How do you define a war crime?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 63
Topic's author
#1
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
So, when it comes to these definitions, I realized that my debates about Israel, such as "Bibi is a war criminal", cannot work unless there is a very clear definition of a war crime.

But thats where it gets complicated.

A war crime could be defined as "causing some harm to some civilians", with civilians being those who arent part of military.

This is a very simple definition. We can all agree that causing harm to civilians is bad.

But some people want to extend this definition by saying:
"Its justified to harm civilians if it achieves some military goal".

But the problem with this definition is that harm doesnt stop being harm even if it results in some good elsewhere.

Sure, bombing of Germany in WW2 defeated Hitler, but that doesnt mean it didnt cause harm to countless civilians. In no way it was good for those civilians.

Further, every side in war thinks its right. If every side thinks that its right about what they want, and its justified to kill civilians to achieve what is considered as right, then essentially the term "war crime" becomes meaningless because every side can justify anything by simply saying it achieves their goals. Israel could carpet bomb entire Gaza as an effective way to try and destroy most of Hamas. If ends justify the means, then anything can be justified.

So clearly, war crime definition is best kept simple, otherwise it risks confusing lack of crime with efficiency, where something is not a crime just because its efficient at achieving something else.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,154
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
As if war isn't crime enough.

When has war ever been a jolly decent spiffing friendly affair, between best mates?
Topic's author
#3
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@zedvictor4
As if war isn't crime enough
Well, if it was just about battle between those who want to battle each other, maybe it wouldnt be. But when most of those harmed by war are those who arent even part of battle, then it is a clear crime.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,154
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

If everything was that simple BK.

Like I said...When has war ever been a jolly decent spiffing friendly affair, between best mates.

Perhaps an area of Eastern Russia or Mongolia or somewhere else vast and empty, could be set aside for Battles, wherein both sides are made up with only willing participants. Therein, no collateral damage, save for a few antelopes and other small critters. Leaving only dead idiots.


#5
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,365
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
There's what is stipulated in various international treaties, like the Geneva or Hague conventions, but not all of these have been agreed to by everyone. Things like sparing the lives of POWs are low hanging fruit. Everyone agrees on these points.

But then there are treaties that countries will withdraw from out of perceived necessity; for example, Latvia and Estonia (Poland and Lithuania might be next) have withdrawn from the Ottawa Treaty on Landmines because, in light of Ukraine, they've realized how important these weapons are for self-defense. On one hand, Russia itself isn't a signatory to this treaty (and has erected vast minefields in Ukraine), but even if Russia were, Russia has a massive size advantage. So the moral ideal that "landmines shouldn't be used in conflicts" must bend in the face of the right to national survival, which is the first law and priority of any nation.

Which is to say, there are things deemed "laws of war" which neither enjoy the consent of all parties nor are morally legitimate in all circumstances. Likewise, some rules are consented to by a signatory country that lacks the internal rule of law to keep from breaking its own treaties; for example, Nazi Germany.

Conversely, the Nuremberg Trials saw Nazi Germany tried not for war crimes it committed per the treaties it was party to, but per then-new legal concepts such as "crimes of aggression" or "crimes against humanity".  In some cases, then, conduct can be retroactively made into a war crime by force of the victors.

Overall the concept of a war crime is shaky and poorly defined. It can't not exist at all, but it's shaky.
#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
A war crime could be defined as "causing some harm to some civilians", with civilians being those who arent part of military.
Civilians are harmed in every war. This definition is unreasonable.
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Swagnarok
. So the moral ideal that "landmines shouldn't be used in conflicts" must bend in the face of the right to national survival, which is the first law and priority of any nation.
Disagree. I don't understand why national survival is placed so high. A nation should not survive for example if they don't believe in values like free speech or in capitalism. If that means you are completely destroyed by a power who is significantly more fascist because you are unwilling to budge than that is a better result than losing your identity and losing the reason you have a right to exist at all.
Topic's author
#8
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Swagnarok
So the moral ideal that "landmines shouldn't be used in conflicts" must bend in the face of the right to national survival, which is the first law and priority of any nation.
The debate isnt about what should or shouldnt be done. It is about what counts as war crime. Sure, sometimes a crime can result in greater good. Person can do crime but also do good which far outweighs that crime. It doesnt mean that crime wasnt done. As for survival of a nation, that was already shown where it leads to when some users on this site suggested killing all Palestinians for being "potential terrorists". Everything is a potential threat, and using survival as a justification for crime doesnt magically turn crime into a non-crime. Sure, Soviets fought for their survival when they were fighting nazi Germany. It doesnt mean it wasnt a crime when Soviets raped 8 year old German girls.
#9
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
That's one of the reasons why I find Ukraine disgusting. If you have to end freedom of the press or freedom of religion or pause elections for your survival than it isn't worth surviving. You can live in a shuttle country just as easily with complete surrender at that point and there are only two types of countries free and shit hole and once you slip into the second category degree doesn't matter because you lost the moral highground and reason that justifies your existence at all.
Topic's author
#10
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Civilians are harmed in every war
And from this you draw conclusion that harming civilians isnt a crime?
#11
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Then you may ask. What about temporary restrictions in freedom. Then you temporarily lose your right to exist and when it comes time to expand freedom, those who restricted it, even if it resulted in saving the country should be executed for treason.
Topic's author
#12
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
there are only two types of countries free and shit hole and once you slip into the second category degree doesn't matter because you lost the moral highground and reason that justifies your existence at all.
I dont think people who dont have full freedom dont deserve to exist, but thats now going off topic.
#13
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And from this you draw conclusion that harming civilians isnt a crime?
Correct. It would destroy the purpose of calling something a war crime..the purpose of the category of crime is to punish leaders who would cause unnecessary harm to civilians intentionally. 

