Talk:United States war crimes/Archive 3

Mutilation of the dead, a war crime?
I recently reintroduced the section about mutilation of the dead which had been removed with the edit reasoning that it wasn't a war crime. According to the ICRC, it is specifically a war crime. Here is what I beleive is a reliable source on the subject. http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule113 "The prohibition of mutilating dead bodies in international armed conflicts is covered by the war crime of “committing outrages upon personal dignity” under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which according to the Elements of Crimes also applies to dead persons"

The section has been removed again. I believe it should be returned unless convincing evidence, beyond personal opinion, shows that mutilating the dead is not a war crime. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every crime in a war is a war crime. It needs to be something on the order of a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions:  Geneva_Conventions.
 * For example, Lynndie England humiliated prisoners, and "humiliation" is a crime, and a serious one, but it's not a "war crime." That hasn't stopped people from calling her a "war criminal" but that's mostly because she's an easy target for the people who sometimes pretend to care about human rights.  But that doesn't change the fact that it's not a real war crime.
 * As the War crime article says, "War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct includes "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"."
 * U.S. code defines it here.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * US code isn't the final or only arbiter of what war crimes are, and wikipedia articles aren't usable references. The ICRC clearly considers it is a war crime, and they give citations why on the page which I directed you to. They don't call it a crime during war. You haven't been convincing. Please don't rely on your personal opinion about what constitutes a war crime.
 * However, it may be the case that nobody was convicted of the war crime of mutilating Japanese war dead, which might be a reason not to include the section in this article. However, having that narrow a requirement would exlude most of the article text. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't giving you those links as references. They were as a way of explanation.  Frankly, the U.S. code link I gave isn't relevant either, but that's for the same reason that your ICRC link isn't relevant:  You were referring to crimes committed during WWII.  The ICC (aside from the fact that it's a dream not ratified by the U.S.) didn't come about until fifty years after WWII.  Even the ICC recognizes that their rules are an evolution beyond what was before.  I wouldn't be surprised if the ICC calls pickpockets "war criminals" at some point in the future.
 * FWIW: If the ICC ever was ratified by the U.S., the War Crimes Act would be amended.
 * I do agree that the rules are somewhat arbitrary but that's only one of the problems with this article.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will seek other references to help clarify this. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes, the only thing that matters is that the reliable source(s) X make the claim that Y was a war crime. If this is the case, then we include "X claims that Y was a war crime" (etc.) ... nothing too compllicated here. Some people want to make a definition that will only include the things that they want people to see, and then use this definition as a basis for excluding from the article actions that many sources claim are war crimes. However, these people don't understand how Wikipedia works. We include things based on what reliable sources say, rather than our opinions about whether or not they fall under some definition that a Wikipedia editor has selected. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of War Crime required
It would appear that the pro-War Crime editors are removing data on the grounds that Event X "isn't a war crime". A brief definition of War Crime may be required in the article to give context, particularly for the benefit of this group.

Examples: A recent edit that read "On March 12th, 2011 an American soldier allegedly killed 16 civilians in Panjwai, Afghanistan. This matter is still being investigated" was deleted on the grounds of not being a war crime; likewise, the mutilation of corpses has been removed with a similar excuse.

In law a War Crime does not require concerted planning by several tiers a of military/political system to be defined as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.31.136 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced and Incomplete
I added the unbalanced and incomplete tags because this article seems to exclude many actions that are considered by many to be war crimes, such as Hiroshima and the Dresden Fire Bombings. Adding these to the article and referencing differing opinions on their status as war crimes will make it less unbalanced. InverseHypercube (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that "unbalanced" is correct just because the article is incomplete. An unbalanced article might include a complete list of events, but not provide the proper weight to various viewpoints.  TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that unbalanced does apply, since the tag says "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints". Sure, this applies to any article, and especially to unfinished articles like this one. However, the fact that Hiroshima, for example, is not included, suggests a very strong bias. Inverse Hypercube  00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hiroshima argument is an old one. The debate centers around what a reliable source for identifying a crime is and whether or not this article's scope should include all accusations of war crimes regardless of the presence of a judicial review or conviction. I wouldn't consider it to be an issue of bias, more a disagreement of scope. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obviously a controversial issue, but it has been recognized by many as a war crime. I think this is a case of "bias by omission". It should be added, identifying the different arguments over its status as a war crime. I don't think it can be considered unbiased until this glaring omissions (as well as the Dresden Fire Bombings, etc.) are added. Inverse Hypercube  01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion can be found in archive and I think will answer some of your concerns, esp on Dresden (the Brits hit the town, not the Americans). The short version is that this article includes actual crimes as defined by judicial authorities, not the popular or general academic perception of misjustice in combat environments. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the Brits hit the town, not the Americans could be a funny neglect ;-)--WerWil (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is unbalanced if compared to the article "soviet war crimes", where a more direct language is used. The language in this article is in oposite burocratic and indirect. MarceloRE (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To be "recognized by many" is not a valid criteria -- especially when we might have questions about the moral integrity of those "many".
 * Many people believe abortion is a crime, and yet we don't list abortionists as murderers in Wikipedia on the whim that "many people" would like to pretend it's a crime as a matter of law. There are other wikis for that on the internet.
 * Likewise, an act needs to be against the laws of war for something to be a war crime -- and even then there are lawful exceptions. The laws of war need to be ratified by treaty.  As with the anti-abortion crowd, the internet has other wikis that could make up the rules as they like.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will focus on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings for now. I feel Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II handles it quite well. There was a judicial review on the subject (not by an international organization, but still) that found it was a war crime. The fact that it occurred before much of the legal infrastructure for war crimes does not exempt it from being one. I don't think that we, as editors, should omit it from the article simply because it has not been recognized as such by everyone. It needs to be presented neutrally, with the arguments for it being a war crime and the arguments against. Moreover, the International Crime Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia includes the following criteria for war crimes:
 * Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity (this one may be arguable)
 * Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
 * Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
 * All of these were violated by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Inverse Hypercube  23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nuclear bombings in effect, were attacks on the Japanese mainland with Bombs and are simply larger in size and power than the regular incendiary bombs used that that time for the same reason. In that matter to call the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes would be the same as calling the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime. Also any the said trial being a case by the Japanese government which at that time was not a neutral party
 * Nagasaki in some sense a city whose main reason of existence is (arguably)to man a major military port where multiple imperial battleships and aircraft carriers were repaired is in such matter a military base and target

Hiroshima is even more so a military target due to the fact that the 2nd imperial army and Chinese regional army both had their primary headquarters in the city thus being a large and very valuable target thus rendering the 1rst reason void.
 * Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima had A6M Zero Fighters Stationed nearby and simply did not move to intercept due to protocols considering fuel shortages, which stated only large bombing forces were to be attacked (at that time both radars had detected the bombers and simply thought they were recon craft due to the small number of bombers at the time) which renders the 2nd article void
 * All religious items at the time were state-owned and utilized as effectively propaganda tools to indoctrinate the Japanese to the sovereignty of the emperor and government and ease conscription and recruitment especially into the Kamikaze suicide bombing force. All charity was at the time devoted to the military. Historic monuments were used as other propaganda tools with same reason as religious items. All arts and sciences created at the time by the japanese were either immoral (bio weaponry) or copies of other foreign designs. thus rendering the 3rd argument void
 * The Allied War Crimes article doesn't say much other than that: 1) a Japanese jury found that they didn't like Japanese cities being attacked; and 2) the ICRC says, "there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property."
 * It's not a "wanton attack", nor is it "undefended," if it's a legitimate military target. Both of those cities had very important military facilities.
 * The damage to "institutions dedicated to religion," etc., can't be considered "wilful" if those institutions were not the reason for the city being targeted. For example, they're not normally allowed to attack a school, but it becomes perfectly legal if the enemy puts an anti-aircraft battery on it.
 * One thing to remember is that the laws of war were written by governments with the advice of their generals. They wanted to reduce the suffering of noncombatants, but they weren't going to make wars unwinnable.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: The ICTY was formed in 1993.  They probably ruled on the basis of the 1949 GCs, or perhaps the Protocols that came later.  It can't be applied to 1945.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs first to have a lead, and while the Japanese bombing section may be good, the article itself is not. We need to look at the article overall, not just write sections.  TFD (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The statements from InverseHypercube are absolutely hilarious. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military justification?  Yeah, sure thing, you military scholar you.  Moreover, Kyoto was not bombed by the allies for the sole reason that a great number of religious or cultural sites would be destroyed.  There is a reason the phrase "wilful damage" is included in regards to religious and cultural institutions.  If one were bombing a ball-bearing factory and a church accidentally got hit, it would hardly qualify as a war crime, though you wouldn't know that by reading InverseHypercube's asinine comments.  Furthermore, given the fact that much of Japan's war industry was so spread out in the various cities and the fact a very large portion of the Japanese population was involved in the manufacture of goods necessary for the continuation of the war, a far better case can be made that the bombings are not war crimes.  But those incovenient facts are generally forgotten by those who like to climb on their anti-American hobby horses.  This entry should be a discussion of actual war crimes, not a debate over what some people want to call a war crime.  And speaking of unencyclopedic nonsense, the following sentence, taken from the entry is absurd: "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act[38] and by abolishing habeas corpus, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them."   Exactly "who" sees the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as an amnesty for crimes committed in the War on Terror?  Making such a statement, as if it is fact, rather than opinion, is one of the reasons this article is such a joke.  It seems as if the authors of this entry were in a rush to cobble together anything they could, regardless of the resultant article quality, as long as it reflected poorly upon the United States.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An extremely large portion of this article is devoted to "party X thinks what Y did is a war crime" or "organization Z claims the US has committed War crimes although no one has been ever charged or tried". The article should be based upon crimes that were actually verified and then prosecuted rather than a bunch of biased garbage spouted by agenda-driven organizations.  That some obscure, fringe lawyer in Spain, or Germany, is thinking of filing a complaint against the US in a country with bogus "universal jurisdiction" has no place in an article entitled "US war crimes."  Some of the nonsense contained in this entry would be the equivalent of filling an article on Bill Clinton full of quotes from people who claim he ran drugs out of Arkansas and killed Vince Foster and the entry on George Bush with nonsense about how various random individuals believe he is behind 9/11.  Random speculation out of which has come nothing should not be the basis for half of a supposedly encyclopedic entry. This entry is easily one of the worst on the entire site and man is that saying a whole hell of a lot.  No wonder 99.9% of college professors won't let their students cite Wikipedia as a legitimate source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer you not take such a vicious tone, let's have a civil discussion.


