Talk:United States war crimes/Archive 1

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)


 * War is a human creation and any civilian deaths or unnecessary suffering is a crime. Sorry about your war apologia dude. I think this is a poor article too but for the reason that it erroneously defines a war crime as having to actually be brought up in court, and not something that can objectively be identified by definition in international law. Also every mass killing of civilians is a war crime by definition, just saying.68.116.54.190 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That covers too wide a field. It's not a war crime to destroy a schoolyard if a combatant is launching missiles from there.  That's the way the laws of war were written.
 * You misunderstand the point about a court decision. It's not that an atrocity isn't a war crime without a court decision.  It's that we're not in the business of calling people war criminals without good references.  Similarly, we don't call people terrorists, traitors, or murderers without good cause either.  Otherwise, somebody would categorize every detainee in Guantanamo as a war criminal and/or terrorist.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * Is there any reliable sources for this? Otherwise its just original research. Mr.Z-man 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Perhaps it would constitute a Crime against peace, but not a war crime.  The Nuremberg trials distinguished between illegal conduct during a war (war crimes) and prosecution of aggressive war (crime against peace).  Since this article concerns itself with War Crimes, Crimes against peace are not relevant here.12.177.23.62 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more curious if the abu ghraib abuses count as war crimes. They fit the description in the "war crimes" wiki article, but have no section here. The only reason this seems odd to me is because it's a contemporary example that has been verified and had people face court-martials for.

There seems to be a feeling that war is crime. When in fact, it is not. It's how the world works. War happens. The only people or groups held to international law or even domestic law regarding war crimes are Governments. Learn the difference between war and war crimes. Quit pushing your Freshman year in college socialist ideas as fact.Jon3800 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the freshman Republican comes out of the woodwork to rage. No, he never claimed war was a war crime, you complete moron. He asked if the illegal, unprovoked war against Iraq by America was a war crime. Technically a Crime Against Peace is still a war crime. Regardless, the actual war crimes committed by both the US Government and it's personnel DURING the war ARE in fact war crimes. And as for your ridiculous claims of ignorance, you probably should have looked up the fact that individual soldiers and personnel (and even civilians) are, can and have been convicted of war crimes. So no, it's not just "Governments". 180.216.46.126 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

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)

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)


 * 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)

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.

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.

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. A treaty that is not ratified is not legally binding.”"

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 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
 * List of war crimes
 * Allied war crimes during World War II
 * German war crimes
 * War crimes of the Wehrmacht
 * Soviet war crimes
 * Japanese war crimes
 * 1902 Lodge Committee investigating Philippine-American war crimes
 * 1971 Bangladesh atrocities
 * Ottoman war crimes

On a more general vein, here is a list of helpful links:
 * Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
 * Benjamin B. Ferencz
 * Command responsibility
 * International Criminal Court
 * List of War Crimes
 * Nuremberg Principles
 * Review Conference of the International Criminal Court Statute
 * The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
 * United States and the International Criminal Court
 * War Crimes

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)
 * Do you mean "learned that it can never be fully trusted to always claim that the U.S. is innocent of any war crimes"? Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I mean that President Obama knows the ICC will be misused against him if he gives them the chance. The UNHRC is already getting on his case about UAV attacks, and he hasn't even been in office a year yet.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By "misused against him", do you mean judging his actions according to international law? As far as getting onto his case about UAV attacks: perhaps if he wasn't illegally performing extrajudicial executions (and killing civilians in the process) with UAVs, then they wouldn't be "getting on his case". Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. I mean that critics of the U.S. will invent interpretations of laws that weren't ever meant to apply, with full knowledge that they won't get anywhere.  They don't even take themselves seriously.
 * Those drones were not targetting innocent civilians. For those who care about the laws of war, it is fully al Qaeda's and the Taliban's responsibility to separate themselves from innocent civilians.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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." Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * You should really stop throwing around the word "fascism" all the time to cover up your lack of reasoning. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * No, I agree with Z-Man -- I think it would be best if you didn't get to change the definition of war crime at your whim, so that you can defend your pro-U.S. bias. I wouldn't have a problem finding war crimes committed by the U.S. under just about any common definition of the term. But of course, nobody can find any as long as whenever they do, you get to just change the definition and say "See -- it's not a war crime anymore!" Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my definition of a war crime. It's the law's definition.
 * If a soldier steals an apple from an Iraqi grocery, then that's a crime during a war, but it's not a "war crime."
 * Similarly, horrific accidents happen in war. "Negligent homicide" is a crime, but that doesn't make it a war crime.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which law? Could you please provide a quoted passage from a law that says that a group of soldiers willfully killing a large number of civilians without provocation is not a war crime? I don't know where you got the statements about "stealing apples" -- I'm talking about U.S. soldiers shooting two dozen unarmed people. Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And actually, you don't even need to answer this question. I know you're not making sense, but that's irrelevant. Neither you, nor I get to decide what is and isn't a war crime. We'll let the reliable sources determine that. Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to testimony, the Haditha incident didn't happen the way you describe.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even for those who claim to believe that over one million were killed in Iraq, those numbers show that it was insurgents who did most of that "killing". I understand that's not commonly spoken of, as most critics of the war are reluctant to ask their fascist friends to stop fighting.
 * As for your other numbers, I doubt they're any more realistic.
 * In reality, innocent people do get killed in wars for many reasons without it being a war crime. Perhaps you might remember a few years ago when critics of the war claimed to care about the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war.  Those are the rules we go by when determining whether or not an act was legal.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How to determine what is and is not a "war crime"
There are several problems with the process of determining what is and is not a war crime in this article. Unfortunately, it seems like the current criteria is whether or not various users consider it one. As Mr.Z-man said earlier -- wikipedia editors should not get to determine what is and is not a "war crime". If a reliable source calls it a war crime, then this should be mentioned in the article. Whether or not other editors like this or agree with it is irrelevant -- they can put dissenting opinions (backed by reliable sources) in the article to counter the opinion of the reliable sources that claim the event is a war crime. Does this seem reasonable? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * Atomic bombing was maybe not a war crime in 1945, but the murder of thousands of civilians is. --zorxd (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess sending millions of Jews to gas chambers wasn't a war crime, since it didn't exist before it happened. How exactly is killing thousands of innocent people not a war crime? And by the definition of war crime in the lead, this is one (since it is the subject of an accusation in the International Court of JusticeJrtayloriv (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Holocaust was undeniably directed only against civilians.
 * Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military and infrastructure targets. Even today's version of the Geneva Conventions state that the presence of innocents does not protect military targets.  Testimony from a socialist politician who wants to criticize the U.S. doesn't change that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never read that the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were somehow considered a military/infrastructure target, any more than the civilians in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were military/infrastructure targets. Would you care to explain?
 * It's the "presence of" language that is important. If you have a city occupied by large numbers of civilians but is also host to factories producing war materiel, the city is a legitimate target and civilian deaths, even if anticipated, do not violate the rules of war.  This distinction is important and is pretty much a bedrock of all "just war" theories. Epstein&#39;s Mother (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the mayor of Hiroshima, whatever you think about a politician's beliefs is irrelevant -- he was the mayor of the city in question and was speaking in an international court. The lead currently says The term "war crimes" is only applicable when there is a trial or accusation in a court of law domestic or international-- and this one fits that definition.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It only takes a tiny bit more reading. As the article on Hiroshima says:
 * During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
 * The one on Nagasaki says:
 * Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District.
 * But even if you didn't know that, you can figure out their strategic importance just by looking at a map. Furthermore, Japan was running with a total war industrial policy.  Every major city was heavily involved.
 * This isn't simply a matter of what I think of a former politician. It's also about what happened to his testimony:  Nothing.  It obviously didn't get anywhere.  The World Court did not take it to trial, and --most important-- there is no chance of any kind of major treaty that will outlaw nuclear weapons.
 * For example, we have the Biological Weapons Convention. If anyone took these supposed "war crimes" accusations seriously, we would have seen one to outlaw nukes entirely.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You failed to explain how the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets. Your same logic could be used to justify the attacks on the businesses in the World Trade Centers, which were vital in bankrolling the murder and exploitation of people in the Middle East. The reason that the attacks are considered criminal by most people is that they killed a large number of civilians in the process of attacking a piece of strategically important enemy infrastructure. As I've said in other places, I'm really no longer interested in hearing about your political views and personal interpretations of history any longer. I'm going to try to have a civil discussion about this with other editors -- I don't feel like arguing with you any more, until we've got some other editors here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the nuclear bombing of two cities that contained legitimate military targets (as detailed above) and were part of a nation engaging in a declared war with the United States with the WTC attacks, where no declared war between two separate nations and therefore no direct target of military significance existed, is nonsense in an article discussing crimes of war. The two events are not interchangeable, as one occurred in a declared war against two nations. The previous poster did not fail to explain how the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets--they weren't. The explanation was simply that there were military targets there. You have failed to understand that legitimate military targets existed in the cities, and that the fact that the bombing victims included civilians does not make the bombing of a military target a "war crime", under the conventions of war as detailed in the following posts. Your comparisons with the Holocaust, in which some victims were enemy POWs identified as Jews (and therefore subject to the protections of article 4 of the third geneva convention as prisoners of war in a declared war between two states) is also inappropriate, as the Holocaust involved a clear breach of international legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.250.13 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust was undeniably directed only against civilians. -- I was responding directly to the comment that something cannot be a war crime if "it didn't exist before". I was not comparing it to Hiroshima, as you did in your response. And of course, there's also the fact that this is not totally true -- the majority of the people who died in the Holocaust were Soviet prisoners of war, Communists, anarchists, and trade-unionists who opposed Hitler, and posed a direct political and military threat. So by the logic you've used below to justify the murder, torture, and imprisonment of Arab civilians, Hitler didn't commit any crimes by murdering millions of people as long as he "thought they were a threat". Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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


 * We might not have needed to. Estimates at the time determined that to continue massive conventional bombings, which would have killed many more, would have destroyed enough of Japan that they'd have to surrender anyway.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: This is a great short video on the facts. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that those "facts" are actually opinions from a non-notable right-wing blog that you've already been told is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't use that as a reference. I put it in the talk page similar to an external link in article space.
 * As for your other comments, the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the targets of the bombings. As I said, those cities did contain military targets.  The civilians could have left if they wanted to.  The laws of war (either now or then) do not offer protection for civilians living at strategically important sites.
 * If you want the term Holocaust go beyond the six million Jews, how far does it go? Does it include civilians like Simon Wiesenthal's step-father and step-brother who'd been killed by Hitler's then-ally the Soviet Union?  It's not a settled view, or even a majority one, but it really doesn't matter here which number we use.  Either one can make my point.
 * I didn't say it was okay to kill people as long as they "thought they were a threat." I said it's legal to detain someone in a time of war who may pose a threat to security.  Of course, that didn't apply to most of the 6 million Jews.  But even if you want to say it did, there's a wide difference between detaining civilians and gassing them.
 * The comparison to the WTC doesn't hold water for the same reason that only Article III of Geneva Conventions applies to Afghanistan, while the others don't.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You already know this, but for the benefit of other readers -- you are clearly misrepresenting my last post. I never said that the Jews in Europe posed a threat to security for Hitler. I said that the Soviet army, Communists, anarchists, and trade-unions did. Misrepresentation of people on talk pages is prohibited by Wikipedia policy (see WP:TPNO). Please do not continue to do so. As far as discussing this with you further -- I am no longer interested. I feel that this conversation is not at all productive, and is unnecessary. I will find reliable sources that state that the mass murder of unarmed civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime, and then you can go and blog about your opinion on the matter somewhere else. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you got that impression, but I did not say you said that. When I said, "But even if you want to say it did," there was an "even if" there.  It's just another manner of saying, "assuming, arguendo."  It doesn't mean I think you'd say it.
 * I don't know why you're so touchy about that. After all, you're the one so enthusiastic about calling people war criminals without a trial.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I said, "But even if you want to say it did" there was an "even if" there. It's just another manner of saying, "assuming, arguendo." -- I brought up that Soviet soldiers, Communists, trade-unionists, and anarchists were a security threat to Hitler. You responded with an argument about how even if I said that Jews were a security threat to Hitler, there is a large difference between gassing people and imprisoning them. You set up a straw man to knock down, as you've done several times previously, rather than attempting to respond to what I've said. It is irrelevant whether you said "even if", or if you directly stated that I said it, rather than just implying it through language and context. You made a mistake -- you've clearly misrepresented what I've said, several times, in order to win an argument. It's better if, rather than making weak justifications for your actions, you just admit you made a mistake, and try to work on it.
 * I don't know why you're so touchy about that. -- Touchy about what? I'm not touchy about you misrepresenting me. It's just a violation of Wikipedia policy, and I'm trying to help you learn to be a more productive editor.
 * After all, you're the one so enthusiastic about calling people war criminals without a trial. -- Your repeated attempts at passive aggressiveness and sarcasm are generally very poorly thought out. If you stated this more accurately and without the weaselly language as You think that there are reliable sources that claim that certain people are war criminals even though they have never gone to trial., then I would agree with you wholeheartedly -- but again, you chose to misrepresent me instead. If I raped someone, killed them, burned down their house, and then drove across the border to a nation that wouldn't extradite me back to the U.S., and openly admitted that I had done all of this, I think it is rational to call me a criminal, even if I never go to trial for it. If U.S. soldiers rape and murder large numbers of unarmed civilians in cold blood, then whether or not they go to trial or are convicted, they are war criminals, since they have committed war crimes according to international law. If a reliable source says that these soldiers are war criminals, then I do believe that the information should be included in Wikipedia.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You still misunderstand. My statement meant I was willing to accept the point for the sake of argument -- about non-Jews killed in the Holocaust, and I was extending it even if they were a threat to Hitler.  It doesn't mean anyone here thinks they were, or that anyone cares.  That's not a straw man.  Anyway, it doesn't matter to me whether you claim to understand me or not.
 * The straw men were on your end when you said, "If U.S. soldiers rape and murder large numbers of unarmed civilians in cold blood...." That is the quintessential straw man.
 * You're quite right that a war criminal is a war criminal regardless whether or not we're allowed to call him one without being sued for slander. But that doesn't mean you, or any extra-legal star chamber, or a bunch of unelected so-called "human rights" lawyers, gets to decide who that is.  If an otherwise reliable source calls someone a war criminal, then they're editorializing.
 * To get back to the subject, you were talking about Hiroshima, and whether it's okay to bomb a military target with civilians on it.
 * Your comparison to the World Trade Center is irrelevant because it doesn't matter whether or not it was a legitimate target. Al Qaeda does not meet the terms to be considered lawful combatants.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of atomic boms or blanket boming cities in areas where civilians are present in large numbers will always be a war crime. There is a duty of careunder the Geneva convention that this is in contraventionof.Cathar11 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, as I've said elsewhere, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention:
 * "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
 * In other words, a legitimate target can be destroyed regardless of what else is present there. (People who don't like it should demand the enemy to stop using human shields.)  Besides that, it was written after Hiroshima (see ex post facto law).  The laws of war were even less restrictive during WWII.
 * It could, however, pertain to Afghanistan and Iraq, although Article 28 doesn't technically apply to Afghanistan either. But the problem there is that none of the things you've highlighted are true.  The U.S. military needs lawyers to approve bombing targets, and they're very careful about such things.  Just because America's enemies critics make these claims doesn't make them true.  That's why I'm reverting your other edit as well.  War crimes must be crimes against the laws of war.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Article 28 is not superior to other articles in Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons or Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories,

