You’re being asked what they should be.
Yesterday, armed guards used rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the street of citizens so the President of the US could cross it. I don’t recall Hitler, Stalin or even Hirohito doing such a thing. Sounds more like the Czar in 1905.
Perhaps we have a problem here.
Hitler, Stalin or Hirohito would have massacred everyone in the very first protest along with anyone even suspected of being a leader in the movement. Try again.
It think that’s true. It would more realistically be up to the officers to refuse to order the troops to do it in the first place.
hajario,
In the 1960s the evening news was often dominated by scenes of student riots in Japan. Hirohito had the good judgement not to wade through them.
You’re correct. I conflated that with Tojo since it was matched with Hitler and Stalin. Hirohito was a figurehead though and isn’t a good analogy.
It seems not everyone supports the position of the White House,
I don’t mean this as an attack, but you are taking a naive perspective.
The use of any gas weapons, including tear gas, is a war crime.
The use of hollow point bullets is a war crime.
The threat of “no quarter” is a war crime.
And there’s more. It’s quite normal to commit “war crimes” in the USA, and we’ve done it all the time. But here’s the rub: War. Crimes. Only. Matter. When. Prosecuting. NATO. Enemies. They also only apply to “warfare” which offenders can weasel out of by saying that they’re not engaging in war, only armed confrontation of various sorts.
So the fact that pretty much everything we accept and normalize here is a war crime means diddly squat. We’re the US, we don’t get punished for war crimes, we punish war crimes. And don’t get me started on all the treaties we authored defining war crimes and then refused to sign…
Yes and no. Outreach? Yes! But not just because it might be a “war crime.” You have to ask them directly what their values are, and just how much they’re willing to shit on them because some dude told them to. Bring to their attention that they are accountable, not the uniform or unit or military. But that individual. And hold them to the personal values you share.
Not everybody believes in Democracy (most in the US don’t, if you really talk to them about what democracy means). Not everybody in the US believes in freedom, either. But most of them don’t want to be murderers, or tools of violent oppression forever scarred with PTSD over their choice to participate. So don’t go for the big, noble platitudes we like throw around when we’re fantasizing about America’s “exceptionalism.” Sit them down and tell them that if they do not refuse, it’s very likely they will be asked to kill innocent people just like themselves for no other reason than so that other armed men (police) can kill more civilians with impunity. Remind them that you cannot serve your country by killing it’s people. And drive that point home.
The use of tear gas is a war crime?
Then let me confess, I’m a war criminal.
Before I get my summons from The Hague, do you have any cite for that? I’d like a chance to read the charges.
Dude. It’s not a hard google search. Even wikipedia is explicit:
Sure, police use is “excepted” but then so is pretty much every other war crime because they only apply to “warfare.”
Sunday the police in Bellevue Washington did not try to stop the looters in Bellevue Square mall and the Lincoln Square II Nordstrom Rack. The looting went on for hours. The police were busy containing the legitimate protest crowd, putting out arson at the LA fitness, stopping looting at the Bravern (which was a pretty clear smash and grab job starting with the Hermes store). Oh yea, several other malls in the seattle area were targeted later that night.
The police chief said that I couldn’t send my officers in safely. I think the sub text was they would have likely been in a situation of having to shoot looters, and didn’t want that on their watch. The national guard showed up around 9PM to secure those malls with hundreds of troops.
I’m fucking appalled that criminal gangs hell bent on leveraging legitimate protests took the opportunity to deliberately hive off from the crowd and bring destruction to this community. This wasn’t a protest out of control but a targeted criminal act. I don’t think I wanted to see dozens gunned down by the police in a knee jerk reaction. Of course, I never want to see looting like that anywhere in America again. I’m conflicted on the right response to looters, especially those that start the looting.
Well, pick up a history book and see what the US did during World War II just to name a war in which unarmed civilians, in mass quantities, were annihilated.
Whole cities were rubbled.
Are you telling me that when we bombed Dresden, and fire bombed Tokyo, and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki just to name 3 off the tip top of my head, that civilians died? Gasp No way!
…Are there really people who think like that, or did we just get whooshed…? :smack:
The OP is buying into WW2 propaganda about the US, I know everyone thinks this will save us, but it won’t, this really only applies to those in command. The OP opinion is a result of all the military worship that started in '90 coming back to haunt us. Our soldiers are noble warriors and all that. The actual soldiers will kill anyone that is deemed to be the enemy by their superiors.
That is what they are trained to do, that is their “job”.
They won’t be debating if the order is legal or not, they will fire upon those they are told to. They follow orders.
Wouldn’t these situations be covered by the ordinary criminal law in relation to self-defence and “reasonable use of force” to preserve public order?
The “crime against humanity”
Yeah, well, criminals are bad people who break the law. Why would that change during a protest or riot?
Here is an interesting letter from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to … well, basically the entire military. It seemed to fit this thread.
An amusing assessment of my beliefs.
Anyway, no.
The opinion instead is that actual soldiers are not so noble and need reminding that they have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders and to make it very clear in advance that firing on unarmed protestors would be an unlawful order that should not be obeyed. The opinion is that without such public discussion, and reminders in advance from friends and family and even military leaders, of that obligation, the default would be to just follow orders.
What happens in the real world as authoritarian regimes use potentially lethal force to put down protests?
Sometimes the soldiers follow the orders. Sometimes they refuse to. No question the former is more common, but there are clear examples where the latter occurred.
It depends on whether they see the people as an enemy to be defeated, or fellow citizens to be protected.
Some of us are working on trying to make sure they see the residents of this country as the latter, some seem to be trying got instigate the former.
If a soldier is deployed to his hometown, and ordered to fire upon people in his community, he will likely refuse that order. We need to make sure that soldiers see the whole country as their hometown, the people of our nation their community.
You know, even though I don’t believe in your methods of how to get there, that, THAT right there is a beautiful sentiment and goal.
I think ultimately if we all saw the US as our hometown, then almost every single problem we face today, goes away.
No disrespect, but NATO has zip to do with this. What did you mean to say?