Talk:List of war crimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page one

Very few war/humanity crimes ever go to tribunal. This article attempts to highlight the potential extent of the issue.

Bosnia, the Kurds, Rwanda, Nazi germany, are all pretty much agreed to be war crimes or crimes against humanity ("WC/CAH"). To other people in other countries, so were Cambodia, the firebombing of Dresden, the atomic bombing of Japan, and the 0.5m Iraqi children who died as a byproduct of what is perceived by many in the Middle East as a deliberate unspoken policy by the victors of minimising basic survival provisions in Iraq (such as infrastructure for clean water) in the years following 1991, in furtherance of other agendas. These are more open to debate and dispute. However the fact that they are counted as possible crimes by some populations and some credible sources, is not open to dispute.

Instead of debating definitions, it's appropriate simply to note that in the case of the Iraq sanctions, 0.5m children died (UN estimate), that this was a byproduct of sanctions applied after the 1st Iraq war, and the summary of the core issue ("Restricting a dangerous terrorist country, or retaliatory crime against humanity?"). This is factual. Most readers can form their own opinions.

Example 1:

Taking the Iraq Sanctions as an example only, the statement that it is considered by a significant population to be a crime against humanity, is NPOV and verifiable. If part of the motive was (as some claim) retaliatory rather than counter-terrorism and compensation, then prima facie it is visible how this would possibly meet legal criteria as a possible crime against humanity (Rome Statute, Articles 6c, 7.1k and 7.2a refer). So its inclusion in the List is neither arbitrary nor POV. It is only "controversial" to the extent that some people would prefer not to have such allegations exist. But those allegations are made in other places, and this should not be ignored when researching background for Crime against Humanity.

In essence, hundreds of thousands of children died (UN estimate) as a result of a sustained policy which knowingly had the direct effect of depriving them of basic survival needs. Was this a necessary military step to counter state terrorism, an appropriate step to enforce compensation, a strategic step to weaken a vulnerable key Middle East country which was big in oil, or a retaliatory blow to a demonised enemy? Nobody knows and no judgement is rendered. It can be discussed elsewhere.

But the simple fact that a question is raised by others, is strictly NPOV.

At present only war/humanity crimes 1) committed by losing sides, 2) where the victors had political power and political will to bring a trial, are listed as such in Wikipedea. This means that only 4 cases are really identified (Nazi Germany, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Rwanda). In each case the indictment and tribunal was at the decision of the winning power, and in most of these the winning power was the same.

Because of these factors, the present war crimes and crime against humanity articles, does not make clear the potential extent and scale of war/humanity crime, nor is a real NPOV presented of the possible extent of WC/CAH. So the reader gains the impression that War Crime and Crime against Humanity is something done only by other people, that its rare, that they get taken to court, and never obtains the NPOV information which would enable them to question this.

The purpose of a list of alleged war crimes is to address this and yet do so in a NPOV way, by providing a simple list of incidents which have been felt by people round the world to be war crimes, and a quick explanation why some feel that way.

The reader may agree with some, and disagree with others, but thats inherent in any article. It should inspire some thought as to what war/humanity crime really is, how much of it has been done in the name of different countries, and where the moral line should be drawn.

That some incidents are felt to be WC/CAH by certain groups and not by others is inherently POV, but the mention that at least some people feel an act or policy constituted WC/CAH, and a summary of the core issue (why they feel it is, why others feel it isnt) is not. So long as each entry is NPOV in describing the incident and the basis of their feelings, and they are clearly labeled as a list of possible (and not indicted) WC/CCAH, it'll do its job.

Example 2:

"Excessive force against a civilian population, or military necessity to minimise loss of life?" is a NPOV summary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 14 words.

Yes, it'll be controversial and make people think. No, it shouldn't be an edit war, as it can easily and neutrally be verified whether an incident occurred and the basis upon which some other populations classify it as a WC/CAH. Readers can research it further and decide for themselves.

The aim of this article is to summarise, then, in a short form that discourages POV argument and edit wars, those incidents which may be felt by various groups worldwide to be war/humanity crime, and why they feel the incidents rank as such. Many such incidents are forgotten, never reported, or politely overlooked. There needs to be a list of this kind, however disturbing the feelings it raises.

FT2 12:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

We NEED to narrow this down. You said "At present only war/humanity crimes 1) committed by losing sides" I don't think modern society supports that. There is sufficient accountabillity to the united states in this internet age that every allegation (edit: real or imagined) comes to light (just google it) and more than once this topic has been discussed BY the US government AGAINST the US government and also by international organiations. Investigations have been made by the best prosecutors money can afford and still none of the allegations stick.

There needs to be a way to list these crimes without this becoming a political hacks diary of imagined allegations. edit, consider putting Non-verified allegations in it's own section.. otherwise only allegations that are currently under official investigations (and noted as such) and officially recognised crimes should be noted in this article. Once an allegation is cleared it is TO BE REMOVED. Also, this is not the place to post every new allegation as soon as it pops up on the internet. Wait until the allegation is at least governmentally recognised by the UN or the US or some government who is trying the perpetrator.

Again only Include Crime that have been proven and Allegations currently under official governmental investigation which should be noted as such and removed from the fact list as soon as they are cleared.--DjSamwise 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Consider a second article for non-confirmed allegations. --DjSamwise 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you (DjSamwise) think that this incident "Wormhoudt massacre" should be included here? Even though no one was brought to trial, would you dispute that a war crime was committed ? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're not includding allegations no, If we're doing allegetions yes, as long as allegations and persons responsible were written properly. Are you asking if I think we should allow or disallow allegations? Wht do you think? I differ to you guys of that as long as it's consistant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DjSamwise (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the massacre took place (unless you are going to dispute the British military records), it is just that the specific perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. Are you saying that if a war crime is committed, but because of lack of evidence no one is prosecuted that it should not be in this list? I am not talking here about sections like "The Japanese committed war crimes in the Pacific theatre", but specific crimes where no one was prosecuted, perhaps because the person who committed the crime died before (s)he could be brought to trial? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, same principals apply. You must word things properly. I would dispute it if you falsey accused any party.. so it would have to be carefully worded so as not to impute guilt where guilt is not prooven. IMO that's the only way to stay impartial (if that's even possible on a thread like this. :) --DjSamwise 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Title change?

As suggested by Per, to "Mass Deaths of Civilians"?

