What separates war from crime?

well, on philosophical level, we can, of course, argue that war itself is crime.

On legal level, you can start with Geneva Convention...

What separates war from crime?

Plausible excuses . . .

War supposedly has an ultimate good, to end needless pain and suffering, i.e. removing sadistic dictators who torture their own people, (think Sadam) where as most crimes are self-seeking i.e. people who kill others to gain money from an insurance policy.

The same thing that separates murder from self defense.

In the case of a preemptive strike - the lines are much greyer.

TF

We don't need to be uncivilized about conducting wars of conquest and destruction, now do we? Rules of engagement have been established which limit the ways in which it is acceptable to maim and kill (it is OK to blow someone's limbs off or let them die slowly while impaled on barbed wire, but not to incapacitate them with poison gas), mandate the humane treatment of anyone who is not killed outright (in hope that our guys will also be treated nicely), and limit collateral damage to civilians (unless you determine that terrorizing non-combatants would convince the enemy to give up sooner, or your soldiers need to have a little fun as incentive to continue fighting, or you can demonize the entire population, including civilians, and thereby justify rape, plunder, and genocide).

Violating any law is a crime, whether rules of war or civil codes. It is not a crime if it is legal, such as beating someone into unconsciousness in a boxing ring, capital punishment, or seizing property for failure to pay taxes, eminent domain, or RICO.

Strangely enough the 'field testing' of the hydrogen bomb on Japanese cities, at the end of WWII, was not deemed a war crime by any of the standard jurisdictional bodies.

[oh yes, "we" won; silly me!]

Cyracuz,

Before getting too far into the topic of your thread, please read the "Does Crime Pay" thread on this forum. I believe that my posting on page one of that thread may help help clarify the question.

Through most of human history, nations were never considered legally guilty for pursuing their national interests, no matter what form their actions took. A government could invade a small neighbor, raze their cities, permit the rape of women, and kill or enslave all the survivors. Around the time of the renaissance the idea that nations, like individuals, ought to be subject to some constraining Law, and International Law was born. For a long time International Law was pretty loose. A nation was expected to honor it's treaties, and make a formal Declaration of War before commencing hostilities. There were no International Courts or means of enforcing those precepts, but sovereigns did generally try to abide by them. As professional standing military organizations became predominant, protocols governing the behavior of the military were widely adopted and followed. Those who surrendered could not then be killed, plunder and rape were forbidden, and civilian populations were not to be targeted. Again, the rules governing military behavior were generally accepted and followed, though violations seldom were punished.

The 20th century changed all of that. The size and scope of war dwarfed all preceding conflicts. Military technology (rifled and rapid fire artillery, machine-guns, aircraft, submarines, and the use of chemical weapons) made the trenches that snaked across all of Europe a slaughterhouse devoid of what in earlier times was passed off as glory. The use of that technology resulted in made attack against civilians difficult, if not impossible. The line between what was a "legitimate target" and what was not became very blurred. The result of the carnage was the first attempt to construct meaningful International Law. Google, the League of Nations, the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention for more material than you will probably have the patience to read and ponder.

The League was botched, and probably doomed before it first met in San Francisco, but the idea that Nations ought to be held accountable for certain behavior took root. When the Great War continued (WWII), the trends that were so appalling in the First World War resumed. Population centers and transportation networks were regarded by all parties as legitimate military targets. A great fuss was made over the niceties of making a formal Declaration of War prior to opening hostilities. Submarines sank any ship flying the enemy flag, even when they were clearly not "military". Total War became the norm. Civilian populations were ravaged, enslaved, and often killed arbitrarily as a matter of national policy by the German and Japanese governments. The threat from the Axis Powers was so great that the temporary cooperation between the Soviet Union and the Democratic West made the formation of the United Nations desirable.