 * First of all, I never said the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military justification; don't put words into my mouth. Nearly all war crimes do, perhaps with the exemption of events such as the My Lai Massacre. There is no definitive definition of war crime, so your comment of "This entry should be a discussion of actual war crimes, not a debate over what some people want to call a war crime" is hardly relevant. An encyclopedia, at least an unbiased one, should strive to present all major viewpoints on a subject. In fact, WP:NPOV states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In the case of determining whether or not the bombings Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, this would mean finding reliable sources (of which there are many) that question whether or not they were. The definition of "war crime" is not limited to those that are prosecuted; you would not disagree, I suppose, that a murder is a murder regardless of whether it was prosecuted? This is the same concept: a war crime is a war crime to those who think it is classifies as one.


 * I was thinking that having two separate sections, one for prosecuted war crimes and one for alleged war crimes, might be the best solution. What do you all think? Inverse Hypercube  01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most war crimes have military justification" - what? The worst war crime of all - Nazi Germany's genocide against Jews, "Gypsies," various portions of Slavic populations - what possible military justification did this have?  Do you have a single RS that states so? Also, the argument of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a very, very tired one - while a RS minority view can be cited, please note that that's exactly what it is, a revisionist minority view. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * The definition includes "not justified by military necessity". TFD (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not immediate military justification, but it was justified by the Nazis as a way to strengthen Germany. Let's also not forget that the Holocaust was not wholly a war crime, since the persecution and genocide of German citizens was domestic, and therefore not a war crime (see German_war_crimes). How is the view that the bombings were a war crime a "revisionist minority view"? First of all, it is not revisionist, as it does not dispute the established facts about what happened, rather interprets their consequences differently than the view that the bombings were not a war crime. Whether or not it is a minority view I don't know; it certainly depends on whom you ask. I'm sure that Japanese scholars, officials, and public have a different opinion than that of some Americans. Inverse Hypercube  20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even among the countries formerly comprising the Allies, the idea that the consideration of the bombings is a minority view is dubious. Robert Fisk, on the front page of The Independent, said that "[o]n the surface, it's all very simple. Most of us seem to believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime." Whether by "most of us" he means Britons, public intellectuals, the general public, or journalists, the view is certainly not a minority one.  Inverse Hypercube  20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Robert Fisk injects a pointed political paradigm into all his work, op eds and his most well known work, The Great War for Civilization, especially. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Robert Fisk can't be relied on for anything aside from the production of anti-Israel and anti-US screeds. The idea that using two very powerful bombs to end a war is a war crime may not be a minority view (though I suspect it is), but it's certainly dubious. BWP1234 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry was the right section after all. Will be removing the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki section. The simple fact is No nation, UN, or governing body has ever declared it a War Crime. No prosecution has taken place and no one is wanted for it. It does not belong in the list. I have read the talk page and while the arguments are good they still only equate to opinions68.94.215.38 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am adding this section back, because this is on Wikipedia itself. Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ): "It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law".[76][77] Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing: Sorry poster, but your view is unsubstantiated. There is no mention of Hiroshima in this article, which belittles the fact that it happened and that there is serious academic and intellectual disagreement on the legality of their usage, including by American generals of said era. 202.232.200.82 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I'm Recommending for removal from the list Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as No nation, UN, or governing body has ever declared it a War Crime. No prosecution has taken place and no one is wanted for it. Its addition to the list is based on an opinion and not on historic facts. 68.94.199.19 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

An IP keeps removing this section, saying, "again removing, No nation, UN, or governing body has ever declared it a War Crime. No prosecution has taken place and no one is wanted for it." The article does not in fact say it was a war crime but says that there is a noteworthy opinion that it was. It should therefore be kept. TFD (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinions are not verifiable facts. Title of list is written as if everything on it is a fact. As such an event that has never been declared a war crime by Government, UN body or Governing group. Does not belong there. I know a few want to make this a complicated issue and it is not.68.94.202.75 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Moot argument. The article doesn't say it was. Calabe1992 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is not a moot argument as the very title states its a war crime. Even the opening line is stating it as a fact. "The armed forces of the United States of America have committed war crimes throughout their history" Adding the bombing to the list or remove the statement that no governing body has declared it to be war crime only supports one POV and opinion. This argument has been stated over and over again. All it has done is show a group of editors who will force their view over all other.68.94.199.19 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided here aren't an adequate justification for the inclusion of the atomic bombings of Japan as I, and others, have repeatedly argued in the past. This is an article about crimes, not things that are bad, or unfair, or cruel or superfluously violent. It's about crimes. Members of a district court in Japan talking out the side of their mouths after declining to use the judicial process to arrive at a decision on the legality of the bombings is not sufficient for casually cataloging the bombings as a crime, especially in an encyclopedia. The appropriate way to handle the ongoing debate here would be to link to the substantial Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article in the "See Also" section. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a war crime is just a POV held by some authors, not a fact as presented in this article. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not presented in the article as a fact. TFD (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. --Nug (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please quote a passage from the section that says it is a fact. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of this section in this article makes it a statement of fact. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? TFD (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the article is titled United States war crimes, not Alleged United States war crimes. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The confusion and discontent concerning the scope of this article and (what some, including myself) consider to be the inappropriate inclusion of events not even adjudicated, much less found to be criminal by legitimate judicialal proceeeding, in an article on war crimes, has been discussed extensively over the years. Unfortunately no real consensus or conclusion was reached as the endless back and forth simply worn out those concerned with the article's present scope of including mere accusation and conjecture. A history can be found in the discussion archives, particularly here and here. I'd recommend anyone coming upon this topic now to review the archives. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think an WP:RfC is in order. Agreed? Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is very flawed to only include war crimes that were prosecuted. Torture under the Bush administration was not prosecuted either, even though it was a blatant violation of international law. Japanese human experimentation during WWII went largely unprosecuted (do you want that to be removed from Japanese war crimes as well? Didn't think so.).


 * As the article List of war crimes says, "historians and lawyers will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators." As Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly shows, there is substantial debate about the bombings being war crimes, and thus it should be included in this article. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But mere "substantial debate" without any concrete judicial determination makes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of scope for this article. After all, the lede states "United States violations of the laws of war falling under the rubric of jus in bello are discussed in the present article;", and there has been no definitive determination that these bombings were illegal, let alone criminal. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to assert that the bombings were notable as incidents in themselves, then the relevant guideline is WP:CRIMINAL. They do not meet that guideline. Meeting WP:GNG is not necessarily enough (it only leads to "presumed accountability" and, particularly when WP:BLP1E is involved. They are discussed in reliable sources because of the criminal nature of the atomic attacks, for the trial that never occurred, and for the media attention associated with that crime. But the crime does not meet the restrictions we have to protect living people. Quoting from the guideline, "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Coverage of this event lasted well beyond the actual event. It's still being discussed, it's not some sort of landmark court case, it hasn't altered the face of either nuclear or the anti-nuclear movement. I'm willing to accept the inclusion of the section if it is rewritten to be about the event, although I'm on the borderline to thinking it should be merged somewhere else, and would consider that result acceptable. I am not willing to violate WP:BLP by keeping this an article about the bombings, because it is basically branding them as important only because of a crime they committed. That's real harm, to the memories of the pilots, and WP:BLP exists to prevent that. Sonarclawz (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason that these are in here is quite simple: because reliable sources claim that they are war crimes committed by the United States. Stating that a source made a claim is not the same as stating that the claim is a fact. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But stating that a claim is a fact without citing a source is not done. This constitutes original research and if we're going to allow that in here, its going to turn into a rocking party. In any case, does it turn into a war crime just because someone said it is? Aren't there procedures that are being overlooked?Sonarclawz (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."  Because their is a significant opinion that the bombings were war crimes, that must be mentioned.  It is sourced and is not ORTFD (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a issue of scope, not real estate. WEIGHT doesn't address the problem because WEIGHT presumes the material in question fits the scope of the article. Something that is not a crime, has never been duly declared a crime by any judicial authority and is not even pending to be reviewed as a crime does not fit into the scope of a page about crimes. It's very inclusion is biased and inappropriate. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Books on war crimes typically do not restrict themselves to cases where convictions have been secured. For example, War Crimes: Confronting Atrocity in the Modern World discusses the bombings of Germany and Japan.  The author, David Chuter, was asked to write the book by his employer, HM Ministry of Defence.  TFD (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already made clear, I'm aware that reliable sources often posit that unadjudicated events are war crimes. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Question - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] I agree that an event could be included in this article even if there were never any trials or convictions, provided that reliable sources (preferably scholarly) discuss the event in relation to war crimes.   Per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGE, can some editors who support inclusion of the H & N bombings please supply a few quotes here from reliable sources which explicitly connect bombings to war crimes (e.g. discuss whether or not the bombings were war crimes).  Per WP:SECONDARY, the sources should be scholarly or journalistic analysis & commentary, not primary sources such as the Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State case itself.   I realize that some sources are out there, but specific quotes are needed to make a   decision on this RfC.   After seeing the quotes, I'll supply my own opinion on whether the bombings should be in this article or not. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Noleander The decision should be based on what is said in the most reliable sources. The sources need to clearly state that an event is generally regarded as a war crime to justify inclusion here.  Show us the quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A google books search will turn up plenty of examples ... here are a couple that I found in about 2 minutes of searching:
 * "The atomic bombings were objectively illegal, a war crime, because ..."
 * "In Japan there exists a consensus, both scholarly and popular, that the atomic bombings were a war crime. ..."
 * -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor responding the RfC...


 * I have often wondered if any act of war could not be considered-- by some-- as a crime? The atomic bombings were clearly acts of war-- but not clearly war crimes.  To define it is a war crime, we will need something of a generally accepted and historical standard.  Crimes are legislated (or otherwise State-defined) morality, are they not?


 * So, perhaps the issue could be presented in such a light as to to examine the differing societal accepted standards of what constitutes a crime. Otherwise, the debate will remain that of the personal ideologies of the editors.-- cregil   (talk)  04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * War crimes are defined in legislation just as other crimes are. TFD (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course-- mine was a rhetorical question-- intended to focus on the defining matter of differing social and cultural moralities and the attempts at global acceptance of any one morality-- which has changed several times since the end of WWII.


 * The current article is anecdotal in claims of certain acts of war being "crimes" and I am not sure how to it is possible to distinguish the difference between true moral outrage of a breach of internationally accepted criminal acts of war and ideological (often political) posturing; other then I have suggested. -- cregil   (talk)  15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * War crimes are actions that would be considered criminal during peacetime and cannot be justified by a state of war. There is no ideological dispute on this.  Killing civilians in other countries other than as part of the pursuit of war is illegal.  Note that soldiers who commit crimes (e.g., rape, murder, robbery) during war are routinely prosecuted.  The only possible ideological dispute is over whether the bombings were legal as part of the war.  Note also that while there are international signed conventions on war crimes, the signatories incorporate them into their civil and military criminal codes.  TFD (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE there is an ideological dispute! That is the cause for the RfC.