Results of deletion debate: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of war crimes. No consensus. Keep. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Title change? "War crimes which the US did not commit"

How about that? Discusting to see persons systematically trying to forge history and play down the role of United States in relation to any war crimes. Everytime proofs are given comes a Bush- supporter saying information to misplaced or at least missing references.

Next thing we see is a Bush-supporter to edit the page by saying "removed something" and as the end result is a discusting page with absolutely nothing about current war in Iraq AND not even any notices that the information might be biased, disputed, a result of sabotage.

UK document showing that U.K. Attorney General believed attack was illegal (--> crime against peace) 1) leaked secret Memorandum from Lord Goldsmith, U.K. Attorney General, to the Prime Minister (Mar. 7, 2003), http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf.

US House of representatives report Showing that at least the democrats have enough proof to call the was illegal. (thus a war crime; war of aggression)

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2/webfullreport.htm (search for word "illegal" to find hi-lights)

---

I removed the entry on the sanctions in Iraq, not because it isn't a crime but because it isn't a war crime. Feel free to put it under genocide or crimes against humanity or something. DJ Clayworth 21:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Title change

Interesting. I havent seen a "keep/delete" debate before (newbie). I was impressed at the quality of comment.

Turning to the point about, namely the title:

When this page was put up, my thought was simply - current articles were NPOV insofar as much has been done that will never make it to a trial, but none the less was reasonable to consider as strong or plausible cases". It wasn't till later I realised I had actually not been sufficiently thoughtful in the title, and that many of these cases were crimes against humanity or genocide, and not in fact (as Clayworth points out) "war crimes". My intent was a page to cover those cases which were alleged war crime, crime against humanity, international crimes under the Rome Statute or similar, which were silently omitted from the War Crime and Crime against Humanity articles and histories, giving a very distorted POV that these were rare and "never done by us in recent memory".

I didnt mean this article's title to be so specific as to be just War Crime, and I dont see the need for 3 or 4 "alleged" pages. Also many incidents really fall under all 3 so a separate reference for each will include much duplication.

Might a more general name change, "Alleged war crime and crime against humanity", or "Alleged war crime, crime against humanity and genocide" be better?

Apologies, I see the information that needs to be there but I'm not sure how best to title it, to achieve the goal. FT2 22:01, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

(On an aside, as a separate thing, the lack of information prevented objective research and impeded those like myself who were curious and wanted to find out what we or others worldwide might have done and got away with, and how widespread plausible allegations of these crimes might be in fact. But thats a side-issue, not relevant right now to the question of a better title FT2)

--- Article title:

The article broadly covers "incidents which may be perceived as either War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace, or Crimes against Humanity."

Since many war crimes are also entwined with crime against humanity or crime against peace, should the title be changed to reflect this properly?

"Mass Death and Group Destruction of Civilians"?

FT2 02:55, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think a Title change or an Intro Change are definately in order if we can't change the POV from the 2nd War in Iraq section. The rest of the article seems to be pretty well established material though.. so it seems like it would be a shame to change the whole article instead of the one section. --DjSamwise 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Hue Massacre

During the Vietnam war it is a well established fact that all parties committed war crimes. To list each instance would be impossible. However, the massacre at Hue can in many ways be described as worse than the one at My Lai (which I still belive should be included on this page) because (a) more people were killed and (b) their deaths were very much the result of policy, not a group of soldiers on a shooting spree. The official US position visavi My Lai was (in my opinion) not good. They did not take enough action to punish the perpetrators nor to compensate the surviving victims. The massacre at Hue OTOH was very much the deliberate result of North Vietnamese government policy. To list the (if possible th grade here) lesser crime, but omit the other is a bad idea.

--itpastorn 16:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These kind of massacres actually happened all the time. It's just a matter of which ones had photographers present and got attention. The whole war was a crime in the highest degree. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Laws of War - When to start?

• The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

• These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

• In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

from A Brief History Of The Laws Of War, reference to Laws of war MGTom 10:00, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

I suggest that the category for inclusion is changed from after GCI to after the 1907 Hauge Conventions:

For purpose of selectivity, only war crimes since the customary laws of war were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907 will be included.

Although there were treaties before those, the 1907 Hague Conventions and later conventions formed the basis for the Nuremberg Trials which have formed the basis of most of the law of war we have today.

The reason for suggesting this is because although at the moment only the US Civil war in included, there are lots and lots of other late 19th century wars and there will be endless POV over whether killing wounded enemy after a battle (as the Zulus did at Isandlwana British did at Rorke's Drift was or was not a war crime in 1879, because one is looking at what was mainly customary laws between "civilised" (Hague Convention's term not mine) nations until the Hague Conventions --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

death camp allegations

First of all, the site the anon editor pointed to is seemingly the only site alleging that the death camp allegation is incorrect. So using their own argument against them, their allegation is not to be trusted either.

Second, everyone knows that concentration camps (or for the emotionally-charged - death camps) existed during the Civil War. Conditions were horrible, treatments were inhumane. I'll be looking for this specific death camp allegation, but until then, I don't think we should take the word of one allegation over another... ;)
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Soviet War Crimes in 1945

Soviet War Crimes in Germany during 1945 should also be listed. --Berndd11222 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

North Korean War Crimes 1950-51

North Korean War Crimes in 1950-51 need to be mentioned. Thousands of innocent civilans were murdered by the North Koreans when they occupied Seoul in 1951.--Berndd11222 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no mention of the War crimes committed by US and or UN Forces or those committed by the South Korean government. Both sides committed War Crimes.

Biafra 1967-70

The war crimes in the Biafran should also be mentioned--Berndd11222 23:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yemen 1962-70

The use of poison gas by Egypt in Yemen should be mentioned also--Berndd11222 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Lebanon 1982

The massacre of 1,500 Palestinians in Beirut during the Israeli invasion should be mentioned--Berndd11222 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

Destruction of water supplies - how does that fit with unlawful weaponry?