The destruction of a city could never be a legitimate target.Cathar11 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of an entire city is usually considered an acceptable tactic in warfare.Jon3800 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find User Randy2063 position hypocritical and sophistic... I am sure she would gladly define Pearl Harbour as a worse War Crime instead (because the irony is that Pearl Harbour, against a military target, is indeed classified as War crime, while the nuclear bombings against mostly civilian targets must still be argued).


 * First off, it has already been established in legally binding form that the argument "Nuclear Weapons were new so old laws don't apply" is FLAWED. Section 3.5 of this document is clear enough http://www.elib.at/index.php/International_Humanitarian_Law_-_Introduction_-_ICRC_-_Frits_Kalshoven_-_Liesbeth_Zegveld . The document also helps to establish that the current legal opinion, even using the laws of 1945, is very far from an automatic "acquittal" in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even using the legal framework in force at the time (as defined in Nuremberg), nuclear weapons usage in war time, esp. against a foe that doesn't posses them (ah symmetry), could have still been defined as criminal.


 * Let's examine the legal framework used to punish WW2 Criminals. Please read about the concept of "Crimes against Mankind", based on the Hague Convention of 1907, and used by the Allies as legal foundation to judge Nazi criminals outside the more restrictive boundaries of the Geneva Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Legitimacy and find me a reason for which applying the same logic, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings aren't at least "Crimes against Mankind".


 * Hague Convention of 1907, considered binding for everyone, even non signatory countries (see Wikipedia Nuremberg Article) (text: http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/hague-conventions, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague09.asp ) clearly states that


 * "....It is also forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given, and to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering...." (Atomic Bombs may be argued to have massive side-effects already quite known at the time of usage..)


 * "...The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings that are undefended is prohibited...." (Yes I know there were some military infrastructures that you can use to justify a slaughter of 99% civilians, it will make happy some callous Republicans, not 99% of the world opinion)


 * "....The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his or her power to warn the authorities. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes..." (did you really take all the steps to protect civilian buidings and to warn the civilians? NO)


 * I think the 3rd excerpt from a document used by the Allies to condemn Nazis in Nuremberg has been absolutely violated in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (it refers to war in general or to naval bombardment, but I think an airplane taking off from a carrier is quite much belonging). You didn't warn anyone and you didn't take necessary steps to minimize innocent losses...


 * Proportion in attacks and retaliations and relevance of the military purpose being well known elements of customary laws of war, another point may be made about the extreme disproportion between destructive force used/ civilian harm caused (massive) and modest, DIRECT military gain achieved (destroying 2 average garrisons and 2 average industrial power centers in two cities) .... If not Crime of War, Crime against Mankind.


 * "Strategic" considerations of the kind "so we saved more lives from an invasion / so we deterred the Soviets " etc.. don't belong - otherwise everyone at every evel may violate general laws right now for whatever they believe and declare greater good in 50 years (and they woul still be technically criminals even if they were right).....


 * As summed up here: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mark-Selden/2414
 * " Telford Taylor, chief counsel for war crimes prosecution at Nuremberg, made the point with specific reference to the bombing of cities a quarter century later:


 * "Since both sides had played the terrible game of urban destruction—the Allies far more successfully—there was no basis for criminal charges against Germans or Japanese, and in fact no such charges were brought . . . . Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials."


 * the truth is overall one...as your ally mr.Stalin said... "winners aren't judged" (until they don't fall, as the Soviet Union did).


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.89 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The only place I mentioned the attack on Pearl Harbor on this page was when I pointed out "the necessity of destroying Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany wasn't so clear to everyone before events in 1941. The far left switched sides only when Stalin did; and the conservative right (in the U.S.) gave up when Pearl Harbor was attacked."
 * The U.S. did indeed warn the civilians. There's a sample leaflet right here.
 * The definition of "material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" is judged by military necessity, which is a pretty reasonable standard that the U.S. can easily pass.
 * I'll note again that nuclear weapons were not outlawed by the 1949 GCs, and a number of countries around the world now have them in their stockpiles. Most of them are far more powerful than the two used on Japan.  That means their legality has been accepted.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are generic Nazi leaflets too, warning civilians of terrible consequences if they don't flee / surrender, but they don't constitute valid base for what was done nonetheless http://www.303rdbg.com/leaflets.html ....The warning you show is about firebombing, nothing to do with nuclear bombing. Moreover they list 35 cities, fundamentally all Japaese cities, not the ones ot be struck in particular (as it seems required by the Convention): conclusion - everyone is warned, nobody is warned. It could be easily discounted as random and irrelevant. Warnings were generic and random at best, completely similar to the ones given for other smaller bombings and incapable of conveying a real alert message to a specific target... nothing in proportion to the devastation of entirely unprecedented kind you consciously planned and caused, which would have required a much larger and much more explicit warning.


 * If a trial was to be held it would be quite hard to prove a strict military necessity to bomb exactly those cities exactly at that time (in fact you considered Kyoto earlier, and for the second bombing, Nagasaki was a secondary choice for bad weather - one or another, as long as we destroy some city). Military advantage would be all to be demonstrated in itself, let alone the necessity of bombing with such mass destruction power. Let's not fool around anyone. You had a big, brand-new stick to use in a nearly ended brawl and you wanted to give a hard, premeditated, vindictive lesson to the bad yellow guy to show you are the strongest....that's the Vox Populi of the time and it is much more truthful than alot of the stuff written here.


 * We are not discussing the nuclear arsenal ownership per se, but their usage on battlefield, esp. against an opponent that didn't own them, for extremely small militiary gains compared to the foreseeable harm caused... many countries did nuclear tests or owned nuclear arsenals... but the only country to have used nuclear devices against real targets, as above, was the US. So the two categories of events are entirely unrelated.


 * Also please comment on the consideration made by the Nuremberg judge, who basically admits "we tried the Nazis only for the categories of crimes we didn't commit ourselves - namely we skipped carpet bombing of urban areas". It is a qualifie judge to implicitly admit how, if called to judge the allies, he would have been forced to condemn them too applying the same standards used for other crimes. Any unbiased person will admit that a Nuremberg trial without restriction of nationality would have convicted as guilty many Allied commanders.


 * In fact, as for war at sea is concerned, it has been entirely admitted that Nimitz has committed one violation of treaty (or if you want a War Crime) exactly like Doenitz did (commanding unrestricted maritime warfare"). But to save Nimitz's ass, Doenitz wasn't convicted for this specific "common" crime (check Wikipedia articles themselves about the topic).


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.89 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You said there should be warnings, and I showed you warnings. The fact that they didn't make warnings city-by-city doesn't matter.  All of those cities were going to be bombed if the war continued.  It sounds like you're saying they should have disclosed flight schedules.
 * The fact that they didn't specifically say they were going to use atomic bombs doesn't matter either. One firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, and that's after most of the residents had left the city.  Legally, they had more than enough warning.
 * The U.S. didn't need to "prove" a military necessity. The requirements for proof are the other way around.  Similarly, it's not up to you to say that it was only a "small military advantage."
 * When you say, "many countries did nuclear tests or owned nuclear arsenals... but the only country to have used nuclear devices against real targets," it sounds like you're saying it's okay to stockpile thousands of nukes as long as they're never used. But in planning to use them, they are planning to commit war crimes.  That's so wrong I don't even see the point in arguing against it.
 * Telford Taylor was a persistent critic of U.S. policy. It's just one opinion.  He is correct that Germans were accused of some acts which Allies had also done, but in general, that alone doesn't make them war crimes.  Some of the allegations were a mere piling on, which probably happens in every major war (as is the case now).
 * As for unrestricted submarine warfare, I'll say it's a more credible case than the one about nuclear weapons.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't indicate a safehaven where to flee;). Everybody knew that all cities were going to be bombed if the war continued... it is an obvious fact, which, re-stated in a leaflet, in itself, doesn't save anyone. Fundamentally the civilians couldn't leave Japan, and all the urban areas of the country were to be bombed, and then some. So there was almost nowhere to flee at all - unless knowing where a total destruction was to happen with proper anticipation and precision. It could make sense to "flee" only on day X to place Y leaving the targeted place Z...but you already knew that all places from A to Z were to be bombed, so there is no safehaven, no useful info and no warning at all. You even specificed that the list WAS NOT EXHAUSTIVE..No usable information was provided to civilians about leaveing a city that was to be exposed to a bombardment leading to total destruction. It was a strawman leaflet put there just to be able to say something had been done, and to make the people live and die in terror and in attrition with their (very bad) rulers ...:P


 * We may discuss whether the rules of war present at the time were too restrictive or unrealistic or idealistic or romantic (they were written when many equal powers existed, now instead we're at hyperpower vs random islamists), but it seems clear you have to warn the city you are going to bomb when you are about to bomb it in massive form; you can't just warn months or weeks in advance the whole country and say it is the same.


 * The scenario the Hague convention had in mind was the one of taskforce of dreadnoughts or such overwhelmingly powerful fleet that for instance blockades a coastal city of strategic relevance; at a given point, the fleet decides or is ordered to bomb the specific city with guns... in that case, the commander of the fleet is expected to announce that the bombardment is commencing (so civilians flee) and he must avoid destruction of non-military areas. The target city is at war; it knows to be under siege, but still it doesn't know that in 12 hours it will be bombed - that is the piece of information that MUST be provided to be "in the right".


 * Throwing generic leaflets on 35 cities (NOT EXHAUSTIVE) is stating the obvious; it is not a specific warning appropriate for the localized, total destruction that you consciously brought. As usual (if I may say so) you have made an effort of level 1000 in preparing a premeditated mass destruction instrument, while you indulged in a small, pro-forma, half-assed ( see "don't be a dick" wikipedia) 0.0001 degree effort to minimize its cost in terms of innocent / useless victims.


 * Military (ir)relevance? It is not for me to say. It is for the majority of unbiased an competent observers to say. Wikipedia has plenty of other critics of the military relevance of these targets.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki ; it is hardly a minority voice. On the contrary I suggest that the idea that "the Atomic Bombing was not a war crime nor a crime against humanity" is A MINORITY VIEW in Wikipedia terms and standards... if put to vote I seriously bet it would result a FRINGE OPINION, with some random, biased supporters (eg patriotism) who can't beat the other side neither for raw number nor for authority of exponents. Vote and see?


 * QUOTE: "it sounds like you're saying it's okay to stockpile thousands of nukes as long as they're never used. But in planning to use them, they are planning to commit war crimes.  That's so wrong I don't even see the point in arguing against it."


 * Sorry? :D ..ever heard of "Balance of Terror"? Read here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory The valid and legally accepted point of owning nuclear weapons is that you threaten your opponent so he doesn't attack you first. It is DETERRENCE to preserve the status quo, based on reciprocal terror and threat of proportionate retribution. That is, "too bad nukes exist; you have them, I have them, you don't attack me because it would be a suicide and viceversa, so let's waste a bit of time to see who has the larger penis / larger stockpile jus for fun, and when the cash ends let's work together to prevent other small guys from getting them too, before it is too late". It is what happened in Cold War, India vs Pakistan etc. It is like guns... we don't want them to spread, esp. the most powerful kind (machineguns, Hydrogen bombs), but they exist, potential attackers own them, so we provide to "honest" citizens the right to own them too as form of defensive deterrent against aggression. And of course, to be a deterrent the gun owner must be credible whe he says he will use it for self-defense. Even Japanese leadership considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program (session "de facto nuclear state")


 * Luckily nobody of the large nuclear arsenals owners is so stupid to plan genocides... they just plan to defend themselves from one. If I own a gun for my self defense, or even a collection of rifles for my pride or status, it does not mean that I am going to kill someone or that I woul be right to do so if not for self-defence, and i am not even vidicating the right to assassinate in cold blood context; I am just demanding the right to defend myself with a credible threat.... if i am crazy (see rogue states), the it is right they don't let me have a gun, but if I am mature and responsible, and ENDANGERED by my neighbor, then I would indeed demand the right to own a firearm (eg India vs China, Japan vs N.Korea). Nuclear weapons case is exactly the same of legitimate self-defense and gun rights. Right to own a gun doesn't mean right to murder at random, and not even to kill for revenge against someone disarmed or surrendering.....however it is legitimate to own a gun in the circumstances in which it is credible this will deter assaults against me. Still if I do an assault with my gun against someone who doesn't own it, or who just rattles a knife from 10 meters, I may be in the wrong. ;) Again please consider how different it is the generic ownership of a gun when hostile people own firerarms too (self-defence), vs the situation in which i am the SOLE owner of the SOLE gun in a world of small knives ... and I indeed shot to kill one half-dead guy holding a broken knife (revenge at best).