What I am trying to suggest is discussing this in a neutral way can be accomplished by acknowledging the differences in ideologies, and cultures, and societies-- what is a crime to one is simply acts of war to another-- even the same cultures have different point of views based upon when the view is held; as well as if they do it, or if it is done to them. The obvious example of that de-humanizing an enemy is probably always done to some extent should not be lost on us.

The matter is not one of polarization. "Dang it, it was/was not (circle one) a war crime and I'll not tolerate any other view!" is not going to fly; and is far too simple-minded for Wikipedia. The article NEEDS to live in the un-polarized grey area which exists or it will suffer (SUFFER!) from POV violations. -- cregil  (talk)  22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(Opinion from editor via RfC bot) If the argument for deletion is summarised thus: Then, these sections also need to go: None of these sections contain verification that an international court of law has judged these events war crimes. Given that the article contains many events that are not clearly judicially decided to have been war crimes, this article clearly is not just a list of war crimes that have been actually judged to be war crimes by international courts. Easy solution: -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 18:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is presented as a list of war crimes that the US has been judicially determined to have been involved in
 * 2) Thus anything where there is no judicial ruling from international courts of law should be excluded.
 * Air raids on civilian population
 * Rape
 * No Gun Ri Massacre
 * Yugoslavia
 * 1) Edit the introduction to make clear that this page is a list of alleged and judicially determined war crimes.
 * 2) Include alleged war crimes, although with due attention to WP:Fringe etc.
 * The United States does not allow its citizens to be tried before "international courts". That the determination of what constitutes a crime is a matter of ideology, culture and society is a fringe view.  TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another uninvolved editor responding the RfC... I think the section should be shorter and prefaced by a statement such as:
 * While no state or international governing body has ever declared the bombings Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime or called for their prosecution, some scholars believe it fits the definition of one. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Post-WW2 sexual offenses in liberated France (and the rest of Europe)
I thought it was pretty widely established that this happened, so why is there no mention of it? Remnant76 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With no specifics, the "Post-" part of "Post-WW2" seems to be the answer to that question. -- cregil  (talk)  14:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of deaths, reliability of sources
Wikipedia editor Prokaryote is here to promote an agenda. I am not just going to let my country get away with forgetting this, he informs us. "During the Vietnam War, the United States and major regional allies in Southeast Asia committed an interconnected series of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), thereby provoking a global religious, legal, political, and philosophical response against this wave of mass killing," he asserts in this user page. His stated goal is to rewrite Wikipedia in support of a certain political agenda.:"There was no communist aggression, either: there was French aggression that the US supported, then US aggression in invading South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos and in bombing North Vietnam," he goes so far as to assure us. His edits here are wholly inappropriate for numerous reasons, which I will elaborate on. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Woah, woah. Okay, I am very invested in this part of history. I would like to write about it where I think it ought to be written about. I don't intend to "rewrite Wikipedia." An article on American war crimes seems like a perfectly appropriate place to present standard evidence for those crimes during the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * To begin with, he writes: "During the Vietnam War, the US dropped eight million tons of bombs on Southeast Asia[40] (compared to 160,000 on Japan during the Second World War[41])."  His comparison here qualifies as original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Actually, this is standard for writers on the war. Franklin, Lewy, Shawcross in SIDESHOW, etc. all tend to compare the tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War with that during the air raids on Japan. "He apparently believes that we can draw conclusions from these two unrelated statistics." Well, maybe, but is that my main point? If necessary, I will omit comparisons of bomb tonnage that are not directly cited by my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * To continue, he accuses the US of "killing over a million civilians in Vietnam." The cited source is both dubious and fails verification:  "Around two million Vietnamese civilians were killed by all parties to the conflict (Matthew White, THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS: THE DEFINITIVE CHRONICLE OF HISTORY'S WORST 100 ATROCITIES)."  Well, estimates do vary widely in this case (as you can see on the Vietnam War article), so the statistic could be accurate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * I was trying to present the *best* estimate. The country that the deaths occurred in seems likely to have as good a handle on evidence for how many of those deaths occurred as anyone. They've had decades to research it. Are we going to accuse the US government of fabricating 9/11 statistics? But you go on to point out that my citation doesn't directly imply what I said, which I have to admit. So if I try to resubmit this kind of information, I will cite Telford Taylor's estimate of 150,000 Vietnamese civilians killed by US/allied firepower every year, or some other comparably well-grounded figure that can be fixed on the US without overlapping other causes (i.e. communist violence). I do have a word on some numbers I will expressly *not* cite, namely those reported below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * Population and Development Review estimated that fewer than 1 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed by all sides (Charles Hirschman et al., "Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate," Population and Development Review, December 1995), but the communist government claimed that 4 million civilians died.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Back in 1995, the Vietnamese government put out statistics, reported by Agence France Presse, that some guy rjsmith copied on to his website inaccurately translated in part as "2 million civilians in the northern part of the country and 2 million in the south." The translation was supposed to be "2 million in the north and south." This makes sense: even shortly after the war, when sheer propaganda might've motivated the Vietnamese communists to incredible allegations, they only claimed at most "hundreds of thousands" of northern civilians killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * In any case, the book in question doesn't qualify as a very important or notable source, no page number or publisher is provided, and one cannot just assume that because 2 million died, probably around 1 million were killed by US bombing. Again, original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Matthew White is a major online source for war/atrocity-related death tolls. His book, this book cited, was displayed prominently in the history section at a local Barnes and Noble. Although my use of this source was invalid, the source itself is more than sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * He then asserts that US bombing killed "hundreds of thousands in Laos." The sources cited are actually credible, but again fail verification.  "350,000 Laotians may have died from all causes during the war," does not mean "virtually all of them are victims of American war crimes."  350,000 is far and away the highest estimate for the Laotian civil war, and 50,000 is the most common.  The Vietnam War article on Wikipedia states that "20,000–200,000 Laotians" died in the conflict, based on a wide range of sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * If someone wants to dispute my figures on Laos, they may very well rewrite them (ranging from 50,000 to *500,000*, to note, not just 350,000). Christopher Hitchens cites the 350,000 figure in his work, and I see no reason to regard a figure of 50,000 as plausible. We're talking about a country where people ended up living in caves to survive the constant bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * He concludes by claiming that "from 50,000 to 800,000" were killed by the US in Cambodia. Here, he actually provides a range of estimates.  Both of his sources are bare URLs, however, which again demonstrates his propensity to sourcing errors.  The 50,000 estimate comes from Ben Kiernan, a renowned expert on Cambodia.  The latter is an unsupported guess as to the highest possible total from R.J. Rummel's self-published website, based in part on communist sources, and it is not Rummel's actual estimate.  With regard to such figures, Rummel has written:  "That I use biased or ideological sources, as of communist publications on American atrocities in Vietnam or official Iraq statistics for the death toll among Kurds during the civil war, is part of my attempt to get at the lowest or highest democide or war-dead estimates. There are therefore many items in my references that no self-respecting scholar would list normally. I include them because I use their estimates and not because I believe them objective or of high quality.  Moreover, the omission of a particular work from the references does not mean that I have not used it. I have consulted, read, or studied for this work many times more publications than the references list here."  Of the three, Cambodia is the country about which I am most knowledgeable.  There's no way that such a death toll is remotely possible, for several reasons.  The main reason is this:  Cambodia is a very small country, and there have been MASSIVE amounts of demographic studies on Cambodia in the seventies.  Scholars like Patrick Heuveline, Marek Sliwinski, Judith Banister and Paige Johnson have universally settled on a figure of around 200-300,000 deaths in the Cambodian civil war; Johnson and Banister called 275,000 "the highest mortality we can justify."  As for the bombing, Sliwinski puts the toll at 40,000.  This is comparable to Kiernan's estimate, but it is notable that both estimates are counting civilians and combatants.  The Documentation Center of Cambodia has found two mass graves with bombing victims and 20,000 filled with people executed by the Khmer Rouge; try to find a memoir about Cambodia in the seventies that mentions the death of a relative due to American bombing.  That the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1970 at the request of the Khmer Rouge following negotiations with Nuon Chea, according to the Soviet archives (see Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004, p54ff), also raises questions about how he can believe that "there was no communist aggression," but then I doubt that the North Vietnamese invasion of Laos shook him either--nor do the grisly massacres of tens of thousands of civilians by the Vietcong keep him up at night. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)
 * We're not editing an article on communist war crimes, we're editing one on AMERICAN ones. Sheesh! But I'll be the first (or second in this case) to admit that even the Vietnamese communist movement murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I'm just not double-standard-ridden enough to deny the same about my own government, especially when it's perfectly clear what happened. In the Pentagon Papers it reads at one point, "Essentially, we are fighting Vietnam's birth rate." What else does that *mean*?


 * As for the statistics for Cambodia, well, Kiernan says his estimates ought to be increased from 50,000/150,000 to some other number, owing to the discovery that the US dropped 2.75 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, not 500,000 (as he thought relative to his original figure for deaths). Because 150,000 times 5 is 750,000 and this is similar to the lower communist estimate (the higher one Rummel lists is 1,000,000, which neither Rummel nor I cite), I thought it appropriate to suggest 800,000 as the high end, here.