Wikipedia:Verifiability

with a topic as sensitive as this, it is extra important to cite sources with every statement made. It's just too easy to sneak in unsubstantiated propaganda otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. FT2 (Talk) 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also it is also Wikipedia policy see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

However I do not think that if a link to another article in included here which does have comprehensive citations that those citations have to be repeated here. However many Wikipedia articles are link into this article which have next to no citations about the incident and none on it being a war crime, in which case I think citations are need in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look for instance at the 2nd War in Iraq section. The only citations shown are governments and courts making statements of non-opinion, staying away from calling the "Coalition of the Willing" criminals. Yet it is categorised as if it were allready a fact. Can we please have SOME neutrality? --DjSamwise 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Claims Unsubstantiated/Counter-factual

Both the IAEA and the WHO have conclusively shown that DU is not a radiological risk, and what toxic effects it does have stem from DU being a heavy metal like lead or tungsten, neither of which it is more toxic than. WHO studies in the Balkans showed that DU rarely spread a few meters beyond the target it had struck. Furthermore, Gulf War I veterans that were victims of friendly fire spent over a decade with DU shrapnel embedded in them, with no ill effects.

That is one view. In fact, DU is fully discussed in the depleted uranium article where it belongs. The relevant material for this article is that the UN has unambiguously stated it potentially breaches multiple international laws, and may be an unlawful weapon. The DU article notes that several organizations not affiliated to the US/UK governments and/or military, do not agree with these findings, and take issue with them. Again the DU article is where that debate belongs. The issue for this article is: a weapon was used which the UN has stated may be unlawful and its use may be a crime against humanity, or a war crime, or similar. That is factual. It has been alleged by some, that this use was a war crime. That is factual. That is all that is relevant for inclusion here. This article makes clear this is a list of allegations and possible cases, not proven cases, and lists why the allegation is made, and links to the DU article for more detail. That is appropriate. FT2 (Talk) 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Highway of Death ought to be added

US bombing of retreating troops, in violation of UN declaration, etc, etc Crocodilicus 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So add it, if so :) FT2 (Talk) 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But didn't those troops fire on coalition aircraft? If so, it's an instance of monumental stupidity (on the Iraqi's part) rather than a "war crime."

Aerial bombardment during World War II

Conventional

This article published on 30-06-1998 in International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 by Javier Guisández Gómez states:

In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

Unless someone has another source which presents a legal argument which contradicts this one aerial bombardment should not be included in this list. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

(Annex to the Convention REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND /Hague IV; October 18, 1907)--WerWil 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

nuclear

On the nuclear issue I would point to Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3. See specifically the section International Court of Justice. The ICJ case has 5 judements on the debate about whether the use or threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996 was lawful. It has nothing direct to say on the state of international law in 1945, however it does say that in 1996: "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;". Which suggests there was nothing in customary nor conventional international law in 1945.

See also the UK reservations when agreeing to Protocol I UK Declaration made upon signature - 12/12/1977 SOURCE: Corrected Letter of 28 January 1998 sent to the Swiss Government by Christopher Hulse, HM Ambassador of the United Kingdom. Link is to the web site Queen's University Belfast

"(i) That the new rules introduced by the Protocol are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons;".

So the chances that using nuclear weapons was a war cime in 1945 were slim to none. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

INteresting point. During negotiations on the International Criminal Court some nations sought to include use of nuclear weapons as a war crime. In the end it was not specifically included. The argument for including it is that WMDs in general inherently target mass civilian deaths. I'll have a think about the logic and read up on the arguments before making up my mind. AndrewRT 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The source that you cited stated in the opinion of the ICJ : "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict [i.e. a war crime], and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;" This would appear to go against your argument AndrewRT 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But the source you quote is referring to the state of interntional law in 1998, with all the additional treaties since World War II including the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 etc. They are not ruling on the state of the law in 1945. As the ruling stands "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;" and please couple that with what Guisández Gómez says above "during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property". ---Philip Baird Shearer

Firebombings

Would the US/UK firebomings of the cities Tokyo and Dresden be considered war crimes? 24630 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The classification of particular events as war crimes is often controversial. The following summary should therefore not be taken as a guide to what is or is not a war crime. Inclusion of an incident in the list does not mean that a war crime was committed, exclusion does not mean that no war crime took place."

If this list is not "a guide to what is or is not a war crime" then what is it? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the introduction because the newer wording would have effects on the list, and in some respects it was just wrong.

For example:

The definitions and start dates for noting such crimes are taken from the international agreements which established their legal existance:

Rape, pillage, and looting had long been a war crimes before Hague 1907, so that is not true.

Most such crimes are not prosecuted is next to impossible to prove or disprove.

There were other problesms with the changes but I have to go and do something in the real world -- later. -- Philip Baird Shearer 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page

I thought the intro I edited was helpful and clear. If you didn't find it so, could you explain in what way it's deficient, so we can discuss it? Your revert didn't have any explanation, and rather than re-revert I figure it's best to ask you directly what you felt about it. Your edit for ease of reference: Revision as of 07:30, 23 June 2006. Many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I put back the original initial paragraph because it describes what is in the list much better than the replacement.

With the second paragraph I did not put back the original but as I said above "Most such crimes are not prosecuted" so I think the wording "Since many war crimes are not ultimately prosecuted" is easier to prove. " or (especially in military courts martial) where a token punishment only was administered" what is or is not a token punishment is a POV, and quite frankly this article only needs a court case the severity of punishment is not relevant to whether a war crime was committed or not.

Also in the second paragraph "For this reason, the reader must make up their own mind from the facts, whether a given case is valid or invalid, since no definitive court ruling will yet exist." I never liked this sentence, OK in an essay not not needed here. Further it can cause problems for other editors see: #New Information misleading.

Much of the third paragraph is redundant if the first is back in place, so I think the first and third paragraph need consolidation, but I have specific issues with the replacement sentence which read "The definitions and start dates for noting such crimes are taken from the international agreements which established their legal existence" as I said above rape, pillage, and looting had long been a war crimes before Hague 1907, so the statement is not true. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Some quick clarification questions and such:

1. You've said that "rape, pillage, and looting had long been a war crimes before Hague 1907". I'm no expert in the field, but it seems to me that whilst rape and such were commonlaw crimes under individual national jurisdictions for a long time, the concept of "crimes against humanity" as opposed to personal crimes (such as individual rapists or theft) is somewhat newer. My concern is that since crimes against peace and humanity were defined in the London Charter, logically they were not crimes beforehand, and that the concept of "war crimes" is much more recent than the concept of "rape and pillage" being crimes. So although rape and pillage are older, the concept of war crimes is not. When was that introduced?
2. My main concern is the initial sentence. The article should define itself in a more concise form. I wrote: "This list of war crimes discusses the many cases where a war crime, crime against peace, or crime against humanity has been alleged to have been committed." After that, should come more of a description, but the first sentence must sum up the article much more concisely for people who visit it. At present, the 1st paragraph is accurate but doesn't explain it so succinctly. That's one thing I was trying to change:
3. Last, the intro structure. I think the same existing material could be logically put in this order (without significant content change):
   • What the article is about.
   • Non-prosecution and judgement issues.
   • Legal definitions and "start dates".

