Marcus]

Slobodan, as well as others, are being tried for warcrimes as well as crimes against humanity for what they did. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4012043.stm (Three Kosovo Albanians accused of committing war crimes during the Kosovo conflict). So once again, people are being tried for warcrimes in conflicts you do not consider to be wars.

And indeed, I do not believe there is a difference between a war and a "counter-insurgency" like the one in Iraq. The way the American military acted in Fallujah was the way they acted as if they were in a war. That's how they approached this. That's how they fought this. That's how they viewed this. That's how the world viewed this. If this was counter-insurgency, and not a war, I can't see the difference. When does counter-insurgency stop and (civil) war begin? The old Geneva definition no longer seems fully accurate in this day and age. And judging from UN jurispudence, they agree with this.

[Saint Marcus]

from that same article:

"What's important, however, is that the tribunal is putting on trial individuals charged with specific crimes - crimes that come within our jurisdiction - and in this particular case, violation of the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity" - Emphasis mine.

People are being tried for war crimes (violation of the laws and customs of war) in the Kosovo conflict. Eventhough you do not consider it to be war, the UN clearly does.

[vodkakov]

Where did I state that Kosovo was not a conflict? A counter-insurgency is an instance in which troops must be used in order to bolster civil authorities, like the police in order to maintain order.... there is a lot of difference between this and a war. In Kosovo, the Serbs, as I have already stated did not do this. They just moved the army in and started committing genocide (which is not a war crime, in fact according to the UN case notes, the only 'war crime' Milosevic is indicted with is murder (that's in Kosovo, there're also other indictments in Croatia and Bosnia)). This is different to a counter-insurgency campaign in that during a counter-insurgency campaign, the army acts in co-operation with the police and civil authorities in order to maintain order. Milosevic didn't maintain order, in fact he created disorder.

For the example of Iraq, Coalition troops are acting IN SUPPORT OF the civil authorities of Iraq, i.e. the Iraqi police. This is because the Iraqi police would not be able to cope alone with the security situation. The tactics used by the US are a different discussion, for the record, I believe them to be incorrect for fighting this type of action. Iraq is a counter-insurgency campaign, and therefore, traditional 'rules of war' do not apply, but civil law does. This is the point I am making.

[Saint Marcus]

Although I brought it up, I don't really want to go into the Kosovo conflict, that's a matter for another debate.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your position is that there is a difference between war and this counter-insurgency and that therefor the rules of war don't apply. My position is that a conflict like the one in Iraq is a war and therefor the laws of war (broadend to include to include present day condition) do apply.

One last question...do you think any of the Marines in question (or any American militaryman who commits these acts, or ones like in those Abu Graib), any at all, will be tried according to Iraqi civil law?

[vodkakov]

Yeah, I think we will. Although really the only difference between us is who gets to try them...

I don't think any will be tried by Iraqis, but I did state earlier that it would be acceptable for military authorities to try them as according to standard practices during peace. So, they'd be tried for murder as if they'd killed the guy in peacetime, but not for murder as a breach of the Geneva Convention (or similar).

[Saint Marcus]

Although really the only difference between us is who gets to try them...

Most likely...

I don't think any will be tried by Iraqis, but I did state earlier that it would be acceptable for military authorities to try them as according to standard practices during peace. So, they'd be tried for murder as if they'd killed the guy in peacetime, but not for murder as a breach of the Geneva Convention (or similar).

Although I'd prefer the men involved to be tried for warcrimes (in the US or in The Hague), I could live with them being tried for a "peacetime murder" in an Iraqi court.

Do you know of any case in which American soldiers have been tried in foreign courts for actions they commited during anti-insurgency incidents. Or in any peace time incident? I seem to recall an incident in which an American soldier was accused of raping a Japanese woman in Japan while he was stationed there a few years back, though I don't know if the case actually went to a Japanese court and if the American was tried there...