# The definition of a "war crime" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322 "2016-02-27T19:01:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/1 "2016-02-27T19:01:01Z")
A “war crime” doesn’t seem to be defined by the killing of civilians so much as it is defined by what the civilians were being killed for: Almost everyone would consider the My Lai Massacre a war crime, yet it killed far fewer civilians than the A-bombs or the firebombing of Tokyo. And there are many people who defend the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the firebombing of Tokyo (these bombings which killed many thousands of civilians) on the basis that \*“It ended World War II sooner and thus saved lives.” \* By that logic, though, atrocities can be excused if they hasten the end of a war and save lives. Surely that’s not a justifiable argument. Is it the _intention or malice_ that makes a war crime, a war crime? For instance, a soldier murdering one civilian for sadistic motives is a war crime, but a bomb hitting a school by mistake and killing a hundred students is not? Is it the _method_? Obama’s warning to Syria not to use chemical weapons against its own civilians seemed to suggest, for instance, that somehow killing an innocent civilian with nerve gas is worse than killing an innocent civilian with an AK-47, even though dead is dead in either case. Is it “Winner writes history?” But that’s not the case, there have been winning sides that acknowledge that their actions in wartime were war crimes. It’s not always “Loser committed crimes, winner is always blameless.” So, all in all, what exactly constitutes a war crime? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/2 "2016-02-27T19:32:03Z")
Are you familiar with the law of armed conflict? Including things like the Geneva Conventions, the rules of proportionality, etc? Seems like you need to read a little bit on the general principles: > **[law1\_final.pdf](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/3 "2016-02-27T19:33:14Z")
As is the case with many issues concerning international law there is no definition that all nations have agreed upon. A definition that at least comes close can be found in article 8.2 of the Rome statue of the international criminal court. It reads: > [@](#): > > For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means: > > ``` > (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: > (i) Wilful killing; > > (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; > > (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; > > (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; > > (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; > > (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; > > (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; > > (viii) Taking of hostages. > > ``` I think that is a good place to start. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/4 "2016-02-27T19:45:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Is it “Winner writes history?” But that’s not the case, there have been winning sides that acknowledge that their actions in wartime were war crimes. It’s not always “Loser committed crimes, winner is always blameless.” Were you referring to this LeMay quote? > [@](#): > > If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/5 "2016-02-27T20:22:35Z")
As with common civilian crimes, in order to be classified as one so as to be prosecuted, tried and penalized by a legitimate authority, the actions and their effects have to be clearly defined, as are the principles upon which it is agreed that there is cause for penalty, and these have to be codified into a Law or something with the standing of Law, i.e. a Treaty. In civilian Criminal Law, many instances in which the death of a person is caused by another’s action are not “murder”, some are not even “manslaughters”, and sometimes you don’t even have a case for a lawsuit, depending on what the Law says for each case. And just as in Criminal Law in general, intentionality in the sense of willing action; form and method; intent as in the sense of the goal being sought, and other factors are considered in the definition. In the OP example of chemical weapons, yes, using them on civilian populations _is explicitly outlawed_ under the treaties followed by most countries (not by Syria or by Saddam’s Iraq, obviously). But, _massacring helpless civilians wantonly_ by “conventional” means is _also_ forbidden and _can also_ get you tried for war crimes anyway – see: Bosnia. Just that gassing people is considered so outside the norm, so taking things to a whole other level, beyond the pale, and Syria had already crossed that line before, so a loud public warning was felt necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/6 "2016-02-28T01:05:33Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Is it “Winner writes history?” But that’s not the case, there have been winning sides that acknowledge that their actions in wartime were war crimes. It’s not always “Loser committed crimes, winner is always blameless.” The _aggressor_ committed crimes. That World War II ever happened was a crime on Germany and Japan’s part (a Crime Against Peace). It’s the same principle behind the felony murder rule: by waging an aggressive war to try to take over the world they bear responsibility for every death in that war, including those caused by their victims trying to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/7 "2016-02-28T01:53:08Z")
Just one other thought – the idea that the winners in wars never face charges of war crimes is not true. [Here](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hutchins-verdict-20150617-story.html) is a Marine convicted of killing an unarmed civilian, and [you know this guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner) for torturing Iraqi detainees. However, it is also true that had the United States lost World War II, one could expect that the firebombing of Japanese cities (among other things) would have undergone much greater legal scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/8 "2016-02-28T01:54:45Z")