   Essentially moving the legal material from para. 1 to para. 3 and cleaning up.

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things were war crimes before 1907 for example perfidy, fighting out of uniform, etc. I am not sure when the term "war crime" started as an umbrella term for these crimes which are only crimes under the laws and customs of war. The other two, Crimes against humanity and Crimes against peace were basically introduced in their modern form with the London Charter and retrospectively applied to World War II. To apply these terms to events earlier than those covered by the Nuremberg Trials invites POV arguments. I did include two example from World War I which breaks my own personal POV, because I thought that if they were not in the list then people would keep adding them and it is better that they are included with detailed notes on what they were, than have them added later probably without adequate citations.

As to your point 3, I agree with you suggestion of moving most of the the current first paragraph into "Legal definitions and start dates", but I suggest this ordering "What the article is about", "Legal definitions and start dates" and then "Non-prosecution and judgement issues". --Philip Baird Shearer 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, and if you feel there's a compelling reason that's always valued. But I think this article needs to break from the expected order for a good reason: - because the article is operating under a premise, and the reader must be told that up front. Compared to that, the technical definition of which crimes are included because orf what laws on what basis, is tertiary. The important point to make is first, what the article lists, and second, that there is an element of judgement and lack of certainty in the listing. To my mind that issue is more important than the third which is basically, definitional, and for that reason I ordered #2 and #3 that way around. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}

Let's put aside the ordering of the paragraphs for the moment and work on agreeing the wording of your second paragraph. I have made changes to it. Is there anything else you wish to add or take away? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I get to. If you want to clean it up please do: "Since many war cimes are not ultimately prosecuted (due to lack of political will, lack of effective procedures, or other practical and political reasons), historians, lawyers and human rights activists will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators."

There's three points I've tried to add in which seem to be missing: 1) "human rights activists" are an important 3rd source too, 2) more emphasis on "lack of criminal hearing doesn't mean not a serious allegation", and 3) adds common but omitted circumstance where there is investigation but it clears or token punishes alleged perpetrators. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I put in your version but took out "human rights activists", because if they are a respectable Human Rights NGO they will have lawers to present the their case, and the term "human rights activists" is a broad brush because one does not need any formal qualification to be called a "human rights activist". --Philip Baird Shearer 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work and fair judgement. Now what next :)

Title of this page

Shouldn't the title of this page be "List of alleged war crimes", or "Allegations of war crimes"? The title contains a stronger assertion than the introduction. --Deville (Talk) 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Defiantly not otherwise the list becomes totally one of POV conflicts. I think what needs to be done is to tighten up the definition at the top so that it is unambiguous and precise. --Philip Baird Shearer

Then all "warcrimes" not prooven to be so by the appropriate athourity remain POV and should be removed. --DjSamwise 05:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed appropriate section of 2nd Iraq war that assumed US invasion was a war of agression. This is POV of the author and contained no citation as to the authority that classified it as such but rather cited that "protesters" were attempting to bring it to court. The allegations of protestors hardly count as fact. --DjSamwise 05:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Allied war crimes into this article

• Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1990-1991 Iraq (First Gulf Wars, USA)

Use of unlawful weaponry

any others apart from depleted uranium, White phosphorus (weapon) and Mk 77 firebombs which are mentioned below? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of depleted uranium ("DU") which turns to a fine pyrogenic powder upon impact. DU is used due to its extreme density, in armor piercing munitions. It is also radioactive, poisonous, effectively lasts forever, and capable of causing cancer or birth defects. Between 500 - 3000 tons of powdered uranium are estimated to have been left in the desert, as well as the impact on those exposed directly to it. Anecdotally there have been significant rises in unusual cancers in Iraq, including childhood cancers and radiation based effects, and abnormal death and injury rates in uranium cleanup teams.

A UN report of 2002 states that because of these effects, DU weapons potentially breach each of the following laws: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. (Main article on health, use, legality and impact: Depleted uranium)

The information in the proceeding paragarph is only part of the story. Please see depleted uranium#Legal status of depleted uranium weapons The same report says "But since weapons containing DU are relatively new weapons no treaty exists yet to regulate, limit or prohibit its use." And in the same section a report written for the DoD says of the use of DU in Kosova: "it is not a war crime or a violation of international law to use [depleted uranium shells], as far as the ad hoc [ International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ] were concerned." See also Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Use of Depleted Uranium Projectiles --Philip Baird Shearer 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chemical warfare (use of Mk 77 firebombs based upon kerosene/polystyrene) directly against enemy soldiers. (Napalm is a gasoline/polystyrene mixture) The Guardian: article; use of white phosphorus (a burning agent) http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1115-29.htm

See White phosphorus (weapon)#Military regulations Seems the Yanks did not break treaty obligations. The same goes for Mk 77 firebombs (see Fire Bombs in Iraq). Because unlike the British, they have not signed up for the Protocol 3 of the 1980 UN Convention on Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has been tried for either of these activities, nor is any agreed assessment of dead or injured available. In the former case, dead and congenitally deformed could arise over decades to come.

Nobody will be tried if the weapons are not in breach of USA treaty obligations, and the evidence seens to be that way. If anyone has evidence which points the other way lets weigh it and see if it is credible. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems it's a case of "the jury is out". There are a few perspectives going on here. It seems the UN has declared such weapons in principle unlawful, on several occasions. However it has not taken any action to follow this up, nor (as with many happenings) is it likely to do so in the foreseeable future. There is no specific treaty as such, but nor would there be if they are unlawful under an existing treaty as the relevant UN motions state. That said, the whole focus of this article is alleged crimes. There seems to be a basis that use of DU and pyro- and chemical agents are alleged by a range of sources to potentially be crimes. Would you agree with this as a rough summary of where it is at? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1975-1999: Invasion and occupation of East Timor by Indonesia

Unless citations can be found that says that this was a war then I think this entry should be removed. If it is to remain then we need citations the was a waging a war of aggression and the murder of civilians took place and were war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As no citations have been added I am removing the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Japanese germ and chemical warfare units