 * And Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1970? The US was already bombing Cambodia, plus had already invaded South Vietnam and Laos. But this is not an article about crimes against peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)

The US never invaded Laos or South Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.191 (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, we could just alter the figures to make them less exaggerated, improve the sourcing, and suggest a range; but his edits are totally inappropriate to begin with. He is asserting that the entire war was one gigantic war crime.  That is his opinion, but it is also POV.  We do not list the entire Korean War as a war crime and blame all deaths on the United States alone.  Likewise, Soviet war crimes does not say that "the Soviet Union killed from 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians."  This page is intended only as an overview of specific atrocities. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Then I will just focus on Operation Speedy Express and the bombing of Quynh Lap, and whatever other notable instance I find that sums up a general picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * "Whenever I tell people about these things (about the nature of the war), they tell me they didn't know about any of it," he writes. He uses this as yet more original research in the Historical revisionism (negationism) article.  However, that's very possibly because what he tells them isn't true. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * What, are you lying, now? I didn't use that statement as original research. I used it on the Talk page, to explain my motives. At least I'm honest about my motives, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * "The Nazi occupation of the western USSR precipitated one of the largest counterinsurgency operations on record....likewise, South Vietnamese pacification" is even more original research. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Granted. I wasn't sure I should put it this way, so I don't object to it being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * One of his sources, H. Bruce Franklin, is an outright communist. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * This statements seems to discredit your hostility towards my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * While I don’t trust Rummel’s "highest high" estimates to be valid (and neither does he), Prokaryote should be aware that Rummel's "highest high" figure for democide in North Vietnam in the fifties is 922,000 killed. The real number is probably only a third or fourth of that, if Robert F. Turner and Rummel’s mid-value are to be trusted.  But I wonder if he would object to Rummel’s highest high in both contexts, particularly because recent studies by Steve Rosefielde suggest that Rummel's figures for Vietnamese democide have aged better than those for American bombing in Cambodia (which relied heavily on statements by Sihanouk and other dubious figures)—or if Prokaryote would only cite him, and his absolute highest possible hypothetical estimates, when it helps to make the argument against US policy?  In fact, regardless of the number, Rummel only considered around 10% of the bombing to be democidal. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)


 * Well, statistics on civilian deaths in South Vietnam have proved much higher than even Chomsky cited in THIRD WORLD FASCISM (if you want an example of a text you wouldn't enjoy quoting from?), so go figure. I'm not worried about Vietnam's actions right now. Although the Vietnamese communist movement murdered many people, it didn't perpetrate physical destruction as indiscriminately unequaled in history as the US did. It didn't directly help Pakistan wage a genocidal war in Bangladesh in which up to 3,000,000 people were murdered in 9 months. MY government did those things during the Vietnam War. (But I won't make the Pakistan connection in an article about Vietnam. I was tempted to, hence the nod in my sandbox, but...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.90.183 (talk)


 * Prokaryote, if what you seek to use Wikipedia for is political proselytizing, then I might suggest a blog or self-published website. Obviously, Wikipedia has been exploited before, and it is far from perfect, but it aspires to be a neutral source.  If you come in thinking, as Noam Chomsky (a source you cite on your user page) said, that "America needs to be de-Nazified," and your goal is to aid that process; then I must warn you to not let that cloud your judgment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general point, more recent demographic studies tend to have much lower estimates than sources like Chomsky or the Vietnamese government. If the Vietnamese government didn't claim that 5 million people died in the war, then you should bring that up on the Vietnam War article, which currently cites Hanoi for the figure.  The American bombing in Laos and Cambodia was concentrated in deserted border areas; most of it went only 10 miles into Cambodia, where there was hardly any population at all.  It was conducted in response to the North Vietnamese occupying large chunks of Cambodia and Laos and installing the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao in charge of it, enabling them to build up their forces through conscription.
 * Chomsky is a propagandist renowned for his manipulation of statistics. Here is Chomsky in "Distortions at Fourth Hand": "[Francois] Ponchaud cites a Cambodian report that 200,000 people were killed in American bombings....Ponchaud cites ‘Cambodian authorities’ who give the figures 800,000 killed and 240,000 wounded before liberation.  The figures are implausible."  Ponchaud was actually reporting Khmer Rouge propaganda claims: the bombing killed 200,000 "according to the revolutionaries’ calculations," and "the authorities of Kampuchea declared 800,000 dead and 240,000 disabled as a result of the war" (Cambodia Year Zero, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978, p170, 71).  Chomsky was misattributing these wildly inflated estimates to Ponchaud in order to suggest that he was a serial yarn-spinner prone to gross exaggeration--and therefore could not be trusted as a source on Khmer Rouge mass murder.  Yet, in Language and Politics, Chomsky reveals:  "According to the [Ponchaud] book, which might or might not have been right, 800,000 people were killed during the American war. The US was responsible for killing 800,000 people," (Language and Politics, AK Press, 2004, p634).  The death toll in Cambodia was revised upwards several times after the communist genocide, and increasingly all deaths were blamed on American bombing--in truth only a minor factor.  An echo chamber was created in which Sihanouk would claim 600,000 people died in the civil war, the CIA would report this dubious assertion, Chomsky would say that the CIA estimated 600,000 deaths solely due to American bombing, and the next thing you know Rick Perlstein's Nixonland would be repeating the accusation for Operation Menu alone, leading readers to guess at an even higher toll.  I'm sure that the same thing happened with Laos.  50,000 deaths, then 100,000 excess deaths, then 350,000 war-related deaths, then 500,000 deaths due to bombing.  I've even heard it claimed that Operation Menu killed a million Cambodians--and it was just one of the bombing raids!  Chomsky managed to attribute 50,000 Lebanese deaths to Israel in the eighties, when the real figure (according to the Lebanese government) was 1,000.
 * Hitchens was a phenomenally gifted prose stylist, but he was nevertheless unable to resist hyperbole and is unreliable for statements of fact. He also implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  If he cited a comparable apocryphal figure for Laos; that is irrelevant.
 * Here are the sources we want on Wikipedia: Sliwinski, Heuveline, Etcheson, ect.  Scientific studies estimating excess deaths in peer-reviewed journals.  If you can find such a source that comes anywhere near your preferred totals, they can be cited.  Otherwise, they're not welcome here.  Polemical works like Nixonland are not reliable for statements of fact.
 * You actually demonstrated very well how inaccurate statistics are created with your remarks about Kiernan. Kiernan, a former Khmer Rouge apologist turned serious scholar, makes an offhand remark about press reports stating that 50,000-150,000 were killed by US bombing.  These unspecified accounts, presumably dating back to the seventies, were gross overestimates (as new methods of demographic analysis continue to attest) promoted at the time by antiwar leaders like Chomsky (who then revised them upwards after 1979).  But because the US dropped far more bombs on Cambodia than previously officially disclosed, you suggest that the high figure should be multiplied many times over--as if previous attempts at population analysis and excess death calculation had been based on the amount of bombs the US dropped!  It's comparable to Holocaust deniers asking how anyone can still think the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, when the communist propaganda asserting that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz has been removed from the site.  The answer is that nobody used that figure to calculate 6 million excess Jewish deaths.
 * Perhaps you should read Bruce Sharp's "Counting Hell" or Craig Etcheson's After the Killing Fields. They might open your mind.  In any case, the US military killed 10-20% of those that died in the Vietnam War, and if you think that that was an atrocity unequaled in history--worse than the Holocaust, the Gulag, or the Killing Fields--then feel free to call me one of the many ignorant "sheeple" who fail to percieve this divine truth.
 * "The real number of civilian deaths in Vietnam is probably around four million" (Chomsky, Imperial Ambitions, Penguin, 2005, p125). I want your source for saying that the Vietnamese communists never made this absurd claim.  It would make Chomsky look even more ridiculous.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above is a mess. Inline, unsigned rebuttal within the original comments-- it is nearly impossible to follow.

I believe the discussion is redundant, but if it must be done, then only in a manner in which point and counterpoint is intelligible and open to further discussion among the editors.

The focus I get from what I read is that a material about US bombing during the Vietnam conflict had been added to this war crimes article. That material (summarized as "general and particular information") reads like an essay on bombings and, more generally, civilian causalities in war-- not evidence of war crimes.

Linking war-time bomings with "atrocities" is weasel wording. War is an atrocity-- and yet sometimes necessary. Portraying massive bombings in a conflict as a "crime" is going to take a lot more than a dislike of how war is waged to qualify for inclusion here.

Evidence of a crime would be bombing civilians when no tactical or strategic target was intended. The Quỳnh Lập bombing sounds like a candidate, but lacks evidence. It is based solely on the Russel "Tribunal."

While war is Hell, war is not a "war crime." This type of opinion-based ascription of "war crime" (be it Bertrand Russel's or my own) has been discussed, and rejected, numerous times on this page. Therefore, the outcome of this discussion seems certain.-- cregil  (talk)  20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Refactored (hopefully correctly) so I could follow the argument. Please take the time to figure out how to use the talk page before spewing scads of dialogue that can't be followed. If you don't, people are likely to ignore you. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have reminded him to sign his comments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Much better thanks to Hohum   @.


 * It appears to me that the main points are concerning the death toll estimates. If the death toll due to US bombings in Vietnam is 26.2 BILLION, we still do not have a "war crime."  All we have is a death toll number.


 * Expressed far above by another editor is "This is not an article on ALLEGED US War Crimes." Unless a trial of involved parties has been undertaken by an unbiased justice system and a ruling made, this whole discussion is moot.-- cregil   (talk)  02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want people to follow your discussion you need to be more concise and less argumentative. The problem with Prokaryote's edit is that it presents evidence to show that US actions in  Vietnam were war crimes instead of explaining how experts view it.  The requirement that there must be a conviction for war crimes before incidents can be mentioned in the article is wrong.  While literature on war crimes mentions whether convictions were secured, it does not limit itself to those cases.  Typically governments that commit war crimes do not bring charges against themselves and are only brought to justice when their regimes are overthrown.  Even then, the main culprits are often dead or find asylum in friendly or neutral countries.  TFD (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but... (or No, but...)  War Crimes can be claimed by anyone for anything and yet not be fit for inclusion in an article on War Crimes. The allegations which are based in an absence of a defense are probably going to be claimed as POV violations by default-- unless source documents, rather than hearsay, from the accused are also part of the accusation.

An easy example is the the leper colony mentioned in the contested text. The US Navy, as far as I can tell, has never responded and is not in a position to desire to respond-- as responding to an allegation can be seen as giving credence to the charges. Neither is Vietnam to be expected to supply records which might indicate that a SAM site existed on the same hill as the leper colony.

I can create a contrary circumstantial and suppositional argument: Given that American nurses had previously been taken hostage from other such colonies by the Northern Vietnamese forces, one would assume the US military would treat the Quỳnh Lập colony as sacrosanct. Furthermore, it is entirely reasonable to assume that false claims of bombing hospitals and "baby milk factories" serve a political and morale-building agenda-- and we KNOW from history that such takes place. We cannot know either way in this instance. While my contrary argument is of my own creation, it doesn't make it wrong; but it does make it editorializing and a POV violation if I included it in the article.

Since, at present, not knowing either way, the allegation is wholly one-sided, some method of preventing unfounded, unilaterally-created allegations from becoming the content of this article must be made. Otherwise, endless allegations will be minimizing known and proven War Crimes such as are currently detailed.

Or, are we going to have to account for every bomb dropped and every bullet fired by every nation in every war?-- cregil  (talk)  18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to counterarguments in lieu of editing the main article
I don't think it's worth my time, or any reader's for that matter, to go over every premise of every line of reasoning contrary to mine, so I'm not going to. I'm going to focus on a few points that I reject:


 * "As a general point, more recent demographic studies tend to have much lower estimates than sources like Chomsky or the Vietnamese government. If the Vietnamese government didn't claim that 5 million people died in the war, then you should bring that up on the Vietnam War article, which currently cites Hanoi for the figure."
 * Actually, they're higher, or so it seems: "Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world health survey programme," BMJ (British Medical Journal) 2008;336:0.3, calculates 3.8 million Vietnamese dead during the entire war, which is more than the 3.3 million (2,000,000 civilians, 1,100,000 communist military personnel, and 225,000 from the ARVN) the SRV government says. Unless you mean estimates about something besides Vietnam? Plus, I have no obligation right now to edit the "Vietnam War" article.