In the aftermath, the world was horrified at the extremes taken by the Nazis in pursuit of Racial Purity and fuehrer Principle. The death camps demonstrated like nothing else the evil of racial prejudice and the danger of national governments having totally unconstrained internal policies. The World vowed never again should a government be permitted to commit genocide. The Nazi leadership was brought before an International Tribunal, I believe the first ever in human history, and condemned for their inhuman acts. Crimes Against Humanity was levied, and became thereafter a crime in International Law. The United Nations was intended to guarantee World peace and security, and that International Law would in the future hold nations to account. A noble ideal, but one that failed almost immediately as the Soviet Union enslaved much of Europe and vowed to subjugate the whole world to Communist rule.

The UN could not effectively act, because it was constructed in such a way that any of the five permanent members of the Security Council could veto any action. Never-the-less, a series of International Agreements and Laws were enacted to make "aggressive war" illegal. Exactly what "aggressive war" is remains obscure, though it certainly would apply if a nation were to issue a formal Declaration of War prior to the opening of hostilities. That probably would make a Congressional Declaration of War (a Constitutional responsibility of Congress) an international crime. However, being a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. might be able to quash any move to enforce. It doesn't take much to recognize that the UN is totally incapable of providing for the peace and security of the world. The number of genocidal campaigns in a whole host of regions has gone almost un-noticed with the UN doing nothing to stop them. What has the UN ever done to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and enforce peace in the region? The political conditions in Africa have been chaotic and filled with unconstrained tribal warfare for generations, where is the UN? Did the UN ever address the Soviet Gulag? Is it able to free the prisoners from virtual death camps in the DPRK? Has the UN ever had the metal to effectively enforce treaties constraining nuclear proliferation?

The General Assembly was made up of such a hodge-podge of "nations" with wildly different systems and interests, that only pork-barrel projects could be agreed upon. Everyone agreed that large, expensive projects should be undertaken to improve life around the globe, and the developed "wealthy" nations should pay for it all. What we see instead is a preference to avoid any confrontation with the really bad guys who thumb their noses at International Law.

When crimes are committed by individuals, rather than nations, things are much more certain. Law as applied to individuals, and criminal enterprises, go back to our earliest prehistoric roots. Criminal law is based on society's need for predictability and group security. It is often based on underlying cultural notions and taboos that individuals learn with their mother's milk. Most criminal law is pretty clear. Stealing, is take another's property without their uncoerced permission. Homicide is the unsanctioned killing of one human being by another.

There are essentially two forms of law. In those parts of the world where British and American influence has been great there is the Common Law. This consists of Stare Decisis, and the written code. Stare Decisis, means that the law is determined by precedent. When an issue is decided by an appellate Court, it becomes the law for following cases of a similar nature. Over hundreds of years the law evolves as case after case of sometimes very minor exceptions to fundamental laws are encountered. What was a capital crime in 18th century New England may well be legal, and even considered a virtue in 21st century Las Vegas. The Constitution typifies the written code. This is the clear written elements (corpus ddelicti of laws enacted by the People or legislatures. Once a law is on the books, then exactly what it means will be endlessly argued at the appellate level. This system is dynamic and has proven a very good means of guaranteeing the fundamental principles that underly Anglo-American ideas about the importance of individual freedom.

The second sort of laws we find in the world are often called the Napoleonic Code, after the legal system Napoleon imposed to bring order out of a chaotic France. In this system the law is only what is written down, and it is interpreted by a panel of Justices whose verdict is usually final and binding. In these systems, the accused's guilt is usually assumed. This system in its most extreme forms is the norm in dictatorships of all sorts where the "right" of government is superior to the the rights of individuals. A more humanistic approach to this philosophy of law can be found in most of the developed European countries at the dawn of the 21st century.

BoGoWo,

The United States did not use hydrogen bombs on Japan, or any other country, ever. Two small atomic bombs were used to bring about the Japanese surrender. Hiroshima was the HQ for the defense of Southern Japan, a producer and storage location of military munitions. It was a legitimate military target both at the time, and it still would be today.

At the time few indeed had any idea of how an atomic explosion differed from one resulting of conventional explosives. Most saw it as merely a much, much bigger "block buster" bomb with no more destructive power than that unleashed by mass bombing raids over both Germany and Japan. EMT wasn't expected and probably wasn't even noticed in BDE. Massive fire storms were expected even with conventional munitions used against typical "wood and paper" Japanese architecture. Scientists understood that radiation was a danger, but I doubt that many military or political decision-makers understood that radiation might have longterm effects.