 * The quoted opinion is an authoritative opinion, and it was reflecting a jugement about USA, UK and Soviet Union, not just USA. The author of the quote is a judge with a leading role in War Crimes definition and prosecution. It is surely not an isolated voice and it comes from a someone entrusted with prominent trials. If even the authorities entrusted with the trials, when off duty and in historical perspective, express their reserves or admit double standards in their former activity (in the specific indicating that alot of crimes were skipped to spare problems to he victors) then we may reasonably argue that some things were War Crimes, and that deliberate efforts were made to avoid their legal evaluation.


 * You tried the Nazis for the categories of War Crimes you didn't commit. The case of Submarine Warfare is an egregious example of legal proceedings adapted to political necessity (maybe it would have been better to give the Nazis to the Soviets to avoid embarrassments)...if the average reader must think something, I guess he won't think it was the sole case of double standards, but rather the opposite, that there were other war crimes or legal violations on the side of the Allies that have gone ignored, dismissed and minimized because winners are winners and losers are losers. Simply put, the Nimitz / Doenitz case, like carpet bombing, is something committed on both sides and very likely to be punishable applying in reasonable form the int'l laws of the time; but while carpet bombing has been a priori removed for political reasons from the list of "manageable" accuses, the one about unrestricted maritime warfare was ooooppppssss missed as potentially embarrassing at the time of the pre-emptive political review of the judicial framework, and it thus backfired at the moment of the sanction, when the defense could say it was a common sin [citation needed? I will find one].


 * Anyway I hope we can put a tombstone on WW2 diatribes soon and never go back to such a slaughterhouse again. Nobody would win, that's commonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.89 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact words of the Hague convention includes "his utmost." In the section on land forces, it includes the phrase "all in his power."  It also says, "except in cases of assault."  They knew they were only talking about precautions that could be reasonable during a conflict.  For that matter, it only said warnings should be given to the city's authorities.
 * You're adding requirements that the original signatories never agreed to. What's next?  Are you going to say that the U.S. was supposed to send buses and drivers to drive them out of town?
 * The citizens of those cities knew they were living in a target zone. That's all that's required.  Japan isn't wall-to-wall cities.  There were places to go.
 * They may have been "written when many equal powers existed" but there were many smaller powers, too. Each was expected to live up to their obligations.  None would have sunk as low as our enemies are permitted to do today.
 * As I see it, your "Balance of Terror" point was a response to my pointing out that many nations are stockpiling nukes now, which means that they're accepted as legal. But a perceived "Balance of Terror" doesn't mean the U.S. military thinks it's okay to have contingencies that would target civilians -- even in merely theoretical doomsday scenarios.  The U.S. military's targeting doctrine is designed to conform to the laws of war.  They have lawyers check those, too.
 * And no, the definition of a war crime is not "for the majority of unbiased an competent observers to say." The laws of war were originally set by government leaders and their generals with the full knowledge that they may have to live, fight, and die under the limitations that they set down.  They are not subject to the whims and fanciful notions of pompous intellectuals who are outspoken enough to criticize the difficult decisions made by who are actually in the fight -- only to hide under their beds whenever the side they're afraid to criticize use children as human shields.  Even if there were "unbiased" views on the matter, they would belong in articles about the opinions of the masses.  As you noted, we already have such articles.
 * Sure, there are cases where an otherwise honorable military had stepped over the lines that they had set. I particularly enjoy the flip-flop on unrestricted submarine warfare because it illustrates the extent of the so-called "peace" movement's flip-flop of that time.  But you'd better have your i's dotted and t's crossed.  On the Nimitz/Doenitz comparison, you'd have a better case if there were actually a conviction.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The intro to this article is terrible. Its written like an essay. Its unsourced, full of apparent original research, and doesn't summarize the article at all. Mr.Z-man 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just another editor jumping in to agree. This entire thing is atrocious. The fact that "some" claim that something is a "war crime" does not make it so. A "war crime" is a very specific thing. This article just lumps everything bad under that heading. Leuchars (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of changes
For one thing, war crimes are serious things. We shouldn't allow this article to become another POV cause like State terrorism by the United States that no one takes seriously.

Your new changes introduced a new section on "Nationalism, protectionism, and denialism" whose reason for being seems to be to explain that the U.S. is really guilty of a lot of stuff, but we're too self-conscious about our past to talk about it.

In reality, the U.S. has the highest standards of military justice in the world. No other country (that actually fights wars) does better at this. Your line about "the military have typically been lenient in its prosecution of its own soldiers" is flat-out not true. Criminal soldiers had been imprisoned, and sometimes executed, in every major war. For example, the documentation on the Abu Ghraib incidents is extensive. It shows how extremely seriously they take this. (And if you don't know, the military's investigation of Abu Ghraib had begun long before it became famous.)

To be fair, this article still contained this paragraph before your changes: "There is no defined process in the United States for addressing war crimes accusations, as the United States government refuses to recognize any international tribunal as having jurisdiction over these matters."

The first part of that was not true, as there was always a process to handle war crimes. The second part is irrelevant. Even if the U.S. had ratified the ICC (and if it operated as its supporters claim), its procedures are supposed to be at the end of the line. It's not supposed to interfere if an incident had been properly through a military justice system.

Is it perfect? No. The UCMJ does give defendant soldiers the right to a trial, and they are considered innocent until proved guilty. Even My Lai's lawyers defense had mitigating circumstances. And in other cases, sometimes an incident happens that America's critics claim are war crimes only because they're biased against U.S. policy.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am looking more for an edit-by-edit justification for your removals and changes, and not so much a discussion for the merits of an article about the topic. For relevant basis, we need simply to look at the context here. This is a global encyclopedia — one that bases itself in reporting about all historical events and cultural facts, and in collaboratively writing explanations that help put those facts into context so the reader — even someone destined to be a soldier — can understand them.


 * We can of course discuss how to contextualize the topic, but Wikipedia does not in general base its articles — or the redaction thereof — in the nationalistic rationalizations (I count at least three) you echo above. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll put you in charge of keeping track of who has the most systemic bias.
 * Your first paragraph simply says the U.S. committed war crimes. To the extent that might be true, the lead we already have handles that well enough.
 * Your second paragraph says we're nationalistic, and therefore, in denial of our history, as well as of that very nationalism. I'm not sure how you can tell, unless you've cleansed your own bias through a full Transcendental Meditation regimen.  Whatever, it doesn't really pertain to this article.  That's more for Psychoanalysis of the United States.
 * Your third paragraph contends the U.S. military is too "lenient in its prosecution of its own soldiers," and that this is especially true of jingoistic American conservatives. This simply isn't true.  I said that the U.S. has the highest standards of military justice in the world.  Lest I be further accused of latent or blatant nationalism, I'll concede that the British have a longer history, and their military justice system is as good as ours.  And a few of the other western nations may have very good ones, too, but it means less for those that don't engage the enemy as much.  IAC, no nation does better.
 * We have military and civilian agents and lawyers to investigate crimes and to prosecute them. We have a free press that's independent of the government and not subject to the same pressures they have in, say, Venezuela.  Furthermore, we also have competing political parties that jump at the chance to exploit problems for their own political gain.  All those things combine to put the military legal system in line.  A few years ago, our snipers in Iraq were forced to use inferior weapons for a few days while the lawyers analyzed whether the weapons were legal.
 * That also answers your fourth paragraph, which says we're no different than the Soviets and the European colonial powers. I don't think the American arrival into Germany can be equated to that of the Soviets in Berlin.
 * Your fifth paragraph says we're deluded by the "taint of victor's history" and a nationalism too reluctant to shame those who fight fascism. And so we hide behind legal protections.  I pointed out that the U.S. military investigates its own criminals, and prosecutes them to the fullest extent reasonable.  The U.S. executed over 100 of its troops in WWII.  Some were for crimes against British and Australian civilians, but others were for crimes against enemy nationals.  That doesn't count the many more who were sentenced to something other than death.
 * A "global encyclopedia" doesn't need to make non-Americans artificially feel morally righteous by taking the misfortunes of war and calling them war crimes. The hard fact is that the laws of war were written by men and women who knew how difficult a real war is.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed response, though I'd rather you not mis-attribute all of those statements and phrases to me. For the most part I just worked with what was already there and filled in a couple other things. There was a new links-list section I added too - what happened to that? I'll respond a bit more tomorrow, but for starters, I think I want to deal with those rationalizations. Terms like "misfortunes of war" are at best imprecise, and arguments like "investigates its own" and 'better than Venezuela' are irrelevant. I shouldn't have to, but I will explain why.


 * Your apparent issues with this article are to some extent representative of your own POV, and even though they get into opinionistic territory, we can still discuss them - validating or else dispensing with each. Moral relativism, in spite of being rather prominent in nationalistic worlds, is actually quite easy to conquer with just a few straightforward arguments - that is, if the subject gives actual consideration to them. The notion of criminal inconsequence also has theological dimensions, but those are only relevant in real life, and not here. (Concerned citizens pray nevertheless). Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For this article to make sense from its present neutered state POV edits will have to be reverted en mass.Cathar11 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo,
 * Yes, I apologize for saying the "taint of victor's history" is from you. It's from the lead.  I just hadn't removed that because it's been there for a long time.  I felt we need something more substantive to replace it.
 * With the other section gone, your list became the first section, and it more or less duplicated the function of the automatic header. The ones not linked in this article really belong in the See-also section.
 * The problem with that, and for Cathar11, things like Hiroshima and Abu Ghraib, is that this article is supposed to be about real war crimes. War crimes are defined by the laws of war, such as the GCs.  Destroying an enemy's city may be horrific, but those who wrote the GCs knew it was sometimes unavoidable.  Humiliating the thugs in Abu Ghraib may be a crime, but it's not a war crime.  There's a difference between Lynndie England and Adolf Hitler.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cathar, aside from a few issues, Randy has certain valid criticisms that need to be addressed - largely by putting them into context. In this case, we're mostly just putting together a list of "misfortunes," with notes indicating what bad things notable people have said about them. I suppose to be fair we should also state what good things notable people have said about them.
 * Randy, I agree that the context is "war crimes," and that that means the scope here rests on a certain definition. However we can't depend entirely on official prosecutions as the yardstick - not too many people have been charged with "war crimes" and certainly there have been far more "war crimes" than there have been prosecutions. ::::: And of course this is basically a list-type article that points to specific articles, so we have to deal with basically two things: 1) the description of an event, and 2) a summary of accusations by notable people that characterizes that event as a "crime." In addition to that, we can add a bit of context, and in there you can add some rationale for why certain events may have somehow been necessary. Note also that your characterization of the opposing view as 'un-American,' or that others are claiming that England is on a par with Hitler, are red herrings and nothing else. So the first thing I think we can do is you can restore the list section I added, and we can add anything that comes to mind.
 * Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * History is written by the victors in war. They dont normally charge themselves before war crime tribunals and consider GC "quaint"when their actions don't comply. Lets see a more incluseive list of war crimes and discuss them in the context of WP RS.Cathar11 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By "quaint," I assume you mean when Alberto Gonzales used the word. But contrary to what every critic of the U.S. had distorted, he was not talking about the GCs.  He was talking about "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments" that are permitted for real POWs.
 * And if you'll note, nobody says today that the GTMO detainees are legitimate prisoners of war. The Supreme Court gave them plenty of privileges, but not as POWs.  Gonzales was correct.
 * If you got fooled by that, you might consider that you've been fooled by the people who want to pretend that Hiroshima was a war crime.
 * One trouble with having a list of notable people who categorize things as war crimes is that most of those notable people are notable for their extreme views. WP has plenty of other articles that went off the deep end.  Most ordinary readers who just want to know about those subjects can spot in an instant that they're off the deep end.  We need a few articles that nobody is going to laugh at.
 * One thing you're both forgetting is that Wikipedia is not a court of law. It's not up to the two of you to run your own vigilante tribunals.  Wikipedia still has the WP:BLP standard.  They don't want to get sued by someone who fights fascism and then comes home to find he's been libeled.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're just going to try out more of those fancy semi-fictional Douglas debate methods on us, all us "libelous," "extreme," "off the deep end" "vigilante" "fool[s]" will inevitably suggest that you go "fight fascism" somewhere else. Good advice in real life would be something like be careful what you shoot at. For here, try using English and actually making sense. Gratzi -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being careful what you shoot at is exactly the point I was trying to make.
 * What next? Do we also start adding people like Michael Moore to the list of people convicted of treason just because someone notable thinks they should be there?
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement doesn't make sense. The article you linked to is called list of people convicted of treason, not list of people who someone thinks should be convicted of treason. If you find a reliable source that says that Michael Moore has been convicted of treason, then Wikipedia policy would support inserting it into the former article. Likewise, if someone finds reliable sources that say that actions taken by the U.S. are war crimes, then they should be mentioned in this article (whether or not you think they are "off the deep end fascist vigilante fools").Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so let's get this straight: If the title of that article were to be changed to list of people who committed treason, then you'd have no problem adding people who've been accused of treason by partisan lawyers and political activists?
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the article list of people who committed treason did exist, yes I would support adding anything from a reliable/verifiable/notable source that says that a person committed treason. But the article doesn't exist (for good reason), and is thus not relevant. All of your illogical tirades really don't mean anything here. Your personal opinion about whether people are too "fascist" or "partisan" is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the additions to the article (and their citations) comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If something belongs here according to Wikipedia policy, then regardless of how many epithets you can attach to it ("Fascist" "fool" "vigilante" "partisan", etc), it should be left alone, unless you can cite some policy that justifies removing it.
 * And your original argument about Michael Moore is still illogical. So you should probably attempt to form a second, logical response to Stevertigo's (good) advice to you.Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "that a person committed treason"? Are you really saying that a notable person's opinion would be enough -- regardless of who that notable person is?
 * Of course, BLP standards wouldn't apply to President Truman, but it's still not encyclopedic to be throwing words around like that.
 * Treason and war crimes pretty serious charges.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By "Assuming that the article list of people who committed treason did exist, yes I would support adding anything from a reliable/verifiable/notable source that says that a person committed treason.", I meant "Assuming that the article list of people who committed treason did exist, yes I would support adding anything from a reliable/verifiable/notable source that says that a person committed treason.". Please read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Notability and WP:Verifiable. The fact that you have not read and/or understood these guidelines not only seems to be the cause of you not understanding that simple statement above, but also for your confusion surrounding which sources should be allowed in this article. For example, the Wikipedia guidelines I just shared with you say nothing about "fascist partisan vigilante fools" or "Randy2603's political beliefs". Please read and understand them. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with political beliefs.
 * Maybe you've got a different opinion on what constitutes a reliable source. If you read WP:RS, you'll see they like newspapers except for opinion pieces.  Forex, proper newspapers generally insert the word "alleged" before saying someone is a murderer.  But even then, they still need to be indicted first.
 * WP uses those same standards for alleged murderers and for alleged terrorists.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(continued)
Are you suggesting, Randy, this article should not exist at all (ie. should be deleted)? If so, are you basing this suggestion on the view that 'there have not been sufficient discrete incidents for included here?' Or are you basing this suggestion on the premise that 'people will add incidents here which do not qualify, and that these therefore (by some logic) negate the entire concept of this article?' Or are you insisting on using a very particular and narrow definition of "war crime" here — for example to include only crimes which have been through an official-enough-for-you 'justice system?' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. I don't even see where you're getting that.
 * I'm merely pointing out that this article is about War crimes committed by the United States, and not War crimes claimed to have been committed by the United States. That means real war crimes.
 * The U.S. has a lot of critics, rivals, and enemies through a number of administrations up to the present day. There would be no end to this article's expansion if we were to include all of their crocodile tears.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's getting at the fact that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines (see my message above), and that you mistakenly seem to think that your personal opinions about peoples' "fascist partisan" beliefs actually matter here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that at all. I just want genuine sources -- and not opinions.
 * If an American makes the list of people indicted by the International Criminal Court, then I'll agree he can be listed here.
 * If you read my use of the word "fascist," that's simple shorthand for insurgent/terrorist/enemy of the U.S. I never use the word for mere critics of the U.S., even for those occasions when they're overtly supporting that enemy.
 * It's rather funny that, for someone who doesn't like my use of the word "fascist" to describe America's enemies, you're awfully quick to be calling people war criminals.
 * And as I've pointed out, we don't even like using the word WP:TERRORIST around here. It would be a double-standard to start calling people war criminals when they haven't even been indicted.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: I'm not conceding on the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki additions.  I doubt that court counts as a proper judgment of a war crime.  It's as if the residents of Fallujah decided to sue, and a jury of Fallujah residents found the U.S. guilty of war crimes.  But it is fascinating nevertheless.  Some might even call it "quaint."
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy, remember above I asked you straightforwardly "are you insisting on using a very particular and narrow definition of "war crime" here — for example to include only crimes which have been [charged, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced] through an official-enough-for-you 'justice system?" You ducked the questions with an "I don't even see what you are getting at." As long as I consider your opinion here relevant, I'm going to repeat those three questions until you answer them. Randy wrote: 1) "I just want genuine sources -- and not opinions." 2) "If an American makes the list of people indicted by the International Criminal Court, then I'll agree he can be listed here." - Note that these two points ("I [] want genuine sources," and "[indictment by] the ICC [is a requirement]") contradict. The first one rests entirely on a subjective ("+genuine"). The second one perhaps completely answers in the positive my question about "narrow definition," but I would ask that you confirm that evaluation.