 * "In any case, the US military killed 10-20% of those that died in the Vietnam War, and if you think that that was an atrocity unequaled in history--worse than the Holocaust, the Gulag, or the Killing Fields--then feel free to call me one of the many ignorant "sheeple" who fail to percieve this divine truth."
 * I never said it was an atrocity unequaled in history, I said it was an act of physical, i.e. environmental, destruction without precedent. It was the physical near-equivalent to nuclear war, visited primarily on the country we supposedly were trying to save the most (South Vietnam). This is a unique, although not the worst, crime against humanity. As far as killing of people alone goes, there are a lot of worse cases, I know.


 * "The real number of civilian deaths in Vietnam is probably around four million" (Chomsky, Imperial Ambitions, Penguin, 2005, p125). I want your source for saying that the Vietnamese communists never made this absurd claim. It would make Chomsky look even more ridiculous.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * Is Chomsky claiming that the Vietnamese communists said this? I don't know. All I know is what rjsmith's inaccurate translation of the AFP report said.

Another editor wrote: "Evidence of a crime would be bombing civilians when no tactical or strategic target was intended. The Quỳnh Lập bombing sounds like a candidate, but lacks evidence. It is based solely on the Russel 'Tribunal.'" The attacks were videotaped by Japanese journalists (Vietnam and America: A Documented History, Marvin Gettleman, et. al., pg. 464), and by the standards of Nuremberg and Tokyo's war crimes tribunals, the Russell Tribunal was legit (Anthony D'Amato, International Law and Political Reality, pg. 18-23), so to say there is no evidence for the attacks is incorrect. D'Amato is, to note, an extremely well-established international lawyer. Bertrand Russell himself was a virtually unimpeachable academic figure, one of the founders of 20th Century mathematics for example. (Consider also that people as trustworthy as Hannah Arendt and John Rawls, after surveying the evidence for American immorality in that war, were against the war. That is a very good indication that the evidence available for claiming that immorality was very good, too.)
 * NOTE: To forestall the objection that the Russell Tribunal intentionally avoided investigating Vietnamese communist crimes, and this intent is what invalidates the Tribunal, I have a flippant answer, but I also would like to note that Allied war crimes in Europe and the Pacific theater of WWII were not judged at Nuremberg or Tokyo, yet evidence from those tribunals is regularly cited regardless when it comes to accounts (e.g. Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking) of Nazi and Japanese imperial offenses.

As far as Cambodia goes, I posted a range initially, with a minimum of 50,000. If 150,000 or whatever is the true highest possible estimate, go figure. I'm not pinning everything I believe about large-scale dying on demographic analysis (I've done enough epistemology not to fall into that kind of trap), but inasmuch as the other editors believe this is appropriate, then I will (if I try to add anything again about Cambodia) focus on qualitative descriptions of the bombing of Cambodia that showcase its massively indiscriminate character and leave the range at 30,000/40,000 to 150,000 (maybe with a vague reference to higher numbers). Prokaryote (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I had no intention of saying that the Russel Tribunal did not investigate Northern War Crimes-- that is a red-herring argument from my perspective and so I would not make it. I am concerned that the Russel Tribunal does not appear to have provided any contrary claims made by the US military.  Silence to an accusation is not an admission of guilt.  Did the Tribunal ask the US Navy what was targeted?  I don't know, and your material is silent.  Did the Tribunal ask if the NV had a SAM base on the hill?  I don't that either, but if I was an NV, I would have had one there-- and I would also not admit it to a Tribunal after the hospital was hit.


 * I do not wish to tit-for-tat on this. I am after the conceptual:  Where do we draw the line between "alleged war crimes" and "war crimes."  I fear no end to allegations if no critical method is employed-- effectively burying substantiated WC's in a pile of the unsubstantiated.  I am not ruling your comments either way.  But your comments have begged the question and that is what is being discussed.-- cregil   (talk)  19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up repeatedly, and the answer is the same as always: we use the same critical method that is used everywhere else on Wikipedia. That is, if a reliable source makes the claim that something is a U.S. war crime, then we include it in the article, with attribution to the source. Whether a trial happened is irrelevant, and what we think about the author (e.g. "Noam Chomsky is a commie propagandist!", etc.) is irrelevant. If it is a WP:RS, and it says "The United States government did X, and this is a war crime." then we include it in the article, period. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to get back into this, but I'm stunned that the Russell Tribunal is being considered. It has no legitimate legal authority.
 * Whereas the notion "that Allied war crimes in Europe and the Pacific theater of WWII were not judged at Nuremberg or Tokyo," that's not the same thing as saying that Allied war crimes weren't prosecuted. The U.S. military did have an active military justice system (note that many of those were for crimes committed on Allied civilians, but the point is that not all of them were).  You can be sure that the British had a justice system, too.  (The Soviets, being communists, were, of course, a different story.)
 * Furthermore, there were cases, such as Doenitz and Otto Skorzeny, where they could not be sentenced for measures that Allies had also taken. This is what makes the Russell Tribunal particularly loathsome.  Like today, most of its supporters can't even oppose war crimes when they're committed by their own allies.
 * Legitimate legal authority is the key. We can find plenty of RS that some nutcase claims something is a war crime.  You really need an RS that something *is* a war crime.
 * If the Russell Tribunal could be considered legitimate, then *any* enemy propaganda, whether it be leftist, Nazi, or Islamist, can be taken at face value. That's going to happen, too, as internet tools and foreign newspaper archives expand the number of sources available.
 * This place is already overloaded with propaganda. As it gets worse, anyone who wants to do real research on actual war crimes has to look some place other than Wikipedia.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW: I see that Louis Till isn't in the WWII rape section.
 * I wouldn't have added him myself, as I don't think he fits, but the way this article has gone, I'm surprised that nobody else did.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Prokaryote was apparently correct that even the communist Vietnamese press release only claimed 3 million dead in the war, which is probably exaggerated (as few other sources suggest nearly as many civilian deaths and the claim of more dead than wounded is bizarre). To be clear:  demographic analysis usually does result in a conservative figure.  Thus, demographic evidence from the Soviet archives suggests that Stalin killed between 9.4 and 15 million people in the thirties alone, and this is probably conservative.  Heuveline's demographic study suggests that 1.17 to 3.42 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge, and his mid-value of around 2.2 million is probably conservative (even though many former apologists for the regime refuse to accept the 2 million figure).  I have to agree with Prokaryote that 40,000 deaths due to American bombing in Cambodia is a conservative estimate, but at the same time Kiernan's arbitrary claim of 150,000 (not based on demography) certainly seems to be as high as you can plausibly go (as it coincides with the lowest estimates for all deaths in the Cambodian civil war).  With regard to the Vietnam War generally, I don't think there's any reason to believe that American tactics in the war were more brutal than those employed in WW2 or Korea.  One thing we could call a war crime is the fact that some American bombs were dropped without a specific target, but this is far from a unique, unprecedented development in the history of war.  Whole cities were leveled in the past.  The US could have easily won the war with nuclear weapons or by invading North Vietnam; South Vietnamese civilians suffered far more than North Vietnamese civilians precisely because the other side did most of the killing.  North Vietnamese soldiers suffered the largest casualties of any group.  Finding high casualty estimates or anti-war intellectuals really isn't enough to categorize the entire war as a gigantic war crime for which the US alone bears full responsibility.  And it's certainly true that an article like this will always attract those looking for a soapbox.  Does the Vietnam War section need more details of alleged American crimes?  I'm not sure, but Prokaryote's earlier edits seriously failed to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.  By the way, I discussed using Chomsky in the Cold War article and was told that he is a fringe source, thus not to be used in articles unrelated to him or linguistics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what you are saying is utter nonsense that makes no sense whatsoever. The whole article given in the specific nature of the argument here specifically states that that is the final decision. It was a merger of the US war crimes article with the US history article, it was not to change this article's focus to be only war crimes. It is to include both the criminal topics and the historical topics. This article is supposed to be about hatred for injustice and the crimes committed and your edits have cut out the crime. And you've given no good reason why the essays CAN'T be included in this article, except that it's crime related which makes no sense. Whether or not the US history is about war crimes or something else, all of its history should be included. No part of a country's history should ever be covered up. Good or bad. Or whether or not you agree with it. The facts are the facts. And you've removed the facts. If you want to make this into a war-centric article, that should require a new consensus; the current consensus is that this article is about the war crimes. Sonarclawz (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not post incoherent rants and personal attacks on other editors. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  The history of the Vietnam War is told in that article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * | Vietnamese article on US war crimes (including allies) ... this may have more information, that if Vietnamese wikipedia editors think that it's consistent and they have sources for the information, perhaps we can include those to the short list in this article? There are no mentions of the strategic bombing campaigns, deaths squads and / or allied forces. This makes the list look quite pruned. It looks like there has been an extensive discussion above, with a user who was quite passionate about expanding this section. This, to me, is understandable as this is an intensely emotional subject that is not dealt with maturely in the USA today. That said, I simply thought any regular editors might find it interesting to see what the Vietnamese list as crimes on wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias
I have a complaint against this article. This is a very biased article because only the United States is the only country with a Wikipedia article that lists war crimes. It is complete unreasonable bias for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that prides itself on knowledge and neutrality, to have an article chronicling the war crimes of the United States while simultaneously having no such article for the war crimes committed by other nations such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Isreal, Iran, or any other nation. In my opinion, this article is really a front for Anti-American sentiment. signed Anonymous, June 18, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.216.42 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are war crimes articles for many other countries, even a category for war crimes committed by country. Feel free to add more.  TFD (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above: Category:War crimes committed by country. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