As our military forces hopped from island garrison to island garrison on the road to the Japanese homeland, resistance stiffened. suicide attacks on US forces began and culminated at Okinawa. Surrender by Japanese forces was rare at anytime, but virtually unheard of by the time we were getting ready to invade the Home Islands. The Japanese had prepared its people to fight to the death against allied landings. Military supplies were hoarded to use in the last ditch effort, and effort that most expected would end in death. Children were encouraged to charge US soldiers with sharpened bamboo spears if nothing better was at hand. American troops were being shipped from Europe to participate in the anticipated landings in Japan. The expected cost in allied lives, and in the lives of Japanese civilians might well have been in the millions if a D-Day landing had been necessary.

If Truman had not ordered the use of the Atomic Bomb, and all those millions of lives had been lost and the war dragged on for perhaps another year, would he have been acting responsibly as President?

Terry,

Yes, there is a big difference between the way that the US uses its military and the way used by: the Axis Powers, USSR, DPRK, PRC, Saddam's Iraq, and international terrorists like Al Queda. There is a difference between a serial killer who explodes bombs in public places, and a police officer who shoots the dirty dog dead in the street. If you don't have police officers, and soldiers, willing to kill and die in your defense, then you should get used to the idea of enslavement, of being always afraid. In a world where force is still used to coerce opponents into compliance, you should be consider those differences carefully before wishing that your government would scrap the military and disarm the police.

I believe that war is the result of cowardice. Most people are not brave enough to fight the fear in their hearts, so they run to the battlefields to slay their brothers because it is an easier enemy to conquer than fear itself. The united states is a pioneer in modern warmongering, in that the government nourishes the fear in the heart of it's people in order to gain support for military actions. This is not war in my eyes. It is crime. Towards the peoples of various countries that USA and NATO attacks, towards the citizens of the nations, who are subjected to the propaganda of their regimes.

If the United States and Britain hadn't been too cowardly to trust that the Hitler's promise that he had no further territorial demands the carnage of WWII could have been avoided. We should all have trusted the Nazis, after all their occupation of places like Norway was for the greater good of humanity, right? If the Allies had just not resisted the New Order, today you would be better off. That's what you believe, huh?

Do you really believe that the Soviet union was not deterred from armed aggression against the Europe by the sure knowledge that further Communist expansion there would be met with the full military might of NATO backed by the nuclear arsenal of the United States? Are you willing to risk your freedom and the lives of your family to the tender mercies of those who have sworn your downfall? I suppose you can afford to be "courageous" so long as we "cowardly" Americans and Brits are willing to risk our lives to protect you and your freedoms.

I think that Cyracuse's comment was directed more at the recent US wars which have left much of the American public confused and ashamed. Our latest wars are based on a teenage feeling of superiority and invulnerability, and republican political trickery to support Bush's political campaign.

And what would be a "mature" and "responsible" policy to deal with the radical Islamic enemy who has been attacking and killing our citizens for over a decade? Should we have stayed out of Afghanistan, and left the Taliban to act as hosts and mentors to Al Queda? The Gulf War to expel Iraq from Kuwait, in your view, was inappropriate?

I suppose you believe that it was American feelings of "superiority and invulnerability" that was the principle cause of 9/11. Prior to 9/11, many Americans certainly did believe that the radical Islamic movement would not, could not, launch and effective attack on New York, or Washington D.C. All that violence was far away, overseas and directed only at others or regular US military assets. Before 9/11 Americans were confident that they had little to fear from attack by a small number of fanatics. Most Americans were lulled into denial of the threat. All that is certainly true, but does that mean that 9/11 should be blamed on America, or the current administration instead of on the terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks?

"...and republican political trickery to support Bush's political campaign."