Some of the stub articles on Japanese germ and chemical warfare units seem to be based on the this source: JAPANS DARK BACKGROUND 1881-1945. However as this is a blog page by a "Dave K." and does not cite its sources (but does give a bibliography at the bottom). This is not a "reliable and reputable source" as specified in WP:V and WP:RS. some of the Wikipedia articles like Unit 9420 seem to be little more than a cut and past from this article, so they may be deleted at any time for Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

For anyone who wishes to follow up the alleged crimes of these units these are the sources listed in the bibliography by "Dave K.":

• Kempei Tai: The Japanese Secret Service Then and Now by Richard Deacon (ISBN 0-8048-1653-0)
• Kempeitai: Japan's Dreaded Military Police by Raymond Lamont-Brown (ISBN0-7509-1566-8)
• Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military by Robert B. Edgerton (ISBN 0-8133-3600-7)
• Shadows Dancing: Japanese Espionage Against the West, 1939-1945 by Tony Matthews (ISBN 0-312-10544-4)
• Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II by Yuki Tanaka (ISBN 0-8133-2718-0)
• Japan's War by Edwin P. Hoyt (ISBN 0-306-80348-8)
• Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army by Meirion and Susie Harries (ISBN 0-679-75303-6)
• Unit 731 Testimony by Hal Gold (ISBN 4-900737-39-9)
• Japan's Secret War by Robert K. Wilcox
• Handbook on Japanese Military Forces by the US War Department (ISBN 0-8071-2013-8)
• The Encyclopedia of Espionage by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen (ISBN 0-517-20269-7)

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Size problem. Suggested move of WWII entries

This article had reached the limits for a wikipedia page. I suggest that the entries for the Second Word War is broken out into either one new article list of World War II war crimes, or into two articles Axis war crimes and a merge into Allied war crimes. My preference is for the latter option but does anyone else have a view on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think an article like this will always cover a very large number of incidents and I suggest it should only include the briefest sumary of each (maybe a sentence or two) with the details included in a linked main article. As to the second world war would it not be inherently more NPOV to have all the crimes committeed by all sides summarised in one article (even if this then links into other articles for allied war crimes, axis war crimes etc.) AndrewRT 15:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(2nd) Iraq war 2003-2004

I have tabulated the entry and I have removed:

1. Mass deaths of civilians -- No reference that the death of civilians were in breach of "military neccesity" (Protocol I)
2. Torture -- I think that this only occured during the occupation not the invasion, but this needs checking.
3. Use of illegal weapons including napalm derivatives and depleted uranium -- see the section above #1990-1991 Iraq (First Gulf Wars, USA) for why these are to date not considered crimes.

Also none of the above had citations to references. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The most basic charge about the invasion of Iraq is that it was a War of aggression, i.e. it wasn't to repel an invasion, nor was it a response to an attack on another nation. It is surely also worth noting that the UN secretary general declared the war to be illegal, as far as he was concerned (and whatever 'illegal' means, in this context).

Where has it been determined (by what authority) has it been determined that the US waged a war of agression. I imagine those involved in the war would argue it was not, so I am not asking your opinion, I'd like to have a refference as to what Authority agrees with this highly contested accusation. Thanks. --DjSamwise 05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section that claims the coalition of the willing as being responsible for War of Agression in the section of 2nd Iraq war. Assuming the crime of "War of Aggression" took place is POV of the author and contained no citation as to the authority that classified it as such but rather cited that "protesters" were attempting to bring it to court. The allegations of protestors hardly count as fact. Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. --DjSamwise 05:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the section. References were/are given in the text see the footnotes:

• Luis Moreno-Ocampo Letter:Public reply with his conclusions allagationsof war crimes during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 9 February 2006
• Nikolaus Schultz Case Note – Was the war on Iraq Illegal? – The Judgment of the German Federal Administrative Court of 21 June 2005 in the German Law Journal No. 1 (1 January 2006)
• War protesters' plea to Law Lords BBC 20 February 2006

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those refferences demonstrate an authority over US international affairs. None of them demonstrate the US ties to warcrimes except the allegations of protesters. Like wise the official German point of View is that there is some "Grave Concern" to which a soldier was able to object. The German refference fails on both accounts to give an authoritative inditment of warcrimes seeing as how it's niether authoritative, nor iditing. I mean I could give you an article on France objecting to US actions but that doesn't make the US a warcriminal. --DjSamwise 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There ya go.. since you wanted an allegation up there, so be it. I removed any refference to governmental stances on US policy and whatnot that did not make a claim on the warcrimes of the US. It's silly to use a refference that does not reffer to your claim. It is my feeling that the addition of alegations of protesters is a the type of president that makes a thread like this loose all meaning and would appreciate if you kindly removed ALL allegatory statements that do not have the approtpriate refferences. --DjSamwise 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New Update, I read through your reference for the protesters.. right in the article it says the judges stated that "the courts cannot deal with the legality of the war, which was considered to be a political matter" So how is this a refferenceof documented proof of the allegation when it says right in the article that it is not? I'm going to have to remove the section again pending proper citations. --DjSamwise 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I added an intro to this section to help infer that this was not the place for political discussion but an archival of established fact. I think it's an important notw in such a highly politically charged section. --DjSamwise 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DjSamwise, you miss the point when you say "None of those references demonstrate an authority over US international affairs." They were not written in such a way as to claim it. The participants were more than just the US and there is nothing wrong in including the rulings of international bodies and other national jurisdiction which were involved in the operation. It is very US centric of you to think that it was is about the US. For example the UK reference you removed is about the UK, and in the same situation if a court case had been appealed to the American Supreme Court, it would be odd for some one to remove the entry because it did not demonstrate an authority over UK international affairs. That the lower court said what it did, is exactly why it has been appealed to the Law Lords and why it is relevant to this article as an on going court case. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi ok lets deal with this point by point again. First let me say I am not critisising the US or the accusers of the US, I am critisising this article for not properly citing. Second, if they are allegations not proove, mark it as such. I'll do it now. -- ok the section is now factually labeled "allegation".DjSamwise 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Your first refference. When your citition is read it clearly states that it is NOT an accusation of war crimes for war of aggression. It's right there in the text theat they are not set up to discuss the point of legality or if the charge that it was a crime of agression is true, but rather " the allegations of targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks". So use this refference for something along those lines and not for the "War of Aggression". I am removing it because the refference itself actually claims non decision one way or the other on this topic. --DjSamwise 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, regarding the German one, I've been reading this and re-reading this (especially section D).. The court refused to actually implicate the United States in a Crim of War but gives individuals the right to see it that was and consientiously object to it. I like the way the writer of this wikki article phrased it but I'm still not convinced that this article gives any evidence as to the actual Crime. I'm not going to mess with this one for now as long as it's clear that the citation does not make the allegation of war crime, it simply states (i forget what the exact term was) great concern? over the matter. --DjSamwise 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of refference 41.. thank you for correcting me on this one. It is obvious from the letter used as a citation that this is a current ongoing investigation. I appologize for having initially removed it as I now think it's a very important piece. Perhaps a little more than mentioning some protesters could be in order to clarify the citation's importance within the article. --DjSamwise 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this being reverted again with no discussion? Why are the improvments being removed? Why is the word Allegation being removed? Why is the article remaining that claims to give a non-opinion on the subject? --DjSamwise 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There.. it's been edited to maintain the links you found in your research to be pertinent without the bias wording that was originally there. Quotes are now direct from the speakers. It now reads more plainly and neutrally without assumning that the allegations are true or false. --DjSamwise 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The ICC is included to show that the The International Criminal Court, did not find the invasion to be a crime against peace. This is as important because a quick Google will show you that many many blog pages state that it was crime against peace and that the ICC did/should investigate. Here is an example picked off the first page of a Google search to show what I mean:CCR: Before, During and After. Why remove the start of the quote: "the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal."

