In your view, is killing in war legally okay, morally okay, or both?
Killing in war
In your view, is killing in war legally okay, morally okay, or both?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What are you calling war? Other than the ex-cop in LA I don't know of any wars being declared since WWII.Originally Posted by Aimless
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Legally ok? It would be very hard to find any jurists who'd say it wasn't. There are very clearly prescribed rules for waging war. As long as you follow those rules, killing is perfectly legal. As for morality, I'd say that as long as you're not fighting a war of extermination and you're following the rules of war, you're on solid footing.
Hope is the denial of reality
More context needed.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In general yes to both.
Obviously exceptions apply depending upon the circumstances (eg killing civilians not enemy combatants etc).
Specifically the killing of civilians or non-combatants, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You can't fight a war without killing civilians. That's a simple fact. The only distinction that can drawn is between targeting civilians and killing civilians while in the process of attacking military targets.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, I get that, I'm just wondering how individual members of this forum decide whether or not a given civilian death in wartime is okay.
Let's say that the person is innocent of any crime, has not voted for the rulers, and was not engaging in any dodgy activities at the time of death. If a soldier had killed that person in either of their countries, in peacetime, it would probably have been seen as murder of some sort (eg. through negligence). In the context of war, it's not murder.
How do we arrive at that position? Is murder morally defined, legally defined, or both? Which definition takes precedence?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Actually, if that person was accidentally killed during a police operation, I doubt anyone would be convicted of any crime.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's why the "WAR" on global terrorism is full of legal and moral dilemmas....
Very true. And they will not be addressed head on, as that would involve politicians sticking their neck out.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
You cannot murder through negligence. That's why we have crimes called manslaughter.
In wartime, negligence that leads to noncombatant casualties is certainly a crime. That being said, not all mistakes are negligence. Even carrying out reasonable precautions will almost certainly result in some collateral damage; such injuries and deaths to noncombatants are certainly unfortunate, but are neither illegal nor immoral. In peacetime, I don't see how it would be any different; it's just that there are many fewer cases where you might reasonably claim a non-negligent mistake that lead to someone's death.
Sorry, manslaughter was the term I was trying to remember but had a brain freeze. It is however something for which you can be punished.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, and you can be punished for negligence leading to the death of civilians during wartime.
I think that in the average war situation it would be rather hard to establish criminal neglicence. AFAIK nobody was convicted for Srebrenica, which (albeit indirectly) led to the deaths of thousands of people in the not too distant past.
Congratulations America
Karadzic and Mladic were both indicted and are being tried... for genocide. I think this is hardly emblematic of a case of negligence.
I don't deny negligence is sometimes challenging to prove, but there's a clear distinction between negligence and mistakes, whether or not it's easy to nail someone for the former.
I'm guessing Hazir meant negligence on the UN side?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
If they were deliberately targeted while known to be innocent then it'd be wrong either way. If it was an accidental crossfire then its upsetting but neither illegal nor was the action (depending upon circumstances) immoral.
The best domestic comparison is to the Police.
I don't think that's analogous at all. The UN didn't actively carry out the crime, which I assume is what Minx is addressing. The cases of negligence I'm assuming we're dealing with deal with inadequate measures taken to limit collateral damage - e.g. using force disproportionate to the military objective, knowingly using hazy or outdated information for targeting, not having appropriate rules of engagement, etc.
I don't doubt that the UN (and plenty of other governments/organizations) are partially culpable for all sorts of atrocities by letting them happen - my particular pet peeve was Rwanda, which makes Srebrenica pale in comparison. There, Romeo Dallaire literally begged the UN (and Kofi Annan in particular) for permission to stop the genocide, and the wherewithal to do so. Nevertheless, this culpability falls far short of actual battlefield negligence that causes you (or people under your command) to unlawfully kill civilians.
I agree it's different, but since UN soldiers were on the ground already they had (I think) more responsibility to protect, because it was supposed to be a UN protected safe zone. While I agree that Rwanda was bad, I do also think there is a difference between not intervening at all, and being there but still letting it happen, since in the latter case you are already there, and you have the resources to intervene directly, but didn't.
I do agree that actual culpability lies obviously with the actual perpetrators of the genocide, but I also think that responsibility also lies with the UN, the military command, and the Dutch government. And what makes the case interesting WRT this thread, is that in this case the Dutch government and the UN (and possibly the French, I'm not sure) have stated that they are not culpable, but share responsibility (which is also why our cabinet, and the commander of the army resigned). And the Dutch government has been convicted in a civil suit by relatives of the massacre, so there is both moral and legal responsibility there (UN was acquitted because of lack of jurisdiction).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is no consensus as to anyone's "responsibility to protect". Since such a responsibility did not exist (certainly not before 2005), an organization can't be guilty of any crime, including negligence, for failing to do something. As things stand, the only parties that could be held responsible for international crimes are those who commit them and those who order them.
Hope is the denial of reality
Those Rules for War aren't so clear these days, are they? Modern warfare isn't being fought between sovereign nations, or with ground troops like 20th century war times.
Who makes these rules anyway? Are they updated to include new technology and "targeted killings" that could be considered assassinations?
As I understand it the court case was about victims who were on the UN base, and were sent away despite knowing that he would die.
Targeted killing of enemy soldiers is nothing new, is it? It's just we can do it further away now and with more precision. The issue I think is that because of the nature of a 'war' on terrorism you enter a grey area between policing and war, and that leads to weird situations like enemy combatants who aren't POWs, but also don't have the rights someone arrested by the police would have.Those Rules for War aren't so clear these days, are they? Modern warfare isn't being fought between sovereign nations, or with ground troops like 20th century war times.
Who makes these rules anyway? Are they updated to include new technology and "targeted killings" that could be considered assassinations?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Ok, tell me which crime the UN committed. Hint: the UN is under no legal obligation to protect anyone.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'll look up the court case tomorrow!
The point is that all the relevant international laws are about people doing something bad, not about people preventing others from doing something bad.
Hope is the denial of reality
Fair enough, plus this probably was Dutch law, not international.
Handing people over to their murderers is not bad?
The case was dismissed (citing a bunch of international law, which under Dutch law is part of the applicable law) on the basis of a technicality; the UN was considered to have immunity. They never got to the point of weighing negligence.
Congratulations America
As far as I know, they refused to protect them/give them continued sanctuary. They didn't participate in the violence, and neither did they order the violence. I can't see them being found guilty of an international crime. Whether they broke Dutch law is an altogether different question.
Hope is the denial of reality
That of course will never be tested materially.
But I still think that beyond the formal barriers that stand in the way of testing if the UN was negligent I think there are reasons to claim they were. The enclave was created as a safe haven and as such attracted civilians thinking they would be protected in that safe haven. When the Serbians started to push on that safe haven however basically what happened was a break down in the determination to maintain the safe haven Srebrenica (I am not just thinking of the events on the ground, but also in the refusal to give either air support, a sufficient mandate to shoot and an almost criminal under-armed situation). I think it could credibly be claimed that without the pretense of a UN safe haven there would have been less civilian deaths in Srebrenica than with a UN safe haven.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote