Yes, let us take a look at the definition of 'war crime':
Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945
CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
AUGUST 8, 1945
[Signatories: USA, USSR, Britain, France]
[excerpts]
ARTICLE VI
[excerpt]
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
dannen.com
Come to think of it, according to the definition above, Hiroshima and Nagasaki can also be "crimes against humanity"... Take your pick.
But I just cannot see a caveat that goes "These shall not be called crimes if the winning party in the war says the alternative would be worse" <smile> |