If that is the case you need to reword what you've placed in the article to reflect that. All to quotethe article states (twice I should add) is that it doesn't have jurisdiction to determine legallity of the war. So if you wanted to fix it to relect what you said just there, I wouldn't be compelled to do it for you. ;) --DjSamwise 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing you wording of the German paragraph, because the previous wording is much closer to the original text than yours:

With respect to the legality of the US led war on Iraq, the BVerwG's judgement generates a somewhat odd conclusion. The BVerwG apparently took great pains to state their findings cautiously , that both the war itself and Germany's involvement in it meet with grave concerns in terms of the rules of public international law. However, the BVerwG did not make it totally clear that, in its opinion, the war and the contributions to it by the German Federal Government were outright illegal, notwithstanding that it argued at great length that the prohibition of the use of force in international relations as provided for in Art. 2.4 of the Carter and corresponding jus cogens was prima facie violated.

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am replaceing your wording to simplify the notation and make it more pertitnent to the accusation. --DjSamwise 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly

Is there a problem with the word Alleged being used when it has never been officially found but still protesters and what not are bringing something to court? This is not verified as fact. IN regard to the accusation in the 2nd war in Iraq, The only source that makes the statement that the US has commited the war crime of "Waging a war of aggression" is on Trial. All other citations STAY AWAY from making that claim. Why is then noted as if it is a fact and not an alligation? Can we get a concensus of the what the material is saying or are you doing your own research to make your own conclusion? --DjSamwise 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New Information misleading

Hiya, new info was added to state "this analysis, the German Federal Court [4], and the International Commission of Jurists [5] which concluded that the invasion constituted a war of aggression under international law." This is misleading in that it sounds like the editor is saying that All of those groups agree on the conclusion.. which would be false. The German Federal Court for one purposefully did NOT make that conclusion (according to the citation). The other citations are varyingly political groups with thier own agendas (such as the ICJ and the World Tribunal) there are plenty of activist groups on both sides to make thier own points if we are coming to the point of the legality debate. What information is lacking is ANY governmental stance on the issue. Citation 41 is the only one that comes close to that.

So my question is.. shall I add in the comment section opposing points of view to counter balance the editors choice of citations? Is that was this thread is for? Or is this a one sided political thread used to compile links of whoever supports the idea that the US's actions were criminal. Please YOU tell ME. Thanks. --DjSamwise 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the citations (because basicaly I agree with you on this one) and just left the link to the article Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think that is sufficient for anyone who wants to read up more on the detail of the allegations and all the court cases. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's a great idea. Excellent way to keep this particular article impartial. Thanks. --DjSamwise 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note, the opening paragraph says "the reader must make up their own mind from the facts". So why are we linking to non-factual, partisan citations in the first place? Someone Please edit those non-factual citations out before this turns into a political POV thread. --DjSamwise 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is better discussed in the section #Introduction --Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

the US Waging a War of Aggression

Once again, I am compelled to note that there is no source in this section that provides a legitimate allegation of the US waging a war of agression. 2 (the first 2) Citations are legitimate but display courts and governments refusing to call this a war of agression. 1 is a group of protesters who were shut down by the Lord Laws and charged with tresspassing. I am considering condensing this section into a few sentances that summarises the courts' decisions. Would one of the original editors like to take up this task? Right now there is allot of info written to basically say that the allegation is not supported by any government. --DjSamwise 01:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, most international lawyers consider that the war was an act of aggression in breach of the UN Charter. I personally think that politicians and judges have mainly chosen not to say it explicitly because they are afraid of the US not because they belive it not to be the case. There is a longer discussion at Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq where Kofi Annan is quoted saying he thought it was an aggression. I don´t think theres any need to expand this article too much. --AndrewRT 02:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Then THAT's what needs to be cited.. not 3 links of confusion that doesn't add any factual content or support to the argument. --DjSamwise 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DjSamwise. Please stop creating new sections on this topic it breaks up the argument and leads to repetition of conversations on the talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above in the first section of #(2nd) Iraq war 2003-2004 at 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DjSamwise, ... The participants were more than just the US and there is nothing wrong in including the rulings of international bodies and other national jurisdiction which were involved in the operation. It is very US centric of you to think that it was is about the US. ...

Please dont start imputing your false assumtions on me (again). I agree that this is an international issue. Where did I ever state that the US should make the judgment? The in article links makes my point because the INTERNATIONAL courts and EUROPEAN governments have refused to call this a war of aggression. Please.. don't make this a bias thing. You pretend to be all neutral but keep coming out with these attacks againts me. Stick to the facts cited. Which right now do not support the argument in that section of the article. --DjSamwise 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Samwise -- read the article intro. This is about acts which may not have been taken to court, but none the less are considered by either a significant number of people, or credible bodies, to be war crimes or crimes against peace and humanity. There are two ways to answer your question:

• First, yes, I know you support the USA. But the USA gets the same treatment as every other country here. There is no bias. if it has been considered or might be considered as a war crime, it goes in. What also goes in is some indication what the basis is. So that the reader can form their own opinion. Not yours, not mine, not "some editors" or "some preferred view". Their own.
  Some people say it was a war of aggression? Very well, cite the facts and let them decide. That's what an encyclopedia does.