 * It's over in British war crimes where it might belong if it was actually a war crime. The U.S. bombed legitimate targets in Dresden.
 * But, as with much of this stuff, most people who call that a war crime tend to support war crimes when the side they favor does it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I didn't say they were Nazis. Nor am I talking only about the reliable sources.
 * In any case, here's the timeline with the basic targets:
 * Bombing of Dresden in World War II
 * It's not a war crime to bomb railway yards.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * They were two separate issues. That's why I put "In any case" between them.
 * My comment was about those who are too quick to accuse the U.S. or the U.K. of war crimes, but it might well apply to those who accuse anybody of war crimes. It's a bit funny, considering how critics of current (or recent) U.S. policy are happy to accuse the U.S. of being too quick to accuse GTMO detainees of war crimes as several former detainees had their charges downgraded upon appeal.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your belief that Americans who oppose the prisons in Guantanamo Bay are supporters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is incorrect. TFD (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is 2014, not 2001 when abstract ideals might have been enough. Just as the Bush and Obama administrations have each established a record, the supporters and critics have established records as well.  We know when people chose to support the laws of war and when they chose not to support the laws of war.  Note that I said that in the past tense.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I guess it matters when they said that. They've had due process since 2004/2005 with the CSRTs.  The Supreme Court also gave them judicial review after 2008's Boumediene v. Bush decision, but still said it was reasonable for CSRTs to come first (we are in a war, after all).  By now, the detainees have had every bit of due process they need.
 * I know that some critics still argue we should ignore the matter of the laws of war, and pretend they're criminal defendants. It was actually in appeasement to those critics that the government tried to curve fit war crimes charges that are now being appealed.
 * If those Commonwealth lawyers still claim today that the detainees don't have due process then they'll have to live with the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with them. And if they want detainees to have more rights than legally required, particularly while (as is often the case) they're unwilling to demand anything substantive of our enemies, then yes, they are supporting our enemies.  Orwell actually said as much during WWII.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW: There's the other half of my previous statement:  We know when people chose to support the laws of war and when they chose not to support the laws of war.  For this, we'd need to look at when they stood wrt the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  For example, it would be good to know their position on Amnesty's relationship to Cageprisoners.  If they supported Amnesty's position, or merely chose to remain quiet, then that goes into the mix.
 * Randy2063 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Following your reasoning, the Supreme Court must support the Taliban and al Qaeda by ruling against the U.S. government. The reality is that all governments sometimes break their own laws, soldiers commit war crimes and pointing it out when it happens does not mean one supports the other side.  TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what I said.
 * It is appropriate to demand that the U.S. follow the law. It is wrong to demand that the U.S. go beyond the law while not demanding the same of our enemies.  The Supreme Court was interpreting the law.  If the Justices who ruled that way were intentionally bending the law then that would be a different story.
 * The government wasn't intentionally breaking the law. These were simple disagreements over interpretation.  In the case of 2006, the appeals court had actually ruled the other way.  Once the Supreme Court made those decisions, the administration followed them properly.  It doesn't compare to the horrors that Amnesty is willing to tolerate of its friends.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International documents human rights abuses in all countries, and are not supporters of the Taliban or al Qaeda. Here is an article about their accusations against the Taliban.  I like your defense btw:  they didn't know that while depriving people of their inalienable rights would be illegal in the U.S. or its overseas territories it would be illegal in Guantanamo Bay. TFD (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That report from 2010 must have been in production during the big kerfuffle. Has Amnesty worked with any of its friends in Cageprisoners on the problems that they reported?  Nope.  Why not?  Because they know that their partners don't feel the same way about issues that should be basic principles.
 * You act as though the U.S. withheld an obvious inalienable right. It was a legitimate position that due process was limited, and the Court even said their 2008 ruling was a special case that does not apply elsewhere (e.g. Bagram).  As it is, all they got after that is that a federal judge reviews the cases afterwards.  Due process remains limited to the laws of war.  And it is a war that Amnesty's partners support.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW: This is why the comment from one year ago today, Talk:United States war crimes, is important.
 * It is judges who rule on what is, and what is not, a war crime. Most of this article's section United States war crimes is laughable hogwash.  Much of it was duplicated from Command responsibility, which was itself only a pipe dream.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think that no one acquitted by a U.S. court or never charged or died before all their appeals ran out can possibly have committed any crimes. TFD (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about criminal law. There's never been any question that the U.S. can hold enemy combatants until the end of the war.  There's never been any requirement that enemy combatants must be given full trials in order to be detained.  Before 9/11, no one seriously argued it should be otherwise.
 * In fact, the AR 190-8 manual, from which the CSRT was based, and which was written to comply with the laws of war, was last modified before 9/11. It uses the preponderance of the evidence standard just like the CSRT.
 * The only reason we even need the CSRT is because our enemies (and Amnesty's friends) don't support the laws of war, and aren't willing to identify themselves properly upon capture as would be required to get POW status.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * It is specifically saying that "applying "unlawful combatant" status to prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and enhanced interrogation methods" are not merely illegal, but illegal under Geneva. The first is obviously not illegal when applied to actual unlawful combatants.  The Supreme Court only ruled that they need a tribunal first, not even a full trial, and the Geneva Conventions had nothing to do with it.  Plus, the Court found that only Common Article 3 applies, which pretty much only has unlawful combatants.
 * Extraordinary rendition and EIT are cloudy issues, and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly either.
 * These references look like they're pre-Hamdan, which means they're only personal opinions promoted during NGO fundraising. It shouldn't be confusing readers who might think it was the law.
 * The references are still available via archive.org. But if they say what this article says they say, I don't see it.  That needs to be clarified.
 * Please note that, although I don't believe the current text is true, I do not want it removed completely. I am more interested in finding the references that said these things, and ensuring that they're not lost and forgotten.  The pre-Hamdan whining should be exhibited, not lost history.  If the references can't be tied to these statements then we should find other references because I believe that people used to think this stuff was true.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Friend, I think you're missing the point. All that statement is saying is that some US actions were illegal. Therefore, unless you're saying that all actions were not illegal, then the qualifier is unnecessary. If there are questions about specific instances, then they should be discussed in specific paragraphs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not saying that some are illegal. It's saying that those specific items are illegal under Geneva.  The first one surely isn't, although part of the confusion was probably over the critics' initial insistence that the full GCs should apply, which the Court ultimately didn't buy.  If that's the cause of this error (and I think it is), then that makes it worse because the article should never have portrayed the critics' mere opinions as being fact.
 * Just to be clear: Yes, none of the decision-making for unlawful combatant status were illegal under Geneva.  That's true even in cases where a federal judge later ruled that it didn't satisfy the guidelines.  Tribunal members are not committing war crimes simply by having a slightly different opinion on what constitutes a preponderance of the evidence.  And this is supposed to be an article about actual war crimes.
 * Aside from all that, the reference listing needs to be clarified. Using one reference for multiple sources may look pretty but it doesn't help the reader find a specific citation.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't; it says some illegal actions have been committed, and then discusses all those that may have been considered illegal. So, the place for a qualifier is in the specific paragraphs. Also, the word of a federal judge does not count for too much here; it is secondary sources, and particularly academic opinion, which matters. The citation style may be terrible, but that is another argument; personally, I have no issues if you clean that up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that.
 * I realize that nobody takes these articles seriously anymore but we still don't use academics' allegations of contemporary war crimes as though they were fact. Reporters and analysts would open themselves up to lawsuits if they used flexible definitions.  This is real life, and standards are important.  And when critics don't like the way the law actually is, they often seek to get the law changed.  That's harder to do when people fail to take war crimes seriously.
 * I'm not only talking about Wikipedia. HRW and Amnesty, for example, had been insistent that the main Geneva Conventions should be in effect for this war.  You can see this in the old sources (which is why I cautioned about old opinions).  But when the Court ruled that this war was under Common Article 3, HRW and Amnesty pivoted so that they could continue their work under that set of rules.  And if you'll remember, the Bush administration didn't agree with the decision either, but they followed the law accordingly.
 * The letters "e.g." mean "for example." It doesn't mean "possible examples whose veracity we can't vouch for."
 * You use the phrase "may have been considered illegal" here in talk, but the article isn't saying that. It doesn't say some sleazy Ward Churchill-types pretend they're illegal.  It says they are examples of things that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions.  Note that we're talking about two claims being made:  Illegality, but not merely under U.S. and/or international law, but also under the GCs.
 * Sadly, critics of the war stopped pretending to care about the GCs after 2006, but this stuff still needs to be documented.
 * That's only one problem. You also misunderstand that there are two things wrong with these references.  The difficulty of verification is only one of them.  The other is that I don't see that it attempts to verify them.  In other words, these appear to be unreferenced statements.
 * When I said I'd like to leave them there for now, my intent was so that we always remember who it was making these claims. That can't happen without a valid reference.
 * If you can find who in those references actually said those three items are examples of things the Geneva Conventions calls illegal, you need to point them out. Some actual links to the text in the GCs would be nice, too, although that would only be a nice bonus (WP demands secondary references first).
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument has little to do with the actual legality, and more to do with the syntax and logic of the sentence. The sentence does not say that "the following are example of..." etc. It says actions have been committed that would be illegal under the Geneva convention. You are debating whether the GCs applied; that is a separate discussion! The following paras describe the entire story of each act (or they should); some may actually be illegal, others not. Finally, court judgements are not reliable sources for anything but information about the judgement itslef, as you probably know, whereas academic journals meet the highest sourcing standard we have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Claim of violation of Geneva Convention
The Article read as follows:

"As a reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks[citation needed], the U.S. Government adopted several measures illegal under the Geneva Conventions (e.g., applying "unlawful combatant" status to prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and enhanced interrogation methods)."

I corrected it to read that " . . . several measures which some claim to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions . . ."

Vanamonde93 reverted the change saying it was "unnecessary"; however, it *is* necessary to make clear that the purported illegality is an opinion (a POV) rather than an established fact.

The concept of "unlawful combatant" is NOT illegal under the Geneva Convention (it has been around for as long as the GC have), and it is improper to state that it is illegal. I would have been inclined to delete the falsehood in its entirety, but I saw in the Talk page that you (Vanamonde93) were defending it not so much as being an established fact but rather because some people have claimed that it could violate the GC. Fine, that's your POV; it is NOT a fact, and should not be presented as one.

In the event I'm wrong, please cite the GC provision that so states. Similarly with respect to enhanced interrogation; certain "enhancements" may be questionable, but not all.

I believe the better solution, one that respects your position as well as reality, is to state that some people claim it violates the GC (just as some people claim the Moon Landings were faked in Hollywood). Clearly that statement is true, and should be acceptable even to the deniers.

If you have some actual proof that what the original stated (and now states again for the time being) is factually accurate, I'll be happy to entertain it. Failing such proof in the next week, I propose to again correct the statement to make it accurate.

Over to you. D.A.Timm (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of War on Terror section
The entire section consists of presenting one side of what is obviously a contentious issue, declaring numerous actions to be or possibly be war crimes. Presumably though the US government has considered the legal implications of their actions and there is contrary opinion on their legality (all democratic governments do this as a matter of cse of any manner of actions they take). This opinion must be provided for balance. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International, as much as some editors here might wish it were, and we are not here to advocate for anything or anyone. Equally, there is a large body of literature discussing the morality of these actions (or otherwise), none of which is discussed at all. This is poor even by Wikipedia's very low standards. No doubt though the only response I'll receive is the usual SO FIX IT fob off. 101.169.255.225 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It does mention that the U.S. attorney general argued that U.S. government treatment of "unlawful combatants" was legal and that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against them. Neutrality does not require giving equal weight to both sides, but presenting views according to the weight they are assigned in reliable sources.  If you have the legal opinions that "presumably" exist saying the U.S. government is acting legally, please provide them, so they can be added.  TFD (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

source really reputable ?
"Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"(Footnote: Bradley A. Thayer, Darwin and international relations p.189 ) Footnote 194 at page 189 names as source Joanna Bourke, 'An Intimate History of Killing', p. 170. Bourke names in a footnote Newsweek, 12 April, p. 28 (Judgement at Fort Benning). Other books also quote the same article (p. 27-29). Does someone have this article ? Is is written by a reliable author ?  thanks for feedback & regards --Neun-x (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (PS: an article with the same title - but perhapos different content - was in the NY times:  )

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on United States war crimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:121522
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002054948/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702075639/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512175803/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080114162221/http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bush is "innocent" according to U.S. Law
The very last paragraph on the page says "under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible." That's patently false, no U.S. president is ever culpable for the acts the committed as president, just as Nixon. I don't care how good your source is, it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.12.111 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not say that at all. It quotes someone who says that.  Incidentally, Nixon could not be charged with any crimes only because Gerald Ford pardoned him.  TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Other topics
I'm a foreign policy novice, but I don't quite understand why our misadventures in South and Central America are missing from this article (Allende, anyone?). Woodshed (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you bring RS and write it without POV, then I support you adding it into the article. Just remember that this article covers things the US military did, not necessarily things that governments supported by the United States did, those are covered in different articles. - SantiLak  (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Activities and incidents characterized as war crimes"
Saying that events were "Activities and incidents characterized as war crimes" would seem to be downplaying them. They are either war crimes or not.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Royalcourtier, in subsection 5.1 Activities and incidents characterized as war crimes, the article lists two examples, each Wikilinked to its own page. Only the first is referenced by a direct citation, to a BBC report of Amnesty International speculating that drone attacks in Pakistan could amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch saying two attacks in Yemen violated international law, and a UN special rapporteur accusing the U.S. of challenging international legal norms—but not of committing outright crimes.


 * Wikipedia's Civilian casualties from US drone strikes page does not mention the word "crime."


 * Wikipedia's Kunduz hospital airstrike page states that Médecins Sans Frontières accused the United States of committing a war crime.


 * Significantly, none of these activities and incidents characterized by humanitarian groups as war crimes has been prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction where the alleged crimes are part of a plan or policy or part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.


 * Your statement, then, that "They are either war crimes or not," is an oversimplification of complex legal and ethical issues that are far from being resolved by the community of nations. KalHolmann (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Romania
This edit by User:Nick-D with an edit summary of "...POV pushing. No ref for hospital stuff. The Romanian Regime killed 200,000-400,000 Jews" removed this text from our article: On 4 April 1944, Consolidated B-24 Liberators of the US Air Force bombed a hospital in Bucharest, the Romanian capital. The hospital had numerous Jewish patients. A total of 2,673 civilians were killed and almost as many were wounded. In total, American and British aircraft claimed the lives of 7,693 Romanian civilians. Within just over one year, from Operation Tidal Wave in August 1943 until August 1944, the Romanian Air Force shot down a total of 223 American and British bombers as well as 36 fighters for the loss of only 80 Romanian aircraft. This was a crippling success rate for Romanian pilots against the Americans. American fighter aircraft routinely shot Romanian pilots bailing out of their stricken aircraft but it was only in 1949 that targetting humans parachuting in distress from aircraft was agreed internationally as a war crime. Flight Lieutenant Flaviu Zamfirescu, an almost-ace with four victories, was machine-gunned while hanging helplessly in his parachute harness. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's POV-pushing rubbish. The stuff about the hospital is not referenced, and no evidence is produced to demonstrate that this was deliberate (unlike the Romanian Government's mass killings of Jews...). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:TALK advises that "The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." Do you disagree with that advice?
 * PS: I hold no brief for Romanian fascists whether of the wartime or current variety. However, I do not think that simply because of the enormity of the Axis forces' crimes the misdeeds of their opponents should be airbrushed from an encyclopaedic history. --BushelCandle (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The material regarding the bombing of the hospital is not referenced in any way. It was likely added in bad faith by someone looking for false equivalences between the crimes of the Romanian Government and American bombing, which is a common tactic by Holocaust deniers (see Holocaust denial). I have re-removed it. Please provide a source which states that this event occurred and is considered a war crime if you think it should be included. Likewise, as the material on attacking Romanian pilots who had bailed out had been amended to state that this wasn't a war crime until 1949, I have also removed it as being out of scope. Again, if there are references which state it was a war crime, then it becomes in scope. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I realise that you may be paraphrasing for the sake of brevity but there is a distinction between internationally accepted and ratified (de jure) war crimes and behaviour which many reliable sources have characterised as such prior to treaty ratification (it was actually myself that added "but it was only in 1949 that targetting humans parachuting in distress from aircraft was agreed internationally as a war crime"). As for bombing a hospital clearly marked with a red cross on its roof not being a war crime, my own edit summary included "...targeting hospitals has been deprecated since time immemorial (viz 1863 Lieber Code promulgated by federal government during US Civil War. See Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Also See 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War."
 * It should be possible to source all of this material, but unfortunately my flight schedules do not currently allow me to do this. I do accept that unsourced material may be removed - meanwhile would you answer my question as to whether you disagree with the advice I've quoted above from WP:TALK ?
 * Perhaps you have not seen the relevant quote from the Jewish mother visible at Page 171 of Google Books? "...They made directly for the city hospital which had been draped in a huge Red Cross banner..." --BushelCandle (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A reliable source which explicitly states that this was a war crime is needed to support such material (noting that this is an article on war crimes). Your personal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and a book are WP:OR. I have read very widely on American bombing tactics and campaigns, and have never seen claims that the USAAF deliberately targeted hospitals. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint we have never seen the USAAF does not deliberately target hospitals; isnt the effect of bombing a hospital a war crime or at least a crime against the peace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.21.250 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References and notes

 * References


 * Notes

Atomic bombs
A reliable source states that the bombings were war crimes. XXzoonamiZZ, unless you are suggesting that using the source in undue weight, I really don't see where you are going with this. In any case, please raise your issues here before blanking the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you point out for us where the source states that the bombings were war crimes? Please be specific.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous.
 * Aside from the reference not actually calling it a war crime, saying that "some" characterize it as one doesn't make it one.
 * War crimes are serious violations of the laws of war. The key words here are "laws" and "war."  Unless one lives in a corrupt town, laws are made by legislatures, or in this case ratified by them, after being written and argued over by diplomats in consultation with their military's generals.  The laws of war were written with the understanding that killing large numbers of people may be a legitimate and necessary part of that process.  The laws of war were not written by corrupt and ignorant peaceniks sitting around dreaming up what they think would be moral.
 * I'm deleting this section. It's not salvageable.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording was poor. It presents the bombings as one would present a war crime, that is, giving details of what happened.  It then says some sources say it was a war crime.  An unbiased approach would be to say that some sources consider it a war crime, then explain why they say that, opposing views and what most sources say.  Randy2063, the sources that say it was a war crime say that it would meet the definition in U.S. law.  Rarely however do governments prosecute themselves for actions they take.  War crimes however do not need to be in violation of the laws of the country carrying them out, particularly when they are carried out in other countries.  And at Nuremburg, war criminals were prosecuted and convicted of crimes that were not on the books in Nazi Germany.  TFD (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It may not need to be war crimes within the definition of the country being prosecuted, but it should be crimes in the sense that some treaty recognized it as such. Making up new "laws" after the fact, and especially when the critics are safe in their homes, isn't the way this works.  War crimes should be taken more seriously than that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, national law is extremely irrelavant to the matter since Principle II of the Nuremberg Principles clearly stated that it is no defense if national law permits acts that are clearly illegal under international law. Many people in World War II feel that killing parachuting enemy airmen was a war crime, but that doesn't make it like one, since there was no international law against the practice. And yes, war crimes do need to be in violation of international law or laws created retroactively on an agreed international level, in which the Holocaust really was, since it was done to kill as much ethnic people in the camps that were competely under control in the same manner that it would have done as killing large numbers of captured enemy soldiers in belligerent POW camps. This link gave explicit information on why aerial warfare that was deliberately set out to target non-combatants or recklessly took no steps to spare the lives of non-combatants (i.e., excessive collateral damage) weren't war crimes, both in positive or customary terms, and therefore not fit in WP NPOV. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1975/nov-dec/terry.html XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source says, "it is clear that when an airman is able to discriminate between lawful and unlawful targets, he must do so." Under U.S. law, all treaties become domestic law.  Anyway, this discussion is not relevant to the section.  The issue is not whether or not bombings can ever be war crimes but whether some people think they can be, specifically people who claim the atomic bombings were war crimes.  TFD (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD has it right. I agree that the structure was poor, and I am not wedded to the wording. As editors, our job is not to determine whether the bombings were a war crime. Our job is to summarize and present what reliable sources say on the subject. When weighty opposing views exist, we present them both. The laws themselves are not directly relevant to us, and the discussion about whether retroactive ones apply is moot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Vanamonde93. The atomic bombings and the related debate should be mentioned in this page.Yogurto (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Another source claiming it was a war crime. https://books.google.it/books?id=ew0pAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&lpg=PT6&dq=Jacob+Hornberger+Hiroshima+War+Crime&source=bl&ots=p9DEuKtXNc&sig=72P9Xcuv2Cy5-Hj4GC8fW8eB_bs&hl=it&sa=X&ei=vxm5VMSkIJX3aoibgkA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA

Yogurto (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound particularly authoritative.
 * But keep trying. I'm quite sure you're going to find plenty who agree with you.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound particularly funny.
 * The author (Jacob G. Hornberger) is a professor, a defense attorney and the founder of  Future of Freedom Foundation.  We have a source. May i add sourced informations oin wikipedia? I think so
 * -- Yogurto (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A link to the debate on the atomic bombings should also be present in the article. Yogurto (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny? Ostensibly objective sources throwing the laws of war into a dumpster and then pretending to oppose war crimes.
 * Sometimes, laughing is all you can do.
 * Maybe you're unaware that it doesn't take much (other than a name that doesn't upset this current administration) to start a non-profit foundation in a (reasonably) free country.
 * Well, your "Future of Freedom Foundation" does have a quote by Robert E. Lee. As funny as some people may think that is, I do think he opposed war crimes more than do the critics of today's U.S. military.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are IMO some war crimes for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as per the International Criminal Courts 2011 Elements of Crimes (on top of obvious grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions Article 51): Maybe some of the above are not applicable to international conflict, anyway it's another thing to argue that there is no war crime at all. --2.85.137.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * War crime of wilful killing
 * War crime of inhuman treatment
 * War crime of wilfully causing great suffering
 * War crime of atacking civilians
 * War crime of attacking civilian objects
 * War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage
 * War crime of killing or wounding a person hors de combat
 * War crime of destroying or seizing the enemy’s property
 * War crime of attacking protected objects