In general, a military force may not target noncombatants, nor use weapons that cause undue pain or suffering to a military target. If you happen to drop an atom bomb against a military depot that happens to kill 100,000 civilians as collateral damage, you’re good. You were aiming at a combatant target. But you can’t target a pilot who ejected from a fighter plane, because he’s no longer a fighter. Yeah, it’s kinda nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/9 "2016-02-28T03:04:52Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The _aggressor_ committed crimes. That World War II ever happened was a crime on Germany and Japan’s part (a Crime Against Peace). It’s the same principle behind the felony murder rule: by waging an aggressive war to try to take over the world they bear responsibility for every death in that war, including those caused by their victims trying to defend themselves. The problem with that analogy is that the felony murder rule doesn’t make anyone blameless, it can only **add** to the list of people to be held responsible for the murder. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/10 "2016-02-28T08:36:38Z")
Besides the Geneva Convention, there’s a Hague Convention. And there are “Rule of Land Warfare”. Here’s a question I’m uncertain of myself. An arms/ammunition plant is a legitimate target. Okay. And if civilian workers get harmed, well, that’s okay too. What about the Mama-san fire-hardening lengths of bamboo to make pungi sticks? It leads one to suspect that not all civilians are purely non-combatants. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/11 "2016-03-06T21:52:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Just one other thought – the idea that the winners in wars never face charges of war crimes is not true. [Here](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hutchins-verdict-20150617-story.html) is a Marine convicted of killing an unarmed civilian, and [you know this guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner) for torturing Iraqi detainees. Well, we didn’t actually “win” what wasn’t actually a “war”. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/12 "2016-03-06T21:54:51Z")
Plenty of case law now. What constitutes a war crime in legal terms is absolutely clear. Of course, the law is a total arse; if Bush and Blair aren’t war criminals then the law is wrong - and the law is wrong. It was designed to punish tin pot dictators and protect (permanent member of the Security Council) imperialists. The game is totally rigged. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/13 "2016-03-06T23:06:29Z")
Looking at some of the Germans who were convicted, the primary War Crime seems to be “on the losing side”. Doenitz, Raeder, and a few others. Most richly deserved their punishment, of course. > **[Karl Dönitz | Nuremberg war crimes trials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D%C3%B6nitz#Nuremberg_war_crimes_trials)** > > Following the war, Dönitz was held as a prisoner of war by the Allies. He was indicted as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials on three counts. One: conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Two: planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression. Three: crimes against the laws of war. Dönitz was found not guilty on count one of the indictment, but guilty on counts two and three. > During the trial, army psychologist Gustave Gilbert was allowed to... “Over 100 senior Allied officers also sent letters to Dönitz conveying their disappointment over the fairness and verdict of his trial…” ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/14 "2016-03-07T00:10:06Z")
Nuremberg was ad hoc victors justice - a nice court room drama played out for Pathe News and the new imperialists. Had no basis in existing law. This is not news. ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/15 "2016-03-07T13:15:57Z")
The big problem is that propotionality and military necessity are subjective value judgments. Also, most laymen have no understanding of military law, so “war crime” becomes another word for “something I disagree with.” ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/16 "2016-03-07T14:37:40Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The _aggressor_ committed crimes. That World War II ever happened was a crime on Germany and Japan’s part (a Crime Against Peace). Really, according to what law of the time exactly? > [@](#): > > It’s the same principle behind the felony murder rule: by waging an aggressive war to try to take over the world they bear responsibility for every death in that war, including those caused by their victims trying to defend themselves. Take over the world?? Where did you get that? ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/17 "2016-03-07T17:02:15Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Really, according to what law of the time exactly? > Take over the world?? > Where did you get that? Germany very explicitly wanted to conquer the world and Hitler anticipated war against North and South America, the return of African colonies, and ownership of the middle east and most of India. The only question is whether he really intended global ownership or would have been content with global hegemony. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/18 "2016-03-07T17:19:38Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > Germany very explicitly wanted to conquer the world and Hitler anticipated war against North and South America, the return of African colonies, and ownership of the middle east and most of India. The only question is whether he really intended global ownership or would have been content with global hegemony. Can you point me to where this is explicitly stated? As far as I know they only wanted territories in the east. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/19 "2016-03-07T17:33:54Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Really, according to what law of the time exactly? If it did not exist, Rudolf Hess was still sentenced to life in prison for it. > [@](#): > > Take over the world?? > Where did you get that? From the fact that Germany and Japan planned to conquer all of Eurasia, came to an agreement about who had responsibility for conquering which parts, and the Germans at least had a particular idea of which parts would go to who when the war was over. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-a-war-crime/747322/20 "2016-03-07T22:30:01Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If it did not exist, Rudolf Hess was still sentenced to life in prison for it. It’s certainly true that much of the law the Nuremberg tribunals relied on was _ad hoc_. There was a (German) woman who was tried for falsely accusing her husband of anti-Nazi beliefs so he would be sent to the front lines and make it more convenient for her to carry on an affair. He was sent to Kursk and killed. The woman was tried but the tribunal couldn’t find anything to convict her of under the laws of war. Eventually they found a Weimar-era German law along the lines of bearing false witness and put her away for that.