? So you assume that I support the US because I am asking for citations where there is an accusation. Using the president you are setting one assume that you have a grudge against the US and that is why you (and Phill) keep bringing up unproffesionally cited accusations. No.. that is dumb. Keep your bias (and your assumtions of me) out of our discussion of the necessity for citations.. PLEASE. --DjSamwise 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Second, yes, there are concerns in some quarters that the war was one of aggression. I added some cites to that effect here. This was then removed with a note that the evidence and discussion had a page to itself, at Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which I agreed was adequate as far as I was concerned.

There is a thread set up to hightlight the debate. I do not think that a "List of Warcrimes" is an appropriate place to stage the debate. I believe the debate should happen over in that forum. Unless you want to change this thread to "List of highly debateable warcrimes" or "List of WarCrimes and things that people for political reasons are attempting to call Warcrimes" or even "List of people GreenPeace think has commited warcrimes" then it would be different. So we either need to change the title... or stick to the facts.--DjSamwise 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to remove all the other items which never went to court? We can do that. It'll strip out a huge number of incidents, and undermine the article though, and prevent people researching all the "maybe"s. That's not likely to obtain a consensus of editors if that's what you are asking. Hope this brief explanation helps put it in context. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I either want you to remove all the politically charged accustaions (sticking only to the verified facts) or change the title. You are not giving this section the same treatment in terms of fact verification, definition of war criminal, etc.. --DjSamwise 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With reference to your last edit you are confused: You have mixed up two different court cases. With the new reference you provided (Green peace Emergency lobby of Parliament 21-04-2005) Please read:

Notes

(1) Greenpeace are asking leave to join this aspect of their case to that of the "Fairford Five" who have already been given leave to appeal to the House of Lords following an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.

The paragraph you edited was about the "Fairford Five", not this case. So I am reverting your edits to this paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully next time. "that the 14 Greenpeace protestors who engaged in protests to prevent the build up to war could not appeal on the basis that they were preventing individuals from committing war crimes (1). " My article <--- "Fourteen of the group, known as the Marchwood 14, are Greenpeace volunteers who took part in a week of action near Southampton docks, ahead of the war in 2003. " Your article <---

Is this another personal attack of you deleting everything I write? --DjSamwise 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet war crimes

At the time of Katyn Massacre the Soviet weren't part of Allies but supported Nazi Germany. They should have seperate section. --Molobo 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A none aggression treaty is not the same as supporting Nazi Germany, any more than the Munich Agreement was British support for Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing a treaty that called for cooperation in supressing any resistance to their rule over Poland[1] is a different thing though. Just as cooperation between Gestapo and NKVD[2], or blaming England and Frane for War and telling them that SU and NR will engage in neccassary measures if England and France won't make peace with Germany[3], or Comintern making communist parties in West oppose the war and war credits[4]. Anyway it is irrelevant. At the time of Katyn Massacre USSR wasn't part of Allies, and that is clear. Soviet war crimes should have a seperate section. I am not proposing moving them to Axis camp in regards to Katyn Massacre, but they definetely don't belong to Allied section, since at the time of massacre Soviets weren't part of Allied nations. --Molobo 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it is in a separate table listed: "Concurrent with World War II". I think that that is sufficient. Besides one could argue that as the Soviet Union was not at war it could not be a war crime, but lets not go there. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

I've added the NPOV tag, because the current article have several problems-- namely, a blurring of the line between "War Crime" and "Alleged War Crime". After just a really quick read, several examples of this sort of a problem jumped out. The 1968 US-Vietnam was listed unequivocably as a "War of Aggression", as is The 2003 US-Iraq war is also listed as an alleged war of aggression, etc. I haven't extensively studieed this article-- I wouldn't be surprised if there are other "Alleged War Crimes" mixed in with the "Universally Agreed War Crimes".

Without in any way endorsing the two wars, I have to say it's not appropriate for the page entitled "List of War Crimes" to list "Alleged War Crimes" right along with all the others. I think if you look back at the Keep-Delete Debate for this article, you'll see there was a pretty strong consensus that this article shouldn't stray into incidents which lack a solid, unambiguous, verifiable international consensus as being classified as a War Crime. The Vietnam War and the 2004 Iraq War do not have that kind of a consensus. To be sure, many people do feel the wars were illegal-- but many other people feel the wars were not illegal. In the absence of a strong, unambiguous, verifiable consensus, the events remain merely "Alleged War Crimes"-- and do not belong on a "List of War Crimes" page.

I suggest creating an article entitled List of alleged war crimes and moving the alleged war crimes to that article-- allowing only those cases where there is a strong international consensus to remain on this page.

In the mean time, I've put up the NPOV dispute tag to alert readers that there is an on-going discussion about whether this page conforms to a neutral point of view. It probably should be left up until such time as major changes have been made, or until there is a strong consensus of the editors that the page is indeed NPOV. --Alecmconroy 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I Agree on all points. I also would like to add that there allready is a thread set up to debate the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Aptly titled "Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq". That is the place set up fopr listing the argument points of all sides involved. Not a list of crimes verified and universally accepted. --DjSamwise 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See below many war crimes are not universally accepted. I have moved the NPOV to the disputed section (US Vietnam war is I belive no longer in dispute). If there are anyother sections which you think are NPOV then please add them or fix them. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged War Crimes Section

Okay-- rather than just removing all the Alleged war crimes outright, I created a new section to _briefly_ mention the wars for which there is no international consensus as to their legality. I put the two wars I know are not universally regarded as war crimes-- the US role in the Vietnam war and the 2003 Iraq war. (I left in the US-perpetrated My Lai massacre, since I don't think that's disputed. If there are others that are not "obviously and universally" regarded as war crimes, they should be briefly listed in the this section.

We should resist the temptation to "make the case" for the alleged war crimes being illegal in this article. Because if we include the "Case For _____ Being A War Crime", we must also include the "Case Against", and have a full debate of the two. This article isn't the place for such debates-- its size would quickly explode. Instead, let's MENTION and LINK TO the debates.