By this I suppose that you are referring to the events leading up to committing US and Coalition forces to Iraq. There was no "political trickery", either Republican or Democrat involved in the decision to militarily intervene in Iraq. Leaders of both political parties believed that Saddam had an arsenal of forbidden terror weapons, and that he was perfectly willing to use them. President Clinton firmly believed that Iraq was a threat, and responsible for instigating unrest and violence throughout the region. ]

Saddam gave ample reason to believe that he was in possession, or seeking possession of forbidden weapons. His agents were anxious buyers in the international arms market, and he did purchase from Germany, France and Russia materials that had clear military application. He refused to fully comply with any effective UN inspection, and kicked out the inspectors when they began to find evidence of hidden weapons programs. Saddam openly offered and paid monetary rewards for terrorist acts outside Iraq. There were meetings between Saddam's intelligence services and terrorist organizations. Saddam wanted the world to believe that he was armed to the teeth as a means of deterring any military action taken to force his full compliance with armistice conditions. Saddam was guilty of trickery, not the political leadership of the United States.

The Intelligence services of the United States, Europe and even Israel, fully believed that Saddam possessed, or was attempting to possess forbidden terror weapons. That wasn't trickery, it was mistaken. Why didn't we know better?

Well, the US pretty much abandoned HUMINT in favor of ELINT and satellite surveillance techniques. Having agents on the ground is always difficult, expensive, and often of questionable propriety. Human agents in a position to provide good intelligence have to be highly-placed and disloyal to their masters. Spies. They are motivated by money, sex, the need for revenge, and blackmail. Willing to betray their positions once, they can't even be fully trusted not to become doubles. The American distaste for such behavior was accentuated by political correctness and an unrealistic belief that in our technological superiority we could do without human spy networks. Some in our intelligence community really believed that ELINT and satellite surveillance was more than adequate. They were wrong, but that is what People, Congress and a succession of Presidents wanted to believe. satellites and electronic emissions do not tell us what the intentions of a target is, and they can be misleading even as to capability.

Each day, each hour, a flood of data is gathered. Many millions of phone calls, radar pulses, radio signals, etc. are collected by a wide variety of sources. Somewhere hidden in all that clutter are tiny bits of a puzzle that may, or may not, have meaning to the security of the United States. This isn't searching for a needle in a haystack, but more like finding three particular grains of sand scattered somewhere in all the beaches of the world. Once we've located those three grains of sand, we still wouldn't know if there might not be six, or hundred other grains somewhat different, but that might help us understand what we did find. Those three, or four grains of sand then are sent to specialists who try to understand what it is that they have, and what significance it may, or may not have. The data is compared and assessed and eventually a report is generated and sent up the chain of command. Again the information is assessed for importance from a strategic point-of-view. If it seems important enough it will be included in the daily Presidential briefing. Seldom is there a firm recommendation for action, or even much to explain how the information should be regarded. The President is briefed each morning on literally thousands of little nuggets of information, and there isn't a thing he can do about most of them ... but he needs to know. The Intelligence community isn't in the business of "tricking" the President, nor the political leadership, but seldom is an intelligence report so solid, so precise and and clear that there isn't ample room for error. That's just the way things are. You can try as hard as you like, but intelligence isn't going to get much better. US Intelligence is already doing almost unbelievably well, but the public rarely gets a glimpse into the Shadow World ... and that's as it should be. Never let the opposition know just how much you know, or how you came to know it.

Which Bush political campaign do think this "conspiracy" was taken in support of? He had already been elected on 9/11, and the next presidential election was years away. Bush was focused on the economy and fulfilling his election pledges when it became impossible to any longer ignore the threat posed by the radical Islamic movement centered in Southwest Asia. Its hard for me to understand why he would want to "trick" the public into supporting military efforts to insure that those who perpetrated the 9/11 outrage would be punished, and prevented from making further attacks on the United States. The public already wanted the government to do those things, so no "trickery" was needed. Why would Bush want to engage in a lengthy conflict that would increase the National Debt, and further polarize the electorate? Wouldn't if have been easier and more reasonable, if Bush had found some excuse not to pursue our enemies into their sanctuaries?

To me Asherman (and I know this is the Lions Den) I never supported the war with Iraq because after my military stinit I knew just how fallible intelligence was.