While it may work in a military situation, or when arguing in front of Tony Scalia, please don't try to lawyer us into accepting a rather narrow and subjective definition of "war crime" - such that you hold only yourself and anyone who agrees with you as arbiters of what can or cannot be included in this topic. If you insist on making it an issue of semantics, would you prefer we use the term "atrocity" instead and rename the article accordingly? I agree that there can be some difficult overlap. The point to consider about Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't that they were "war crimes," though some here may actually think so, rather that there was and continues to be some *debate about their actual necessity - the deliberate targeting and destruction of non-military beings is always going to be a topic in moral history, even if it's not an actual moral issue. The necessity of destroying Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany is not morally difficult at all. It had to be done. But that's not to say that, for example, what Imperial Japan did would justify the destruction of all of Japan itself. It also doesn't help matters when we make unqualified comparisons between WWII and later wars - though we did have one or two evil dictators still left - in fact the main issue in the decades after WWII was that this same assumption of nobility and altruistic purpose somehow matches up perfectly with the trained compulsion to blow things up (people too).

Some of us are trying to be universally moral, while you others are instead insisting on an approach that is largely mythical - the American version (an exact parallel to opinions regarding the debate between International law versus American "military justice"). Both (moral and mythical) approaches have value, but the mythical one is useless without gaining some insights from morality. Likewise (as I'm sure you may agree) the moralistic view may be useless without gaining some insights from the history - even the mythologized version. If fifty percent (more like 91%) of what you write in comment here seems to come from an "us-versus-them" point of view, then how can you contribute to a "we-work-with-them" project? And by "them" of course I mean "them" - not "enemies." The big problem with one getting good at spotting "enemies" is that one can still find them even when there are none around. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I'm sorry for the muddled answer. I think I had read the questions, and then put the response together separately without making sure they matched properly.
 * Yes, I'm saying we need to use the narrow definition. This should be about war crimes as determined by war crimes courts.  I'd include ICC indictments as examples because they're official and may be open for long term.  I would not include Article 32 indictments pending trial.  There's too much room for cheap politicization there.
 * Although I do see this as a moral argument, the WP:BLP policy doesn't. We don't call O.J. Simpson a murderer regardless of whether the majority of people think he is one.  Likewise, we don't call people war criminals without proper certification.
 * As for morals, the necessity of destroying Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany wasn't so clear to everyone before events in 1941. The far left switched sides only when Stalin did; and the conservative right (in the U.S.) gave up when Pearl Harbor was attacked.  There were some exceptions, of course, but there are exceptions today.  Try listening to old recordings and you'll find that Charles Lindbergh sounds better on staying out of WWII than Pat Buchanan on staying out of Iraq.  On the far left, it seems as though Pete Seeger (prior to Stalin's flip) sounds like he'd also fit right in today.
 * This really does need to deal with military law. That's where war crimes are precisely defined.  There would be no concerns about war crimes without it.  Whatever is decided upon in the GCs must ultimately be written into the UCMJ.
 * What one person might consider an atrocity isn't necessarily a war crime. Reprisals are one form of atrocity that was once considered proper and moral, and may still be legal under certain circumstances.
 * I don't agree on creating an article on atrocities but I wouldn't stop anyone from it. I personally wouldn't bother going there.  I don't go to the one on the U.S. and state terrorism either.  There could well be a handful of important items in that article but (to put it kindly) I consider it to be hopeless POV-magnet.
 * As I said, we need a few serious articles on this kind of stuff. Anything else, and we might as well merge them all with state terrorism.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking it down a notch and getting down to it. But you don't quite understand something here. You wrote "This really does need to deal with military law. That's where war crimes are precisely defined. There would be no concerns about war crimes without it. Whatever is decided upon in the GCs must ultimately be written into the UCMJ." - When you say "military law" you are not talking about "international military law" or even "military law in [country]" - you are only talking about U.S. military law - a nationalistic concept with militaristic undertones that is itself beholden to nationalistic concerns. You can't pick a less objective or else more subjective "legal system." This isn't the USA-pedia anymore than it is the Conservapedia. So it doesn't matter how "precisely defined" its concepts are in a local legal system, if that legal system is notably selective and protectionist in its application of "justice."

Keep in mind that "military justice" is largely a contradiction in terms: 1) if it was "justice" it would not be a "military" approach, and 2) it is called "military justice" precisely because it is not actual "justice." While things are getting better, "military law" too often presents us with subjective moral ambiguities and paradoxes that negate actual "justice." The concept comes from a context of militarism, which itself always seeks provisions for itself to negate "justice" and to assert a context wherein its own concepts of "justice" have replaced those of an existing society. You echo some of these sentiments yourself when you say things like "what one person might consider an atrocity isn't necessarily a war crime [..] reprisals are one form of atrocity that was once considered proper and moral, and may still be legal under certain circumstances," - you and others of your persuasion support certain concepts of violence that you would be outraged at if such violence happened at the local, county, state, or even national levels of law, justice, and jurisdiction within the U.S.

Regardless of all of that, for us (Wikipedia) to depend exclusively on any national military's system of "justice" would only violate the NPOV/Objectivity principle. Any argument that promotes the alleged supremacy of U.S. "military law" - or any nationalist entity - here, will first have to stage a coup and overthrow NPOV/Objectivity's place as our prime directive. Lastly, the term "reprisals" has a very ambiguous meaning and a subjective degree of applicability, and therefore it's not something anyone can base objective definitions upon: Can you name *any "atrocity" that somehow wasn't alleged to be a "reprisal" for a previous one?-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't ever get military law confused with nationalism or militarism. They're different things.  Nations that need a military, and care about the rule of law, need military law.  You've got an oddly conspiracist view of people of my "persuasion."
 * You can ignore military law if you like, but it will get you absolutely nowhere.
 * Contrary to what you think, this is objective. It truly is part of international law.  As I said above, and you quoted, "Whatever is decided upon in the GCs must ultimately be written into the UCMJ."  If you find something relevant to military operations, and considered to be international law, then it's supposed to be incorporated into military law.  In fact, much of the disagreement with the current war's detainee policies came about only because international law was not clear.  The lack of clarity is a good reason to look at how it was adapted into a nation's military law.
 * A good place to look for the history of reprisal, re human rights, would be the ICRC's commentaries on the First Geneva Convention of 1949: ARTICLE 46 -- PROHIBITION OF REPRISALS.  Reprisals weren't simply for revenge.  For a long time, they were the only mechanism to enforce the laws of war.  Used properly, the threat of reprisal protected human rights when nothing else did.
 * As the ICRC commentary says of reprisals:
 * The acts in question are not normally legal, but they are regarded as being legal in the particular circumstances which exist at the time.
 * That's pretty much the way I described it. If you read the commentary, you'll see it was hoped that reprisals were no longer needed after the Conventions gave belligerent nations a chance to work through the ICRC and other powers.  They expand their prohibitions against reprisal in Protocol I, but it matters less in conflicts not covered somewhere by one of those treaties.
 * For popular examples of reprisal's importance, consider two movies: Inglourious Basterds showed a fictional special unit that didn't care about the laws of war.  In real life, the Allies in WWII could not have overtly authorized such a thing because of the expectation of reprisals.
 * Somewhat closer to real life, Hitler wanted to execute all the prisoners recaptured in The Great Escape. His generals argued against it, and Hitler reduced the number to 50.  That part of the movie was true.  The rest survived the war only because of the threat of reprisal against Germans held in Allied POW camps -- and for no other reason than that.
 * When you say that people of my "persuasion support certain concepts of violence" that we'd be "outraged" if it happened here, you're completely off the mark. Military justice isn't normally used within the U.S. because the Constitution and/or state and local laws regulate what is applied.  But our current enemies do not live under the rule of law.
 * Our own Constitution's Fifth Amendment includes the clause, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." In other words, military law must necessarily apply when the situation demands it.  This wasn't just something America's founders decided upon by themselves.  All nations deal with this sort of thing.  I seriously doubt there is a nation on earth that operates the way you seem to imagine.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope, definition and sources
To stop this from being a total catastrophe or even getting deleted this article has to settle on what it's scope is, what it defines as a war crime and what legal bodies it wants to source to define those crimes.

Are war crimes, convictions of war crimes, convictions of things that are generally considered war crimes but not specifically prosecuted as them in? Do we cover accusations of war crimes? If so, from who? Legal bodies the US is part of? Not part of? Legal scholars, journalists, political scientists, political or human rights activists? What crimes are considered "war crimes" in the context of this article? Do they have to be convictions of actual war crimes? Do they have to be "historically accepted" as war crimes after the fact? What about crimes that are not pursued as "war crimes" but are similar to those that have been in the past?

Until these questions are answered by a consensus reached by interested editors working withing the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia this article will be a never ending agenda magnet and impossible to manage. It's condition will never improve. My initial impressions would be to limit the scope of this article to actual convictions of war crimes, accusations of war crimes by accredited international judicial bodies and historical reexamination limited to multiple, independent reliable academic sources. Accusations by other groups and those under investigation would have to be treated as such (and not as fact) and judged on an individual basis. This article must also strive to separate itself from simply becoming another "list" article such as those that already exist. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that a "war crime committed by the United states" is anything that:
 * a reliable source says is
 * a war crime that was
 * committed by the United States.
 * ... It seems that Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this one. We are not in a position (unless we are reliable/notable sources in this subject area) to determine ourselves what is the scope of the term war crime, or what should or should not be considered a war crime. We just need to include anything that reliable sources say is a war crime committed by the United States.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I might only differ on the choice of a "reliable source." That's a problem if some people think people like Noam Chomsky are objective sources.
 * I don't believe we should include the opinions of so-called "human rights" advocates. Some of them acknowledge that they need further investigation anyway.  At best, their opinions on the law are no more valid than the opinions of the U.S. attorneys who declined to prosecute.  The advocates are also driven by fundraising concerns.
 * As I said above, calling someone a "war criminal" should be treated at least as carefully as we do for WP:TERRORIST.
 * FWIW: Some of the items we have here (e.g. Dachau and Biscari) need to say what the outcomes of the cases.
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to historical reappraisals but it should be sensible. The main war crimes article gets into it here on Ambiguities of the term.
 * As for the new changes, they look good.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I largely concur with Randy. To label a person or an act a war crime because someone who is an otherwise reliable source said it is would be calling someone a criminal that was never convicted of a crime. Because otherwise reliable sources assert that OJ Simpson killed his wife does not mean that we can reliably source him as being a murderer. While there should be room in an article such as this for accusations or assertions made by several notable independent parties that something may have been a war crime does not mean that we should declare people criminals whom have never been convicted of a crime. It's also important to remember that when dealing with individuals that are still alive that we must abide by the policy on biographical info on living persons. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "War Crime"
Another problem with this article is that there is an unsourced, arbitrary definition for "war crime" at the beginning. I suggest starting out with the definition in the Geneva conventions, namely:

"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, biological experiments, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

- Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

I don't think that Wikipedia editors should arbitrarily get to create a special definition of "war crime" to apply to the United States, any more than they should arbitrarily get to determine what is a "war crime". Does this seem reasonable? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct on that one thing: Wikipedia editors do not arbitrarily get to create a special definition of "war crime."
 * According to the Fourth Geneva Convention:
 * The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
 * The Fourth Geneva Convention was written after Hiroshima, of course, but the principle is there for my purposes (but not for yours). If it's a legitimate target, then it can be destroyed.  Subsequent military doctrine of the major nuclear powers follows my point of view, not yours.
 * As I've shown you above, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get interested editors to discuss the definition of the phrase "war crimes". Please take the discussions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki elsewhere, and try to remain focused on the issue at hand. The part that you selected (Article 28) and misunderstood, is not relevant here. Article 28 allows for military operations in an area containing protected persons, as long as the none of the acts in Article 147 (or any of the other Articles) are committed. For instance, torturing a protected person is still a war crime under Article 147. Article 28 merely says that you may still perform military operations in the area -- it doesn't give a nation free license to go around shooting, torturing, and imprisoning anyone they please. That's why Article 28 doesn't say "disregard everything else in this document if you're performing military operations in an area containing protected persons" But, let's stay on topic. Does anyone see any problems with using the definition of "war crime" from the Geneva Convention? Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, excuuuuuuuuuzzze me. (Sorry, if that expression is from before your time.)  Since you hadn't replied on the legitimacy of Hiroshima as a target, I had simply assumed you were still running with that.
 * I've said before that we should stick with legal definitions. But if so, then neither Article 28 nor Article 147 apply to the war with the Taliban and al Qaeda.  Article 3 is the only one that applies there.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that way.  The international organizations that claim to care about human rights have generally agreed with that.
 * And you're partly right, they can't "go around shooting [and] torturing ... anyone they please." But you might notice that my small excerpt of your phrase didn't include "imprisoning."  The Fourth Geneva Convention most certainly does allow nations to detain civilians if they are believed to be a threat.  They can be held without trial until the perceived threat no longer exists.  There are even fewer restrictions in conflicts (such as this one) where the balance of the 4thGC doesn't apply.
 * You need to understand that the laws of war, such as the conventions, were written by diplomats in consultation with their nations' generals. They didn't allow restrictions to be imposed that would make fighting a war more difficult.  They understood that WWII lasted too long as it was.  They didn't want rules that would make the next wars take even longer.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Randy, you don't need to apologize for the phrase "excuse me" being before my time. People still commonly use it today, so it's not before the time of anyone who is currently alive. If I wanted to discuss Hiroshima, I would have done it in the section above which was created to discuss that. Please see the title and opening paragraph of this section to get an idea about what I am trying to discuss in this section. I am not interested in your opinions on international law that you just shared above. I am trying to hold a discussion about the definition of "war crime" in the lead for this article, and am trying to work with other editors towards a consensus on a good definition for that term. Please keep the discussion focused on this issue. If you want to add more comments about Hiroshima, please do so in the section on Hiroshima above, not here. If you want to talk about the applicability of the Geneva conventions to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, please create a separate section to do so (although you should provide reliable sources instead of your own analysis and opinion on the matter). Do you have any sources you'd like to share which provide a definition for "war crimes" to be used in the lead? Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you'd better explain the context. I agree that using the definition is essential.  The trouble is, all the examples you've used before are such that the above definition doesn't apply to them.
 * In addition, you should say why you think smaller cases might apply. For example, Louis Till isn't listed as a "war criminal" even though he was convicted of a horrific crime against local civilians during a war.  It was a personal crime, however, and not in the performance of his duties as a soldier.
 * Wikipedia is not a courtroom. If the applicable legal authorities haven't ruled something to be a war crime then we can't use the talk section as a tribunal to conclude otherwise.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the applicable legal authorities haven't ruled something to be a war crime then we can't use the talk section as a tribunal to conclude otherwise. -- Since the United States does not generally submit to any investigations or trials by legal authorities, then this is a mostly meaningless criterion. And besides, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy anyway. We should not focus on "applicable legal authorities" (since that would constitute original research on the part of the editors who get to determine what is "applicable"), so much as reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's policies. The problem is that on Wikipedia, we are trying to counteract systemic bias, and by allowing editors to determine which institutions are "applicable", we would end up with a strong Anglo-American bias which would classify as non-criminal actions which are widely considered by the rest of the world to be criminal. This would also lead to certain institutions (such as the International Criminal Court), which are accepted around the rest of the world as valid, being classified as invalid because of the opinions of English-speaking editors who believe they are not valid. Of course, documents from many international legal and human rights organizations would be amongst the most reliable sources, but they are not the only reliable sources. Please see WP:Reliable and WP:Verify to understand more about Wikipedia's inclusion policy. If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. Do you disagree with that? Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rejecting the ICC is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make dismissing "applicable legal authorities." It's a poor standard to judge the U.S. by.  The ICC has only opened investigations into four situations.
 * The U.S. is as open to scrutiny as any nation at war, and far more open than our enemies and rivals. We have a free press that's very critical (including foreign reporters embedded with our troops), and we have competing political parties, some of whom latch onto any appearance of wrongdoing that they may exploit for their own political gain.
 * The U.S. submits to regular ICRC inspections when required by treaty. None of our current enemies do so, and none since (ironically enough) the Nazis in WWII.  And we have prompt investigations into claims of wrongdoing that are followed by prosecutions when warranted.  There are a lot of soldiers in prison right now because they were convicted.  During WWII, the U.S. military executed over 100 American troops for their crimes.  No nation at war does better at policing its own.
 * The systemic bias you're concerned about works the other way around. The English WP may have a lot of Americans, but more of them are left of center.  This is compounded by the large numbers of Brits, Canadians, and other English-speaking foreigners who edit this site, most of whom are apparently further left than most of the American left.
 * I don't know of any reliable source that says an act committed by the U.S. government in the current war is definitely a "war crime." Amnesty and HRW like to make claims that sound that way, but they often add a line saying it should be investigated as one, as they cannot pronounce guilt themselves.  Amnesty and HRW have both been accused of bias.  They have a questionable leadership, and they're heavily dependent for support upon anti-American fundraising.  There aren't any truly unbiased sources.
 * I remind you that it was you who brought up the Geneva Conventions. Those are the standards we use.  You may not like the U.S. justice system, but it's the best there is available.
 * Besides all that, we also have WP:BLP considerations to think of. You can't just call someone a "war criminal" simply because you'd like to believe the accuser (who faces very little risk of a perjury conviction) is telling the truth.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to the majority of your statements, which are either erroneous or are your personal opinions, and are thus off-topic here. I'm only going to respond to the ones that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Again, please try to stay focused.
 * The English WP may have a lot of Americans, but more of them are left of center. -- Really? Do you have a source for that? I didn't see that in the Wikipedia surveys on the systemic bias page.
 * I don't know of any reliable source that says an act committed by the U.S. government in the current war is definitely a "war crime." -- I'm about to start the process of moving back home, but I assure you that when I've settled back in and have my personal library in front of me, that you will have no shortage of reliable sources that say so.
 * Amnesty and HRW like to make claims that sound that way, but they often add a line saying it should be investigated as one, as they cannot pronounce guilt themselves. -- doesn't matter. They have both been determined (see and  for example) to be highly reliable sources, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your opinions about their leadership, fundraising, validity, or "Anti-American-ness" hold absolutely no weight here.
 * There aren't any truly unbiased sources. -- Of course there aren't. Nor does WP:NPOV make any claim there are. Please read and understand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia editors are supposed to remain unbiased and objectively report what a reliable source says. This does not mean that the reliable source itself must be totally unbiased, as long as it is reliable and notable.
 * Anyhow, I'm going to be spending a lot less time on Wikipedia for the next few days/weeks, while I move. Hopefully some other editors can come in and continue to clear things up for you.Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even Jimmy Wales conceded that WP is to the left. He wouldn't agree with others who'd go further than that, but I'm not arguing the point here.  "To the left" is enough to say the systemic bias goes the other way.
 * I agree that Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources for the basics of their reports. I know that some of their work is very good.  It's in their analysis that I often disagree.  Amnesty went off track in the '90s.  Both of them have prominent critics.  As a matter of policy, Amnesty and Wikipedia disagree on publishing the Danish cartoons.
 * Publishing libel is wrong. On the other side, WP has articles on many of the GTMO detainees.  The articles don't accuse them of being war criminals, no matter how obvious it may be that they are.
 * We're not even supposed to use the word WP:TERRORIST.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, USC18s2441 seems to have some good material for this discussion. Of course it's US code, but it does reference international law:
 * (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
 * (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
 * (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
 * (3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
 * (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.


 * Is there a feeling that this definition is incomplete? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a very good find, but I think it's the same thing as the War Crimes Act of 1996.
 * The only thing really incomplete is that the bulk of it applies to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. That's not going to help the people who like to reimagine that Hiroshima was a war crime.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy2063 -- Again, please stop discussing your personal political opinions and original historical research. The solution to finding a definition of the term war crime is simple, and is described in Verifiable. What we will do to find a definition is to go to reliable, preferably scholarly sources, and we will include the most notable of these, with citations. We will not debate what Randy2063 thinks is a war crime, or what he thinks about various organizations or scholars, or any other such thing (to understand why we won't do this, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ValkyrieOfOdin -- thanks for your suggestion. While I would have a problem relying exclusively, or primarily, on a definition of "war crime" from the United States government (which many scholars consider to be the primary perpetrator of war crimes), I am certain that it is notable, and should be included (perhaps not in full, but at least summarized, with a citation to the full text). One thing that we really need to do is go through the article War crimes, and do some heavy work on the "Definitions" section there, and then use that as the basis for our definition here, per WP:SUMMARY. (I do think that your definition should be included in full there, however), with discussion from reliable, third-party sources-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jesse, but you're the one expressing the personal opinions here. I was only commenting about the utility of a potential source.
 * Crimes are a matter of law. War crimes are a matter of international law given through treaties.  Organizations and scholars do not write laws or make treaties.  They have no more authority to decide what constitutes a crime than does a church.  Even Amnesty and HRW recognize this.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy2063 -- Again, please stop discussing your personal political opinions and own original research. We will determine what is a "war crime" by looking to reliable, third-party sources. We will not debate what Randy2063 thinks is a war crime, or what he thinks about various organizations or scholars, or any other such thing (to understand why we won't do this, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition I've given conforms to the sources in the war crime article.
 * You're the one who just said you'd like to change that article to include personal opinions of "scholars and organizations" -- the implication being that they were not deliberated by diplomats and ratified by governments with the authority of law that is required to make something a crime.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I wanted to "include personal opinions of "scholars and organizations"" for the definition. You need to read and understand WP:PRIMARY, and then you'll see what I'm saying. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, there is nothing I can do for you, other than recommend that you start a campaign to dramatically change Wikipedia policy to allow you to directly select from and interpret primary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Randy2063, you've stated your points several times ... I'm not trying to quash you, but, respectfully, WP:NOTSOAPBOX I think it's perfectly reasonable for a present-day article to articulate that acts in the past qualify as "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" by current standards, especially if they serve to illustrate meaning, without conceding in every instance that at that time in history it was considered normal. Just my take.
 * Jrtayloriv, I think I see what you're after with the definition. Ok, so that's the US version of the definition, which I said, so I think any article about US war crimes should explain why it's a war crime (by some other standard) and why the US thought it was OK? Just an idea on an approach. Probably there's lots of material around that would illuminate that line of reasoning, and I shall begin to search for it. On a related note, I found a great definition over at the (now defunct) UN ICC site. I won't copy and paste that info here (it's huge!) but the gist is that war crimes are defined in terms of "Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." I think war crimes are typically used in relation to people and not states. Perhaps what you are seeking is more of a "crimes against humanity" article, which is also defined on that page (Article 7) and states, in part: For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population . It should be noted that the US, Russia, and Japan are not signatories to the ICC (based on that site which could be out of date). I hope this helps a little.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions -- looking forward to working on this with you. But just to clarify, it's not what I'm after that we're talking about -- I was just talking about Wikipedia policy. What we need to do is go to reliable sources and find out what they have to say about the United States and war crimes, including all significant opinions, and giving them due weight, giving preference to scholars over magazines & newspapers, etc. Also, while it is commendable that you have done research on the legality of war crimes, and I'd like to find a way to include it in the article, please make sure that you read and understand WP:PRIMARY, which discusses research from primary sources (which we are not allowed to do here). Thanks again -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Going prior to the adoption of a treaty is plain silly. The laws of war were initially based upon agreement that a principle would be shared by all parties.  That's why reprisal played such an important role.  (And yes, there are sources for that.)
 * It doesn't have to be acceptable to U.S. law. I had previously said ICC indictments would qualify as examples.  But we don't have any of those yet.
 * Real sources on the law are what we need. I just don't want some arrogant professor calling things war crimes, especially if he supports governments that condone war crimes, and then having it repeated here as though it has the official stamp of legal authority.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's true I suppose. However, saying, "dropping an atomic bomb like in WWII today would be a war crime" is using it as an illustrative example. Saying that dropping the atomic bomb in WWII is a war crime is a different matter and would require research into the applicable international law that existed at the moment of the act. And what you're saying is that your understanding of law at that time indicates that bombing was legal and only after the 1949 treaty were such acts outlawed? If that's what you're saying, then I understand and agree from a legal point of view. :) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atomic bombs themselves are still legal. We wouldn't be making them if they weren't.  Had they not been legal under those treaties, the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union would not have signed them.
 * But there were still plenty of cases of the bombing of civilians during WWII. Some of those wouldn't be legal now.  Neither would some forms of reprisal, although not all.  As I've said before, that used to be the primary way that the laws of war could be enforced.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy2063 -- Please stop discussing your personal views and own original research. Wikipedia is not a forum, and we should stick to discussing changes to the article, not debating about the topic itself. Whatever conclusions you have personally come to about the legality of atomic weapons, etc. is best left to other websites -- there are plenty of wonderful forums where you can go to debate politics, history, or whatever you like. Talk pages here are not the place for it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv-- I'm not sure I agree that citing material that is fact, like international law, is the same as original research. If you're looking for interpretation of that law, then reliable sources are what are needed. I'm a little confused on why a definition here is necessary since there's a link to the war crimes page that covers this stuff. Sorry for the confusion, but what's the point of the section? I'm really trying to help here, but don't know what direction to go. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ValkyrieOfOdin -- You actually make a very good point about the definition not being needed here, since we have a link to war crimes. The definition is not dependent on nationality, and thus we don't need to have a separate definition for each nation. Thanks for stopping this waste of time. I'll go ahead and remove the definition section. As far as the sourcing thing though, please read WP:PRIMARY and you'll see what I mean about how we are supposed to use primary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. :) As for sourcing, I've read it several times. I can see there's quite a bit of room for interpretation depending on what the source is and the contention level. I still maintain that reference to something like a law is equivalent to "Paris is the capital of France." Talking beyond the facts of, "this is what is published" I completely agree with you. Also, since this is a talk page, the use of primary sources in order to determine which secondary sources to discover also seems productive. Thanks for the opportunity to learn! ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation into judicial vs. non-judicial
TomPointTwo has twice reverted my edits, which consolidated the information about each country into a single section. What he is proposing instead is having two separate sections for each country, and requiring us to write about each event in two separate places. Here are the problems I see with that: There is no Wikipedia policy that says that we have to make this distinction structurally -- in fact WP:STRUCTURE dictates that we do what I am suggesting. Vague statements "Keep BLP in mind" are meaningless -- show me something specific in WP:BLP that makes that breaking it up into this illogical section format required. I've never seen an article that is broken up in this way, and I have not yet seen any coherent reason why we should do so here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to talk about each event in two separate sections, it is going to make it where we cannot discuss context around the event, or have to repeat things twice. We will be forced to say: "X happened. It was investigated and prosecuted and here was the results" ... (much later in article) ... "X happened. Professor Z says this about it." (And more likely, "X happened" will just be left out to prevent duplication and due to difficulty of writing coherently about a single topic in multiple areas - leaving us with a contextless article, due to an easily fixable structural limitation). Why not just have it where we can say: "X happened. It was investigated and prosecuted and here are the results. Professor Z says this about it"? What is wrong with that? Does that not make more sense?
 * It is going to make reading and editing the article next to impossible. We're going to have to jump around to multiple places in the article to read about a single topic.
 * There is no need to have each country have two separate sections, if all you are concerned about is making sure that people know if there was a trial in a court. That can easily be made clear in the text, as long as we follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. If it went to court we say so, if it didn't, we don't. If it's just a claim by Notable Professor X, then we say so. This is in line with WP:RS and WP:V.


 * I think the problem here is that you are viewing these different circumstances as the same subject with only semantic differences. This is not the case. Anyone can accuse anyone else of a war crime, that doesn't make it true. To have a legitimate, legal institution investigate and try a group or individual for a crime is one thing. To have an NGO or academic accuse or postulate is another. There is a legion of forensic and legal experts who would testify that OJ Simpson is a murderer. Alas, we at wikipedia would never include him in an article about "Crimes committed by professional athletes" for murder (just robbery and kidnapping). To include events or individuals in an article about "War crimes committed by the United States" without any conviction or even investigation of an actual war crime by a court with jurisdiction is a very delicate matter.


 * Of course nobody is ever going to charge a legal body to investigate most historical incidents which are widely considered to be war crimes so some extra leeway is called for here. We must be very careful though to make the distinction between actual convictions of crimes, historical analysis and simple accusations. This is even more important when dealing with events involving people who are still alive. To label an event a crime in which there is still living participants is a clear violation on Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. For the living if you want to call people criminals you need to have convictions.


 * With all this in mind the only real options are to either create specific entries for actual convictions of war crimes and another for those without or to remove all events which have not resulted in criminal convictions. For the sake of historical context I prefer the former. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will first respond what you said that pertains to Wikipedia policy, namely To label an event a crime in which there is still living participants is a clear violation on Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. For the living if you want to call people criminals you need to have convictions. ... I was not claiming that we should present as fact that someone is a criminal, just because a reliable source says they are. I am suggesting that if a reliable source says that they believe that someone committed a war crime, we should mention it, and attribute this statement to them. This is is line with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. We would not say "X committed a crime", but would instead say "Professor Z claimed that by doing B, X committed a crime". This is what Wikipedia policy dictates we do.
 * Again, can you give any specific Wikipedia policy that says that using high-quality reliable sources, and attributing statements of opinion, is not enough, and that talking about each subject in multiple places in the article is required (and forcing readers to dig through such a mess)? Do you have a response to any of my concerns with how this will affect the ability for editors to work on this article, and for readers to read it? Basically, do you have any reason for requiring the duplication and loss of readability? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with TomPointTwo. There has to be a clear distinction between real cases and mere complaints.  I don't think we should have any of those with considerably less foundation.  The readers won't take it seriously if it's the mere opinion of some group that always complains about the U.S. anyway, and that will make them miss the real cases.
 * That Professor Z is notable doesn't mean he's an impartial judge. To use the O.J. example, it makes a difference that O.J. was found not guilty -- not proved innocent -- but at least he had been prosecuted.  Just imagine if the evidence was so lacking that he couldn't be tried at all.  Then we'd have to ask, who's calling him a murderer?  Is it a respectable women's rights advocate?  Or is it some racist group that would harp on any famous minority?  Similarly, in this case, if the accusations are coming from a group that's always sided with America's enemies then it's not notable at all.
 * This is why I think we should remove the flopped CCR legal action in the German court. They've got a long history of doing this stuff.  It doesn't say anything notable that they popped up here.  It belongs in the CCR article, but not this one.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy, please stop discussing your personal opinions and original research about OJ Simpson, German Courts, etc. Do you have reasons that we should break up the article into multiple sections? As I already said, if we are properly following Wikipedia's sourcing and attribution policies, there will already be a clear distinction between cases that have gone to court, and those that are allegations by notable groups or individuals. So breaking up into sections in the current manner has no benefit. It prevents us adding context to each event, and consolidating all of the information on it into one place, making it more difficult for both editors and readers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to pass that off as mere commentary about personal opinions or original research. It was a response to your desire to mix actual war crimes with actions perceived by others to be war crimes.  If Professor X is not a judge giving a lawful ruling then it's his opinion.  It may be a notable person's opinion, but nothing more.
 * The readers are best served seeing the real war crimes up front. Don't think that mixing in just any perceived war crime will be okay if it's properly attributed to the party making the claim.  Once the door is open, we will eventually have more of these than the the actual ones.  The real war crimes will then be drowned out.  Nobody will take it seriously.
 * You hadn't stated where you intend to stop. Would it be with reports from Amnesty, HRW, and the ICRC?  Or is any group that claims to care about human rights going to be worth using?  Your use of the failed legal action in "Further reading" doesn't bode well.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy, I've never claimed that non-judicial rulings are judicial or official rulings, or should be presented as such. You are not listening to what I'm saying, and are putting words into my mouth. You really need to read and understand WP:V, in order to understand what I'm saying. What I said was that if a notable person or organization makes a claim in a reliable source, then we should mention it in the article, in a neutral tone, with attribution, making sure not to give it undue weight. Neither of our opinions about what constitutes a "real" war crime matter -- it's what reliable sources have to say about it that matters. The Wikipedia content policies are clear what to include, and how to include it, and following them will leave no room for confusion as to which are judicial rulings and which are not. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what you're saying about WP:V. There is no question that various groups are accusing the U.S. of war crimes.  But that makes them "accusations of war crimes," and not "war crimes committed by the U.S."
 * I don't think you've said how far you think this would go. If Oliver Stone says the U.S. committed war crimes, does that go in here, too?
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it should not. It is not a high enough quality source, per WP:BLP. I think there is plenty of scholarly and legal literature on it, without resorting to "celebrities". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not saying much. CCR isn't a high-quality source either, and yet you want their advocates.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the judicial distinction is gone. That takes away your rationale for leaving out celebrities.
 * Oliver Stone isn't just a celebrity, though. He's got political ties with more sway than a lot of activists.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, this isn't just my personal preference -- it's Wikipedia policy. See WP:STRUCTURE, which reads:
 * Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other.