We don't call Roosevelt a war criminal because there was shortages of sugar in America which harmed civilians . It's retarded and destroys the purpose of the word
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
 dont think people who dont have full freedom dont deserve to exist, but thats now going off topic
Nations not people reread it
Topic's author
#15
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Correct. It would destroy the purpose of calling something a war crime..the purpose of the category of crime is to punish leaders who would cause unnecessary harm to civilians intentionally.
Purpose is determined by each person, and the definition I gave already includes "leaders who would cause unnecessary harm to civilians intentionally", thus such purpose obviously wouldnt be destroyed. The fallacy of your definition was already explained. The fact that you repeated it means you didnt read what was already written.

We don't call Roosevelt a war criminal because there was shortages of sugar in America which harmed civilians . It's retarded and destroys the purpose of the word
If he caused harm to civilians, then such harm is harm by tautology, no matter what your opinion might be about how else it should be called.
Topic's author
#16
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Nations not people
Nations are made by people, and you already said that anyone who restricts freedom should be executed. Not sure why you try to run away from your own words.
#17
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,380
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I don't define it. To me the idea that there are rules on engagement in a war is  absurd to me. You do what is ever necessary to win and if that means killing every non combatant that supports your enemy then so be it. And if you have to torcher people to get intel then so be it. There is only one way to fight a war and that is to win and make your enemy surrender unconditionally other wise you already lost and all who died, died for nothing.
#18
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,928
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
you lost the moral highground and reason that justifies your existence at all
The high ground is relative to who one is fighting, and being above Putin is a low bar.
Topic's author
#19
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@sadolite
You do what is ever necessary to win
Not that its the topic, but the side which does war crimes tends to be at a disadvantage. You may have convinced yourself that its okay to harm civilians to such great degree, but for many people out there, including those civilians, it makes it much harder for them to support you. Now, winning war depends on allies as well, and when you are a war criminal, there are not many people who will be your allies. Israel is constantly losing support everywhere specifically because of the war crimes it does. In the past, with no media coverage, it could have been easier to hide these crimes. But times change. Besides, if you kill 5 times more civilians than terrorists and injure another 10 civilians per every terrorist killed, those civilians have families who will want revenge. So hurting 15 civilians per every terrorist killed might not actually reduce number of terrorists. A man who had nothing against Israel might change his opinion when Israel kills his family.
#20
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,393
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
War crimes are like pornography, we may not be able to define it explicitly, but we know it when we see it.
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Nations are made by people, and you already said that anyone who restricts freedom should be executed. Not sure why you try to run away from your own words.
Nations are made of all the people in them. Governments are made up of the ruling class and are individuals.
#22
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
The high ground is relative to who one is fighting, and being above Putin is a low bar.
If you are in the piece of shit bucket that would put you in the same bucket as Putin. If you don't in spirit accept the same principles as the bill of rights than your country is a shit hole and doesn't deserve to exist.

It's silly to sit here and argue "well does a rapist or a serial killer have the moral high ground". I don't care neither have the right to exist and so if one dominates and kills the other it's a good thing because now we are down to one piece of shit
#23
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,380
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
opinion noted
Topic's author
#24
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Governments are made up of the ruling class and are individuals
Often at least 30% of people support the government. Otherwise, would be very hard to even govern. Not everyone supports "full  freedom". Not everyone supports what you support.
#25
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
the side which does war crimes tends to be at a disadvantage
Just the one side? What war are you thinking of where only one side is/was committing war crimes?

Topic's author
#26
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
What war are you thinking of where only one side is/was committing war crimes?
I never said there was such war. Maybe there was, but its irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying that doing war crimes tends to be a disadvantage for a side which does them, especially today with all the media coverage.
#27
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It’s hardly irrelevant. If both sides are committing war crimes, then the one sided disadvantage you have described becomes virtually meaningless. Unless it’s the Jews, of course. In that case, you might be on to something.
#28
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,842
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Often at least 30% of people support the government. Otherwise, would be very hard to even govern. Not everyone supports "full  freedom". Not everyone supports what you support
Since I specified politicians not those that support them your false equivalency fails. It doesn't matter if they are elected. The will of the people doesn't matter. Only right and wrong matter and if you are put in a position where you have the option to protect freedom or protect sovereignty and you choose sovereignty over freedom you deserve a painful death. Even a temporary sacrifice by citizens for long term freedom is evil. Give us liberty or death
Topic's author
#29
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 809
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
It’s hardly irrelevant. If both sides are committing war crimes, then the one sided disadvantage you have described becomes virtually meaningless.
No, it is still a disadvantage. If one side didnt commit war crimes, they would be in a better position. If you want to compare Israel's crimes to crimes of Hamas, then thats a completely different topic. But by numbers, Israel has committed more war crimes.
#30
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,444
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
A war crime could be defined as "causing some harm to some civilians", with civilians being those who arent part of military.

This is a very simple definition. We can all agree that causing harm to civilians is bad.

But some people want to extend this definition by saying:
"Its justified to harm civilians if it achieves some military goal".

But the problem with this definition is that harm doesnt stop being harm even if it results in some good elsewhere.

A war crime is a violation of the laws and customs of war, or international humanitarian law (IHL), that occurs during an armed conflict. It's a crime that incurs individual criminal responsibility under international law. War crimes can be committed against individuals or property, and the definition of what constitutes a war crime can vary depending on whether the conflict is international or non-international.