Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2596)	12/12/2002 8:19:16 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3959

First, to say that it was a war crime, you'd have to cite a relevant law Just look at the definition of "war crime", please. It is right there. Here's one summary: news.bbc.co.uk The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY). Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes. The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3: Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity 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 Plunder of public or private property. I think when you consider the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan you have to ask what the alternative would have been No. Example: There can be no excuse for genocide, even if you cook up some theory of how the future would have been worse if you did not perform it.