... in addition to what I've said above, regarding readability/editability. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:STRUCTURE would apply if we were to move some material from the section on My Lai to another section because the source was biased.
 * This is an article about war crimes committed by the U.S. Any number of possible war crimes that might have been committed by the U.S. are a completely different issue.  That's why they belong in a different section.
 * It is not more readable to have bona fide war crimes mixed in with the accusations that various groups would be making regardless whether or not a real war crime had occurred. That makes the known war crimes harder to find.  The point may come when they'll be almost impossible to find.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for someone to come here from RfC, but in the meantime, why don't you compare WP:STRUCTURE's statement details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false with your statement bona fide war crimes mixed in with the accusations that various groups would be making regardless whether or not a real war crime had occurred. ... and again, you don't get to determine what is a "bona fide" war crime. We should neutrally report what reliable sources have to say about it, giving attribution to statements of opinion, and ensuring that we give due weight to each of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on sections
Should the sections be broken up into "judicial vs. non-judicial", and each event discussed in two separate places, or should we discuss each event in one place (adhering to WP:STRUCTURE) and follow Wikipedia content guidelines to ensure that it is clear when something went to court, and when it didn't. (See discussion in parent section for explanation) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs some common sense structured into it, i.e; "war crimes committed by the united states" should mean events that saw due process by an entity which had jurisprudence over such allegations, found the allegations had merit, and due process found the participants guilty as charged.
 * You are suggesting any allegations of a "war crime" found in something that passes wiki standards for reference, can be included in this page, no matter how baseless or frivolous and as such was not recognized by any court with the power to judge them as such- in a section entitled "non-judicial"?
 * I suggest, and I think other editors will concurr, that you create a new article with this content, entitled "alleged/accusations of/people's opinions of what constituted(pick one) war crimes by the united states" rather than give witch hunts validation on this page.
 * You DO understand that just because someone accuses someone of committing a crime, this is not a determination as such and is merely an allegation? Never mind many of the accusers are completely ignorant of what a war crime actually is- for instance John Kerry in the '70's testified he committed war crimes, when challenged later he could only detail that he used a .50 caliber machine gun, and "served in a free fire zone". NOT war crimes, though his testimony itself was probably a crime, I would allege.
 * At this point the article is basically bullshytye. (to that end I'm removing the Nagasaki/Hiroshima issue, I raised the matter here first, see above) There shouldn't be anything in there that didn't see due process. However your adherence to wiki guidelines in requesting comment is duly noted and appreciated, and I think the content you wish to preserve does have a place, it just doesn't fit in the article as titled.Batvette (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting any allegations of a "war crime" found in something that passes wiki standards for reference, can be included in this page -- Yes
 * no matter how baseless or frivolous -- If it's baseless or frivolous, it probably won't pass the standards, and if it does pass the standards and is frivolous or baseless, there is probably a reliable source that has refuted the allegation. If we can only find reliable sources that make the allegation, and nothing that refutes it, then according to Wikipedia policy we should keep it in, no matter how baseless we think it is, per WP:V.
 * You DO understand that just because someone accuses someone of committing a crime, this is not a determination as such and is merely an allegation? -- Yes I do, as you'll see from my numerous responses to this same question above.
 * Never mind many of the accusers are completely ignorant of what a war crime actually is- for instance John Kerry -- Your example is not at all apt. I am not talking about using celebrity personalities, and insinuating that I was is dishonest. I am talking about using respected scholars and international organizations.
 * At this point the article is basically bullshytye. -- I agree, but for different reasons. I believe it is mostly crap because a certain group of zealous editors have so far presented the immense amount of scholarship on this issue from being included, on the tenuous ground that scholarly work isn't a judicial proceeding (nevermind that the United States either dominates international legal bodies and chooses not to involve itself with judicial proceedings ...) This article will only cease being "bullshytye" when we adhere to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and include the large body of scholarship on war crimes and the United States (I would be fine renaming the article to War crimes and the United States where we can discuss both the United States general refusal to submit to international courts, allegations of war crimes, and judicial proceedings all in one article.
 * to that end I'm removing the Nagasaki/Hiroshima issue -- Claiming that an article is "bullshyte" is not means for removal of reliably sourced content. Can you explain why you removed this content? What I would have done is moved it to the judicial proceedings section, since it was a judicial proceeding, and is backed by reliable sources.
 * it just doesn't fit in the article as titled ... There shouldn't be anything in there that didn't see due process -- I think it is important to consider that the United States refuses to submit to due process, and controls the organizations that are in charge of "the process". I agree with you that this is a fundamental issue, and I think it would probably be best resolved renaming the article to War crimes and the United States, where we can discuss this lack of accountability, allegations of war crimes (from high-quality sources, not from John Kerry et al.), and crimes where the United States has chosen to submit to an international court. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment. I agree with the previous comment from Batvette. Parsing these accusations into "judicial" and "nonjudicial" would not address the more fundamental issues that this article has. Figureofnine (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'd have to agree. I would have preferred a place where we could have separated out discussion of war crimes from a historical perspective (non-judicial). Alas, if editors refuse to clearly delineat academic discussion of potential war crimes and actual war crime cases in the basic structure of this article then content needs to be moved elsewhere. Preferably to the parent articles of the specific incidents or conflicts. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to get into the probable minefield (excuse the unfortunate metaphor) of issues there probably are here, my feeling is that the "judicial"/"non-judicial" distinction might be inappropriate due to being a novel suggestion. Do comparable articles about other countries make a similar distinction? --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Without a judicial distinction we open it up to every left-wing, right-wing, and religious extremist making claims about U.S. policy. That would drown out the real war crimes.  We'll have charges from groups that condone the use of children as human shields.  Readers won't be able to find the real ones among all that mess.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a judicial distinction -- Nobody has suggested that there be no distinction between judicial and non-judicial allegations of war crimes. Judicial proceedings will be distinguishable from non-judicial allegations, as long as we follow Wikipedia content and sourcing guidelines. The text discussing judicial proceedings will look something like "Event X caused the U.S. to be charged in court Y, which resulted in Z". Non-judicial allegations will read something like "Professor X said that event Y constituted a war crime for reasons A, B, and C." There is no implication that Professor X is a court of law, and thus there is no grounds for claiming that readers will be confused into thinking that he is an international court. Again, per WP:STRUCTURE, we make the distinction in the text, not in the structure of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would drown out the real war crimes....Readers won't be able to find the real ones among all that mess. -- We'll determine what are "war crimes" by looking to reliable sources, neutrally presenting their findings, and attributing statements of opinion. Our opinions about which war crimes are "real" are irrelevant. It's what reliable sources have to say that matters. Readers will find whatever reliable sources have to say about the matter.
 * We'll have charges from groups that condone the use of children as human shields -- If organizations that "condone the use of children as human shields" (whatever that means) are considered reliable per WP:RS and WP:V, then yes, they will be included. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Without a judicial distinction we open it up to every left-wing, right-wing, and religious extremist making claims about U.S. policy."
 * The normal policy is to consider whether those views are notable and how significant they are and then report them accordingly. What we don't normally do is design a special standard for a given article in order to exclude views which would be ordinarily be included. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a special standard for political view. It was a BLP-like restraint.
 * I do agree that, if we're going to discard the judicial standard then there are no bounds by either viewpoint direction or extremism. The words of anyone notable then belong here.  Just don't expect readers to take this article seriously once its filled out.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If reader's don't take it seriously, that's their own prerogative -- but we are going to follow Wikipedia content guidelines, regardless. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The content guidelines worked either way. Before, we had reliable sources that legal authorities determined that war crimes were committed.
 * Now, we have reliable sources that some people had accused the U.S. of war crimes.
 * I don't know why we don't just merge it with United States and state terrorism. It's now basically the same thing, and no one takes that one seriously either.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the former state of affairs was not in line with policy -- it was in clear violation of WP:STRUCTURE.
 * And, on a side note, this article is not the same thing as United States and state terrorism. A moment's thought will help you see the obvious difference between the two pages. (Hint: one is about war crimes and the other is about state terrorism).
 * Anyhow, it seems that this conversation is going nowhere, unless someone else wants to come in from RfC. It seems to me that all serious concerns (I'm not counting concerns about "extremists who use children as human shields" amongst these) have been addressed, and we can get on with working on the article, unless someone else wants to come in from RfC with new input. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why the article has been renamed to facilitate the widening of scope? Above you stated- ''Assuming that the article list of people who committed treason did exist, yes I would support adding anything from a reliable/verifiable/notable source that says that a person committed treason. But the article doesn't exist (for good reason), and is thus not relevant.'' Why do you differentiate the two? The alleged crimes were committed by people, not "the US", as most of the events (save Hiroshima) were not official policy. I might further note your remark toward another editor that he should have obviously known the topical difference between this article and state terrorism leads me to believe you've never even read that article. Or perhaps there are two different Atomic_bombings_of_Japan and this is one I didn't know about? I think he's making the same point I am, that including things called "crimes" just because someone says so and we can find a reference on it, diminishes the severity of events that saw due process, and the renaming of the article to include this diminishes its legitimacy as well. Too often by the time it goes from the reference to the article the context becomes altered to suggest legitimacy, as well. For instance the Hiroshima court case, which I edited but need to rewrite it better- that court did not have the matter of the legality of the bombings before it, just the claims made by the five survivors. Yet it was written exactly that it did and that is misleading, their statement was simply a comment made in addition to their ruling on the survivors' claims. Finally a note about your position on the US refusal to have our soldiers prosecuted by international courts at this time- the specific rationale, and there was good reason at the time, was to preclude the undue pursuit of prosecution on frivolous matters by individuals or entities intent on enforcing their anti-war views in the international arena. In other words not playing politics abusing a legal system at the expense of individual soldiers. In the instances where crimes were committed, people were tried under the UCMJ, it's disingenuous to imply we aren't holding our personnel accountable for their actions.Batvette (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why the article has been renamed to facilitate the widening of scope -- For several reasons, all of which have been discussed above. The primary reason is that the old name was continuously causing arguments where certain editors would claim that nothing that had not gone through one of the international courts (which the U.S. doesn't submit to), could be included in the article. They could not wrap their heads around the concept that an allegation, attributed as opinion, being in an article named War crimes committed by the United States does not automatically imply that it was an "official" proceeding that determined that a war crime was committed. They felt that the title would somehow cause people to think that if we said "Professor X said Y was a war crime" that readers would think that this meant that an international court had found it to be a war crime. There was never a rational explanation given for how readers might get confused like this, but nevertheless, people here were terribly worried about it, even though they didn't really know why. This argument has continuously plagued this page and prevented any work from getting done on it. The new title still keeps the content of the old in scope, but removes any worries that the title will confuse people, and will let everybody get on with adding information to the article.
 * I might further note your remark toward another editor that he should have obviously known the topical difference between this article and state terrorism leads me to believe you've never even read that article. Or perhaps there are two different Atomic_bombings_of_Japan and this is one I didn't know about? -- I have read it, and I've done a good bit of work on it as well. Your argument is fallacious. An event can be looked at from multiple perspectives -- some things fit into more than two categories. For example, I might kidnap and murder someone, and then I could be discussed in an article on kidnappers AND an article on murderers. Likewise there are certain aspects of the atomic bombings of Japan that constitute terrorism. There are other aspects of it that constitute war crimes. In United States and state terrorism, we focus on those aspects of the bombings which reliable sources consider to be characteristic of state terrorism. In War crimes and the United States, we discuss those aspects of the bombings which reliable sources consider to be characteristic of war crimes. Simple concept.
 * I think he's making the same point I am, that including things called "crimes" just because someone says so and we can find a reference on it, diminishes the severity of events that saw due process, and the renaming of the article to include this diminishes its legitimacy as well. -- Whatever you think personally about if things are "diminished" by inclusion of non-judicial allegations, is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This is why Wikipedia has guidelines to include content that is not based on the personal viewpoints of certain editors. We'll determine what to include by looking to reliable sources, neutrally presenting their findings, and attributing statements of opinion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think personally about if things are "diminished" by inclusion of non-judicial allegations, is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Kindly save the feigned posturing as an authority representing the interests of Wikipedia, my comment has direct relevance toward the quality of the article. Don't pretend that ensuring actual war crimes as defined by written international agreements, and determined true by judicial process as also defined in those agreements and not frivolous accusations driven by political opportunism appearing in this article is my POV. This seems to be a recurring theme of yours in the comments of this page, standing on wiki policy with the appearance of NPOV, yet with this statement-  If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. you give evidence you are trying to use this article as a soapbox to promote your own POV, since you don't seem at all interested in looking for sources that state that those acts were not war crimes. To be precise, '''you seem intent on using this article to promote that the United States prolifically commits war crimes, and include anyone's fringe view that contributes to this POV, ignoring the importance of due process as the only form of balance in the matter. ' There are not going to be sources declaring The United States has never committed a War Crime to present NPOV balance to sources stating such and such is a war crime''. So you have to describe how you are not yourself pushing your POV if you wish to include anyone's allegation of War Crimes yet seem uninterested in the due process of determining guilt of the parties involved- and don't pretend that the recent abstinence from ICC proceedings by the US is applicable to anything but events since.Batvette (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kindly save the feigned posturing as an authority representing the interests of Wikipedia, my comment has direct relevance toward the quality of the article. -- I'm not feigning or posturing. There is nothing in the Wikipedia content guidelines that supports your viewpoint, and thus it is merely a matter of personal preference, which is irrelevant.
 * Don't pretend that ensuring actual war crimes as defined by written international agreements, and determined true by judicial process as also defined in those agreements and not frivolous accusations driven by political opportunism appearing in this article is my POV. -- This sentence is not really clear -- could you elaborate?
 * This seems to be a recurring theme of yours in the comments of this page, standing on wiki policy with the appearance of NPOV, -- Yes, supporting adherence to Wikipedia policy is a recurring theme of mine.
 * yet with this statement-  If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. you give evidence you are trying to use this article as a soapbox to promote your own POV, -- How is claiming that we should follow Wikipedia content guidelines "evidence" that I am soapboxing or trying to promote my POV?
 * since you don't seem at all interested in looking for sources that state that those acts were not war crimes. -- Actually, I've suggested several times to other editors that if they disagree with something or feel that it is imbalanced that they go and find reliable sources claiming that the acts in question were not war crimes.
 * you seem intent on using this article to promote that the United States prolifically commits war crimes, and include anyone's fringe view that contributes to this POV -- I am intent on going through reliable sources and finding anything related to the topic of this article, and including it in the article in a neutral tone, with citations and attribution. I have not suggested that "anyone's fringe view" be included. In order to show that something is "fringe", you don't just get to label it as such. You have to demonstrate this with reliable sources making a contradictory claim.
 * ignoring the importance of due process as the only form of balance in the matter. -- That's your opinion. The opinion of the Wikipedia community is that the way we balance things out is by finding out what the reliable sources have to say on the matter, presenting them in a neutral tone, giving them due weight, and attributing statements of opinion. What you are calling "due process", should be mentioned wherever reliable sources mention it, along with what reliable sources have to say that falls outside of this "due process". --Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to expand on my previous comment in response to the RfC. Coming into this cold, what struck me was what a potential POV pit this article could be, and how strangely it seems to be selecting alleged "war crimes." There is no mention made of the recently revealed killings of civilians in Korea, the Massacre at Wounded Knee, other crimes against Indians, or crimes against prisoners of war on both sides during the Civil War. These are the most glaring and historically accepted instances of U.S. war crimes that come immediately to mind. Instead we have an overweighting of World War II, with the Dachau Massacre and some scholar's wacky view that U.S. actions in Germany after the war constituted a war crime. While there is a mention of the a-bombings in World War II, without perspective on why it was necessary, there is no mention made of the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. My personal view is that these were not war crimes, but there are allegations of same that need to be given mention. Both sides of the story need to be given in every instance. For example, it needs to be explained that not bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have resulted in even more deadly invasions of mainland Japan. In general this is an unbalanced, selective, incomplete and POV article. Figureofnine (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not separate While the article should clearly state the outcomes of each allegation of war crimes, there is no reason to group them by outcomes.  I agree that there is POV in the article but that is not the way to address it.  For example, the Yugoslavia section states that Amnesty International claimed that the U. S. committed war crimes in Yugoslavia.  However it does not state whether this is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view.  Unless it is a consensus view, other mainstream views should also be presented.  If it is a consensus view, there may be mitigating circumstances that should be reported.  BTW the phrasing of the RfC question is confusing.  It should state the difference between "judicial" and "non-judicial".  TFD (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of frivolous allegations used for politics
From one of the cited sources in the article, der spiegel summarized its accusations against Donald Rumsfeld as follows-

And damning documents show torture was condoned by the top levels of the US administration.

''A Dec. 2, 2002 memorandum sanctions interrogation techniques including subjecting prisoners to so-called "stress positions" such as forcing them to stand for hours, placing them in solitary confinement for up to 30 days, forcibly undressing them and taking advantage of their "individual phobias" such as their fear of dogs. The memorandum was revoked after a few months, due to legal concerns, and was followed by new memoranda. Then the picture of the US soldier Lynndie England holding a dog's leash around the neck of a prisoner lying on the floor hit the world's media.''

Not sure that any of those are actual war crimes, but even if they are it is clear after review they reflected on their own policies and rescinded their own orders.

and adds this-

Michael Ratner, Kaleck's client from the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, believes that if Germany does nothing again this time, then it will look as if the US can get away with anything. Ratner, who is himself a lawyer, has decided to press charges in Germany because he believes the Germans will refuse to let themselves be "pushed around" by the United States. 