In my opinion the data that wanted to be seen (WMD's in Iraq as provided by Chaliby and his ilk) and the data that we did not want to see (Memo to the president titled "Al Qaeda determined to attack within U.S. Border - 8 months ahead of 9/11) were ignored.

We, in America, at best have chosen our terrorists carefully (ignore the North Korean's because they actually have WMD's and scare us and go after the weakened and controlled Iraqi's). Ignore the death an genocide in Sudan and focus on the death and genocide in Afganistan - that we are at least partly responsible for.

A coilition of the willing has come down to the burden of America (in over 120 billion dollars and over 970 soldiers dead) that has put our state governments into a tail spin (cut federal spending across the board has resulted in higher property taxes, higher gas tax, higher toll road fees etc). While this is going on there is a tax break that benifits the wealthiest 2% of American 700 more times the the poorest. A tax break during a time when America's projected national debt is measured in the trillions over the next ten years. (I hope to you don't agree with Cheney who stated that deficit spending does not matter - as proven by Regan - I guess it doesn't matter when you have Bill Clinton to bail you out - unless you believe that that was just the 'trickle down theory' - which Regan denounced near the end of his run - finally coming into play.)

I don't think any conspiracy took place - just a ramming through of policy that did not have U.N approval (and no I don't think France and Germany's unreasonable block of a U.N resolution was right either - but that is France - always there when she needs us) - the focusing on a 'reasons from preemtive strikes' that Bush and his cabinet were looking for - and billions of dollars in debt and soon to be over a thousand lives to do what we could have done in hundreds of other countries (pick your dictator who is trying to gain WMD's).

I think the Bush cabinet focused on the 'hard decisions' so directly they refused to see the gray of the matter ( I also don't think this polarized the electorate - I think it solidified the conservative base - much like his known to fail 'Constitutional Amendment banning Gay marriage'.) I think Bush purposefully looks at issues in a matter of black and white. And shame on the Congress and House for not scruitinizing a declaration of war power more closely - and falling pray to 9/11 hype and fearing looking unpatriotic.

It would not have been more reasonable to make excuses - but it certainly appears more reasonable to gain better intelligence than what we had. I protested this war because the evidence, to me, did not justify war. Even the evidence presented to the U.N. was years old and full of holes (the main informant was Chaliby's spook with the code name 'screw ball' - come on). This information, including Powell's vial of Ricin had a lot of holes - and the media was so caught up in running thier talking point from Condaleeza Rice and producing 9/11 tributes that they ceased doing thier job (being investigative - a job they have not returned to doing as far as I can see).

Within days of this 'evidence' coming to light Blair had egg on his face because of the 'Africa WMD' connection (thank you BBC) - and it was a matter of time until we found out that the 'mobile weapons labs' were glorified ice cream trucks. The U.N. Inspectors could not prove a negative - and it appears that Bush's positive proof wnt from "45 minutes WMD's can be laubched on Paris to 'evil dictator'.

Well chose your 'evil dictator' - or should we start with ones that we can have Halliburton build a natural gas pipeline through - and the ones we can have Haliburton drill oil in. Right or wrong - it smells like a fish to me.

However, on second reads of your post - I think I see your point. No one was going to do anything about Saddam - ever. That was clear to America - and I think with the data we saw (your three grains) we chose to use preemtive strikes. I guess I never believe in preemtive strikes - no matter what. I also cannot see (due to the lack of connections) that 9/11 had much to do with Iraq.

It seemed to me if we wanted to get the 'bad guys' we would have deployed a reasonable amount of troops to Afghanistan. Instead we had more police at the republican convention then we have troops looking for a 6'4" guy on dialysis

TTF

p.s. I enjoy your posts Asherman - and enjoy your side to this issue - I hate modern American politics for being so polarizing. I fall victim to it - and we seem so damned divided these days.

What separates war from crime is that sadly war is legal, and crime, generally is ilegal, and I use the term VERY loosely.

Truth is, war SHOULD be a crime, period.
We can't call ourselves "civilized" and carry on shooting eachother on the head for petty reasons that benefit only a bunch of people, filling their pockets with money, therefore power.
Of course, because at those levels, money is really not the issue, power is.