 * You should use secondary sources that summarize the debate, point out who the best known writers are and explains the degree to which their opinions are used. It is usually wrong to just report someone's opinion because of possible weight problems.  The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars is not a reliable source and its overall worldview is fringe.  Hornsberger has a B.A. in economics and a law degree and was an adjunct professor which often requires little background.  Some teach courses that would be part of secondary education in most countries.  TFD (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood the document, which covers elements of the crime, not whether an act is part of a crime. Read point 8 under General Introduction of your source "As used in the Elements of Crimes, the term “perpetrator” is neutral as to guilt or innocence. The elements, including the appropriate mental elements, apply, mutatis mutandis, to all those whose criminal responsibility may fall under articles 25 and 28 of the Statute." Referring to the Roman Statute Roman Stature, part 3 covers significant articles relating to guilt or innocence. I draw your attention to Article 31 paragraph 1 subparagraph c:


 * "The person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the person or the other person or property protected. The fact that the person was involved in a defensive operation conducted by forces shall not in itself constitute a ground for excluding criminal responsibility under this subparagraph;"


 * Considering Japan had attacked the United States of America (USA) especially in light of no state of war and technically normalized diplomatic relations if strained before said attack (The Japanese ambassadors really screwed that one up), it is possible to surmise that it was a defensive war and the actions were justified. As evidenced by the USA's rebuilding of the Japanese infrastructure and government, it is reasonable to also surmise it was a defensive war against an unlawful aggression. In addition, the targetted cities had significant military value Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Considering that the tactics of the day, remembering this was a war fought almost 72 years ago, would have been repeated heavy bombing, including incendiaries, the results would have been considered similar, especially if considering how poorly understood radiation was at that time. It could be reasonably believed that the commanders viewed this as just a really large bomb, which would apply under the Roman Statue Article 30 paragraph 3. Nmourfield (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that the Atomic bombings were war crimes as they happened with little to no warning and the United States knew that Japan were going to surrender anyway. The bombings were done out of sick curiousity. CatCet 18:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Other wars
The case of Nicaragua vs The United States in the ICC should be mentioned, as the U.S. was actually ruled guilty of what amounted to state sponsered terrorism. This prompted our ignominious withdrawal from the ICC. There should be another section for war crimes in other wars, such as Operation Michigan in 1993 Somalia, and the invasion of Panama.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2014‎ (UTC)

No mention of the Indian Wars., apparently because Randy2063 deleted it? Mvm-trinity (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Randy2063 was referring to content about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that was disputed (with regard to war crime status). Regarding the Indian Wars in the American West, although they contained numerous incidents and atrocities which would probably be considered war crimes today, they predate the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which established the relevant war crimes body of law that the various Wikipedia "War Crimes" articles catalog (e.g., British war crimes, German war crimes, Russian war crimes, Japanese war crimes, etc.)  As these articles describe war crimes "since the signing of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907," the Indian Wars and all other United States wars before 1899 are actually outside the scope of that body of law.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
I've just protected the article for 3 days to allow for dispute resolution for the current edit war, which should start with a talk page discussion here. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

War crimes after President Bush?
The article makes it seems like there were no later accusations of war crimes under Obama or Trump. However the legality of the drone programs, the continuing torture and Donald Trump enthusiasm for water boarding during his first election campaign raised concerns with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Someone might want to add aspects from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes#Criticism and illustrate to what degree the different presidents were involved with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.88.20 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
As pages for War Crimes for other countries (e.g. British war crimes or Japanese war crimes) also include alleged incidents, with similar levels of proof and hearsay, should the title of this page be restored to "United States War Crimes", potentially with a disclaimer that the USA not recognising the ICC treaty has caused some of these to be left in dispute? The current implication of the page title is that all of the War Crimes listed are in dispute, which introduces unnecessary political bias when seen in conjunction with the related pages.


 * Also most of these incidents, especially the important ones (e.g. My Lai, Rape during WWII) are definitely proven war crimes. The article name should therefore be restored in keeping with the convention for all the other articles about national war crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2270:3500:E460:1350:F8DD:E3C1 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. TFD (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wars Against Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq...
Have you forgotten or deliberately hidden all illegal wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:6067:3400:5874:68D1:6716:30BB (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Operation Menu
Is there any merit in including Operation Menu, at least discussing the controversy around it? It seems just as worthy of inclusion as other entries into this article JWBurgess (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any merit in it at all. How do you see it as a war crime? Aerial bombing is in no way equivalent to My Lai or rapes or massacres. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethan.Sellick001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Inclusion as a consideration
I looked through some of the archived discussion here regarding the exclusion of the nuclear bombings on Japan by the United States. Although I understand the logic that, since it is of much debate, it should not be stated as fact. However, this article seems highly relevant to the article at hand. Should it not be, at the very least, mentioned as a topic of consideration in its own section? It seems it originally was, but isn't anymore. GreyAwoo (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as soon as you start including Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes, then all bombing of cities in WWII would have to be included. Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * But, isn't that correct? – ishwar  (speak)  23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You're going to need to cite a legal source that attacking civilians by aircraft during WWII and Korea were war crimes. Much of the events depicted here are based upon the existing international law at the time and not based on speculation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course, it should be mentioned, since it is considered a war crime by some notable authors. We should of course explain the degree of acceptance of the view, explain why other writers disagree and the relative weight of the two views. TFD (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What notable authors? Go ahead and present it as you've described and then the community can take a view. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

what links here
This article mentions the United States Navy, United States Air Force, and the United States Marine Corps. Can someone with more wikipedia experience than me please add a "see also" link to those pages? Thanks! aniola (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, when a link already appears in the article's body (at the location where it is mentioned), the general rule is to not repeat the link again at the bottom in a "See also" section. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Kunduz
Shouldn’t the Kunduz hospital airstrike be listed here somewhere? 2601:C1:4100:6AC0:DDCD:6E1E:BD1C:1B49 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There would have to be a consensus among reliable sources that this is the case. I suspect this would be difficult as war crimes generally require intent or at the very least gross negligence/reckless disregard. Also war crimes are not black and white - bombing civilians is not in itself a war crime, you also have to consider military necessity, proportionality, and mitigating circumstances.
 * Obviously the Pentagon is a biased source but see what their report found below:
 * "The label 'war crimes' is typically reserved for intentional acts – intentionally targeting civilians or intentionally targeting protected objects. The investigation found that the tragic incident resulted from a combination of unintentional human errors and equipment failures, and that none of the personnel knew that they were striking a medical facility."
 * source:
 * https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/29/476178817/pentagon-report-says-airstrikes-on-afghan-hospital-wasnt-a-war-crime
 * Its not about whether the air strike was right or wrong (that much would be obvious), it’s about whether it meets the legal standards of a war crime. Because the bombing was clearly unintentional it’s much harder to determine whether or not these standards have been met.
 * The practical implication for us as editors is that for complex examples such as this there is a lack of consensus among reliable sources as to whether or not they constitute war crimes which limits what we can include in the article. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 10:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

US nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This list is woefully incomplete without mentioning American nuclear attacks on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

https://hpmmuseum.jp/modules/exhibition/index.php?action=CornerView&corner_id=19&lang=eng

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/09/dont-let-the-victors-define-morality-hiroshima-was-always-indefensible 98.110.89.116 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to provide multiple RS that the atomic attacks were war crimes. An opinion in the Guardian and the Hiroshima Peace Museum (which is obviously WP:BIASED) aren't enough. The issue is highly debatable. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Mztourist. As I’ve previously mentioned, in complex examples such as this it is very difficult to find a consensus among RS. What constitutes a war crime isn’t a moral/ethical judgement, it’s a legal one. Bombing civilians is not outright prohibited in the course of war if it meets the standards of military necessity and proportionality. In the case of they atomic bombings there are strong arguments that they met the above standards so you’ll struggle to find a consensus among reliable sources: although some will say they were war crimes, a similar amount will say they are not. Even the guardian article you linked above only calls it morally indefensible - yes it alludes to the fact that some people consider it a war crime but it doesn’t go as far as explicitly labelling it as such. In other words, there is nothing definitive to work with so there is a limited amount we as editors can do.
 * As a side note, as someone with a fair amount of expertise in the matter, that guardian article is very poor and a good example of the amount of historical revisionism surrounding the topic. There is limited evidence that those quotes actually reflect what happened at the time and aren’t just a response to how society later reacted to the bombings. It also ignores a lot of key context and fails to consider what would have happened if the bombs had not been dropped: the Japanese empire were killing more non-combatants per month than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, the alternative to the a-bombs was a strategic bombing campaign that would have taken months and resulted in millions of Japanese civilian deaths, and the hardliner generals who had a veto in government would have refused to surrender (which nearly happened anyway). Yes there were racial elements involved but they don’t adequately explain the decision making and relative to everything else really aren’t that important in the overall story. Yes the bombings were horrific and objectively immoral, however so was everything else happening at the time and when put into context the alternative outcome would have almost certainly been far worse. There is still an argument to be made that war crimes were committed but it is very shaky and you’ll never find a consensus on the matter. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 11:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Several articles on wikipedia itself prove that it is largely discussed and a lot of solid research and citations in this direction can be found. The fact that there is no consensus is mainly because USA would be responsible in the highest level, which their position on international politics from that time until now prevents (many cases are missing for the same reason). Just imagine if nazi germany had launched the bomb first, then wouldn't it appeared during Nuremberg trial ? 2A01:E0A:4B0:7220:A9EE:5DE2:F44:5F47 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You would need to cite several articles as to why the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. The fact is that no nation in WWII was ever convicted of bombing cities at the post-WWII trials, nor they were officially considered as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack#World_War_II_and_aftermath
 * The articles lists proven and alleged war crimes. I think the lead should be rephrased as proven and probable, or something like that, which would exclude Hiroshima, Dresden and other incidents where there are allegations they were war crimes, but it has no great support in the literature. Incidentally, this discussion has come up before and the article should mention these incidents, to explain why they do not have sections.
 * The treatment of proved and probable differs from incidents such as Hiroshima. In the first case, the emphasis is on what happened. in the second case, the emphasis is on arguments that it meets the criteria. TFD (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ that we should include these war crimes.  &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)