Can you explain how this is not pushing political views through frivolous accusations? More toward an ignored point, do you think the German POW's that were unceremoniously gunned down in cold blood during WW2 would like to see their deaths reported to the world in the same light as a guy who had the horror of being photographed with a female holding a dog leash around his neck? This is the inherent problem of seeing allegations from anyone who feels something can be called a war crime on the same page as actions officially determined as such. They all become a joke, something to not be taken seriously at all, which should be said of anyone who declares being made to pose for a photograph, with a dog leash on your neck held by a female-only degrading to you because your country and culture abuses and neglects dogs to starve to death in the streets,Dogs are unclean and treats women not much better-to punish them for raping 15 year old boys and starting riots-Washington Post constitutes a war crime. Batvette (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Murder and assault are both crimes. TFD (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly Orwellian how this article's title and standards were quickly changed over the weekend, perhaps even in the dark of night. Once it's been changed, the real definition of a war crime doesn't matter anymore.
 * It doesn't matter that there's no chance that Michael Ratner really cares about war crimes. The article is now about accusations, not reality.  And the reality is, the extremists make a lot of accusations.  We can't pick and choose which charges we include, and which ones we don't.
 * The funny thing is, I was the one who added the part about Ratner's case being thrown out. Without it, I suspect the charge would have stood alone as "evidence" of "war crimes" for a long time.  It might have been better to leave it that way as a subtle signal to readers.
 * The article's focus shouldn't have been changed. Now that it's open to any extremist with any frivolous charge, we're better off letting them all in.
 * And TFD, there's a difference between a crime and a war crime. The people who wrote the Geneva Conventions understood what war is about, and they truly sought to end war crimes, not to encourage them.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Geneva conventions consider violence to person, cruel treatment, outrages upon dersonal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment to be crimes. So is detaining people without providing them with either the rights of prisoners of war or the rights of criminal suspects.  BTW what is your definition of "extremist"?  It seems to differ from how the term is commonly understood.  TFD (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD -- Randy2063 has a serious problem understanding the concept of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR. Please don't egg him on.


 * Yes, TFD, those things are against the Geneva Conventions, but only "grave breaches" are war crimes. It does not include mere "outrages to personal dignity."
 * No, there's nothing wrong with detaining people who aren't technically POWs. The GCs themselves do allow for detaining people without providing them with either the rights of prisoners of war or the rights of criminal suspects.  Even if this was a war where the entire Geneva Conventions were thought to apply, the 4thGC only asks that the rights of security detainees be restored "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power..."
 * There's more, of course, but that's the gist.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063, as I've told you at least half a dozen times, Wikipedia is not a forum. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not the place to argue about your own political opinions and original research. Please stop wasting everyone's time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If people are trying to expand the definition of a war crime then it's important to point out Reliable Sources that say what it is.
 * That's okay, though. I'm heading out until I figure out how to approach an article with a radically altered basis.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jrtayloriv, there are many ways people use and abuse wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their POV. One, as you seem intent on everyone seeing Randy2063 is "guilty" of, is editors discussing articles on talk pages and how their POV interprets the issues within. Another is users steadfastly declaring they are the bastion of ensuring NPOV, hiding behind wikispeak rather than discuss legitimate problems with articles they've edited, and filling those articles with content that clearly only represents their POV.
 * In your case, after reviewing many of the edits you were adding content to the article in back in 2009, which can only be called sensationalist and irresponsible- such as this-
 * In November 2005, a squad of U.S. Marines in Haditha shot more than two dozen civilians, who did nothing to provoke the attacks. This event is commonly called the Haditha Massacre.
 * Which, while I actually agree was a war crime, misrepresents the event by failing to note a squad member had just been killed by an IED that ripped his vehicle in half and IEDs are often remotely triggered by line of sight-(thus the Marines, while violating ROE in shooting unarmed civilians, cannot be said to have not been provoked or not feel they were in danger) shows you are quite obviously here to push your POV, selectively presenting information from sources that meet wiki standards yet by the time they reach the page they show only part of the story.
 * I'm inclined to comment Randy's tactics at least display candid honesty and a willingness to work with other editors before altering the content of the article, hashing it out on the talk page first.
 * The rule at wikipedia is this- "never, ever, ever allow your edits to be influenced by POV unless absolutely necessary- which is all of the time- then say they aren't" Joke. Lighten up, though, you aren't fooling anyone, we all have POV here or we wouldn't waste our time on subjects we had no interest in.
 * Batvette (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We should restrict sources to those that discuss whether events like this were war crimes. Otherwise the article is merely original research promoting a political point of view.  I notice in the article too there does not seem to be any distinction between alleged war crimes committed by the U. S. government and war crimes committed by individuals.  The issue of how the U. S. armed forces have treated war crimes, whether they have been quick or hesitant, should be explained.  TFD (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with you on all points. If the sources are not alleging that certain acts constituted "war crimes", "crimes of war", "violations of the laws of war", etc. -- then they should not be included per WP:OR. If we are properly following content guidelines, I think this will require us to describe the reaction of the U.S. government. I also agree, that it should always be clear exactly who is being charged with a war crime. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do see that my wording, more than a year ago, regarding the Haditha massacre was inappropriate (not only that, but I didn't provide reliable sources claiming that it was a war crime, which constitutes original research on my part). I am aware that I have made POV comments in the past on this talk page (and others) in the past, and have improperly added information to the article. In fact, a year ago a large portion of my edits were unbalanced and inappropriate, and I regularly came on talk pages to argue with Randy and others about my own personal point of view. The key difference between myself and Randy2063 is that, in the year that has passed since then, I have stopped using talk pages primarily as a platform to argue my POV, have started gathering reliable sources that back the information I am including, and now focus primarily on policy-related discussions instead of debating politics with people -- Randy has not. I have learned from my mistakes (with the help of other editors who pointed them out to me). Randy2063 has not. He has not shown any sign of improvement in any of the abovementioned areas. Randy2063 consistently gets into lengthy debates with people about "baby-killing extremists". He suggests no improvements, and does not back his claims with reliable sources. I don't see anything hypocritical or contradictory about myself pointing this out to him, regardless of the fact that I have done so in the past. I've learned as I've gained more experience as an editor, and he should as well.
 * I'm inclined to comment Randy's tactics at least display candid honesty and a willingness to work with other editors -- I'm inclined to comment that they don't. He has contributed nothing to the article, and has instead spent all of his time here on the talk page in lengthy historical/political debates with other editors.
 * Another is users steadfastly declaring they are the bastion of ensuring NPOV, hiding behind wikispeak -- Neither I, nor anyone else, has done this. As I said above, I have not "declared I am a bastion of NPOV". What I have done is pointed out that Randy2063 does absolutely nothing but argue with other editors about his own POV and refuses to provide suggestions for improvement, or to find reliable sources to back his claims. This is a waste of time, and prevents the article from being improved, and is a violation of Wikipedia talk page guidelines. You can call this "hiding behind Wikispeak", but it's the way Wikipedia works. It was wrong when I used to do it, and it's wrong when Randy2063 does it now. He needs to stop.
 * rather than discuss legitimate problems with articles they've edited, and filling those articles with content that clearly only represents their POV. -- Actually, I've discussed several legitimate problems with the article, including the section structure, the title, and original research issues. I've remedied this by adding information and reliable sources to the article, removing original research, restructuring the article to deal with violations of WP:STRUCTURE, and have filed an RfC to promote collaboration and article improvement instead of getting sucked into another lengthy argument with Randy2063. If you feel that the information I am including is somehow imbalanced, that's fine -- go ahead and provide reliable sources which discuss war crimes and the United States, which you feel balance out the article.
 * we all have POV here or we wouldn't waste our time on subjects we had no interest in. -- And nowhere did I claim that I don't have a POV, or that my edits to the encyclopedia often reflect it. I try to minimize the effect my POV has on my editing, but I'm sure it comes through anyway. But that's not what I'm talking about with Randy2063. I'm not trying to suggest that he shouldn't have a POV. I'm suggesting that he stop coming onto talk pages, and in violation of talk page guidelines, get into lengthy political debates with people, trying to convince them that his POV is "correct". All I am asking is that he stops the political debates, stops doing original research, and starts suggesting improvements to the article, backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a mature and constructive reply to my concerns and to someone's credit the "sensationalist and irresponsible" content isn't in the article anyway at the moment- but perhaps that is due to Randy's continued presence to counter it, though other editors have been involved on both sides.
 * Even though I highly frown on editors looking at other editor's user pages to glean talking points in an argument it still provides a tool of insight on that person's position, and yours does undeniably suggest what I stated, i,e; a so called "bastion of NPOV". I won't beleaguer the point or single you out for it however as this remains a major fault at wikipedia, the absurdity anyone would spend significant amounts of their time in these tug of wars over slants in content presentation if they didn't have ideological motivations.(noting you have a commendable record of contributions, and I'm not trying to be a dick here)
 * Reviewing Randy's side of the exchanges reveals you do have a point that he is willing to discuss issues more than the wiki standards, but it usually started with an issue that appeared in the article so he's not wholly irrelevant-ignoring his frequent metaphors and addressing the underlying points can only make you look better.
 * Now toward the article, there's going to be inherent problems with NPOV if we pursue the idea that any content which:
 * (1)raises the issue of the US and war crimes
 * and
 * (2)is from a reliable source
 * should be included, simply because it is not newsworthy for media to run content stating "today in Iraq, no war crimes were committed" or even publicly note that charges were dropped if unwarranted in the allegations previously made. So opening the scope of the article beyond events that were given SOME form of due process only seeks to present a POV of the US military's activities in a negative light. The media has little interest in presenting NPOV in this matter, and typically reports in a sensationalized manner. Encyclopedias however have more responsibility in their content and that's why simply finding stuff sourced in media, compiling that and that's the only standard to adhere to is problematic. This as I see it is the issue that needs resolving or there will be continued editing conflicts. Batvette (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Geneva conventions consider violence to person, cruel treatment, outrages upon dersonal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment to be crimes.
 * Geneva, interpreted literally by wording, cannot take into account that the reason the Iraqi in the photo feels degraded is because of his own culture's deplorable treatment of dogs and women which are many degrees lower on the scale of humanity than his own degradation as depicted.
 * (it might be noted that the very reason these photos were taken in most instances was to exploit their cultural peculiarities and avoid us having to commit war crimes to punish the detainees for raping minors, throwing rocks at guards and starting riots- as the WaPo source confirms- though I can also find sources that claim the soldiers were bored and did it for fun. The latter explanation sells more copy, and perhaps explains why Sy Hersh mysteriously abandoned his early pursuit of the "copper green" angle)Batvette (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We avoid POV by basing the article on high quality sources (peer-reviewed articles and books from academic publishers) rather than the media. I notice that there is no mention in the article of the Lieber Code 1863 that codified war crimes for the U. S. armed forces, nor any mention of  Henry Wirz, who was tried in 1865 for war crimes, a trial which became a model for the Nuremburg trials.  Both of these btw show the U. S. government in a favorable light.  TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When editors complain about events of 145 years ago being controversial, your assessment would be accurate and relevant. Please do not assume I cannot go look at the article as Jrtayloriv is adding to it and note that virtually every reference used in the sections sure to cause controversy, notably the war on terror section, is in fact a "media" piece, not academia or peer reviewed. Many are even from sources with obvious political bias.
 * I'm not stupid, please don't assume I am.Batvette (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you were. TFD (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps a demonstration of NPOV by questioning why the recently added material is not up to the standards you described?Batvette (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The new section is poorly sourced and POV. TFD (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added in Michael Ignatieff's defense of the Bush administration (published by the Princeton University Press) for balance. Ignatieff has said that Bush has done more to promote freedom in the world than any other U.S. president.  TFD (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Please.
The inclusion of this is absurd, as the "review" court in Japan had no jurisprudence granted by anyone to give it the ability to prosecute war crimes. It is the opinion of a judiciary and nothing more. As for the argument raised it qualifies due to the number of civilians killed, or that there was insufficient tactical or strategic benefit, that is wholly subjective and can be called fringe view. Certainly there was a reason to drop the bombs, with obvious benefit. It is completely lacking historical perspective to call it a war crime because of the numbers killed, war crimes of the time were considered unnecessary or senseless killings, as can be seen prolifically here: Japanese_war_crimes upon review of that contextual information it is hard to see why one does not understand why such an overwhelming display was necessary. Batvette (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * really?and the future nuclear bombs in ny is a crime?the 11 of september of 2001 not is a crime, because is only a resistence islamic angainst the american imperialism too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.182 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you couldn't provide evidence of any entity with the authority to do so finding the US guilty of a war crime, and instead only argued hypotheticals, I'm deleting the entire issue from the article. The judiciary cited had no authority granted to make such a determination as to its legality. The issue belongs on its own page, which does exist. Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_NagasakiBatvette (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of jurisdiction does not bar a Court (or any quasi-judicial body) from issuing a finding on any legal issue. Courts do this on a regular basis. We usually refer to such decisions as "obiter dicta".
 * While obiter dicta are not binding, they can be persuasive. For instance, the US Supreme Court can, and has, issue obiter dicta regarding legal issues that, strictly speaking, fall within the jurisdiction of State judiciaries. Indeed, much of the progress of the civil rights movement in America's South during the 1950s and 1960s was the result of obiter dicta issued by the US Supreme Court regarding legal issues they had no jurisdiction over. As such, obiter dicta are considered legally authoritative.
 * I see no reason why any Court - especially a high-level national Court that routinely addresses issues of Constitutional law - cannot address issues of international law, including War Crimes. BlueRobe (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)