I promise you, on a stack of your holy texts of choice, I'm not trying to censor the idea that certain wars are illegal or are war crimes. I'm just saying-- if we want to be neutral about things, we have to have a full, equal debate-- we can't just present one side of the debate. And we probably can't have a full debate on more than one war in the same article-- if for no other reason than space concerns.

--Alecmconroy 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. --DjSamwise 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think this article is a little flakey try looking at list which have the word alleged in their name. One example was a list of alleged crimes against humanity that was in the crime against humanity article until I removed it.

A good example of a list which can not be contained is List of massacres (where anything involving more than 2 dead can be listed, having got subsections put into one large list, to try to get some focus, I walked away from that one).

The balance we are trying to strike here is beteen those cases for which there is a court case and those where a crime has been comitted but no one was tried for it. As an example of this Alecmconroy, please look at the section #Page one and the discussion on the "Wormhoudt massacre". I have spent a long time going through this list trying to get some sort of references put in for each incident or asking for citations. It is a long way from complete, and still needs a lot of work, but believe me that those sections in tables are a lot better than they were a few months ago.

For this reason I have removed the newly created alleged section because if it remains every alternative theory will be listed there and as the word alleged is at the top of the section it will contain stuff which can not be deleted. For example have a look at the Bombing of Dresden page, some allege that Dresden was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tabulated the US war crimes for the US involvement in the Vietnam War. Perhaps Alecmconroy to help with the NPOV title you placed on the article [5] you would like to go through the allegations against North Vietnam in the Vietnam war and sort that section out. As no criminal charges were brought against NV for maltreating American POWs, will you be putting alleged in front of the accusation or deleting it completely? -Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point against an alleged section is well taken-- it does seem it would be hard to rein that in. So, if no one objects, I'm fine with just removing the alleged war crimes.

For me, then... the standard for inclusion on the page is some universal consensus among the world today that the event DID happen and DO constitute a war crime. I don't think criminal charges _HAVE_ to be the requirement, but there should be some sort of verifiable consensus. Charges don't have to be the only standard-- perhaps the perpetrators never were brought to justice, so charges could be brought. But there has to be some sort of verifiable consensus that it's a war crime. If there's a large portion of the population who would dispute that, it probably doesn't belong here.

Based on this, I think it's very hard to justify including the 2003 Iraq war as a War of Aggression, for example. There's just too many people running around right now who think it's an acceptable thing which isn't illegal.

Similarly, I am okay with the inclusion of the allegations that N. Vietnam participated in the murder of civillians despite the fact there were no war crimes charges brought IF there really is a consensus the events happened and constitute a war crime. If that's debated and someone objects to those inclusions, than people who want the events included would need to demonstrate an international consensus that the events did happen and are regarded as a war crime. If they can't, then the events would have to be removed.

I don't know enough about the US-Vietnam war to say whether or not those events are geniunely regarded as war crimes or not. I won't presume to remove them myself, but I wouldn't have thought to add them into the list myself either. My primarly knowledge on that war is just that there still really isn't a consensus about what sort of a war it was, whether it was good or bad, or what. People still get in heated arguments over it. Similarly, the 2003 US-Iraq war is still far, far too controversial to be included as a war crime. Maybe it's an on-going war crime, maybe it isn't-- but the world hasn't decided yet.

--Alecmconroy 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your argument about universal agreement works. For example it is widely accepted by German and English speaking sources that the Soviets committed mass rape in those areas of Germany the entered, but this is not accepted by the Russians[6]. It is widely accepted outside Japan that the Japanese committed lots of war crimes, the Japanese reject many of these as crimes. It was agreed in an International court that Radislav Krstic was guilty of Genocide, many in Serbia and Bosnia reject the courts findings, etc etc. There are several pages of discussion on this subject on the talk pages of historical revisionism (negationism).

One way to balance these accusations it to look at the results of court cases which have taken place and have reached a verdict (on whether a crime was committed or not). For example it is widely stated on the internet that DU are illegal weapons, see this earlier version of the DU page from 29 March 2006 as an example of this. Read what the page says now Depleted uranium#Legal status of weapons. It is similar information but includes the results of the investigations which previously were only listed as accusations and the whole meaning is changed by that. That there have been court cases over the invasion of Iraq can not be denied, and that in Britain, particularly among supporters of the labour party there is a strong belief that it was an illegal war of aggression. That should be reflected in this article, particularly as it give a chance to put on record the current legal situation over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree with you about that court cases can be used. I think that there are the criteria that qualify something as an Actual True Verifiably-Criminal War Crime:

1. An international court convicted someone on the charge of war crimes.

OR

2a. It is a verifiable fact that the events occured. AND

2b. There is a near-universal consensus that those actions constitute a war crime.

To be a "Verifiably-Criminal War Crime", ideally there would be charges-- and one way to define this page would be to admit only incidents which ultimately resulted in successful prosecutions. But, realizing what a high hurdle it is to get a prosecution, I'm completely ok with the idea of "bending" that rule and adding in cases where there's a near-universal consensus. If an incident meets either of those two critera, then I think it's okay for us to effectively say "This was a war crime".

Anything else, for wikipedia purposes, is not a war crime. It's an "alleged war crime". No matter how much we think it qualifies as a war crime, for the time being, in Wikipedia World, it's not a war crime, it's only an "alleged war crime".

And we can do two things with the "alleged war crimes". We can briefly list them, pointing out that they are only Alleged War Crimes, linking to pages which contain both sides of the debate. Or we can delete them and not mention them at all. But, what we absolutely can't do, what isn't an option: is to just present the one side, the "Case for this being a war crime", and leave off the other side that thinks they're NOT war crimes. What we can't do is just list these things right along with all the other True War Crimes.

I'm open to either listing "alleged war crimes" in an alleged section or deleting them outright. Your concern that an alleged section would explode and be impossible to rein in is a valid one. But it's not solved by simply taking the Alleged War Crimes and including them in the War Crimes list itself. If we're going to do that, we'll not only (in my eyes) violate NPOV, we'll have all the same problems of an exploding list.

The Iraq war just doesn't seem to be what we can call a "true war crime" yet. The court cases cited all seem to decline to rule on whether the war is illegal or else they find the that war is not illegal. The court speculates that there may have been illegal killings of civilians,but no one's been prosecuted or tried or convicted of a war crime yet.

Certainly, people reading this page might want to see a link to this issue, and I think it's fine to put it on the record so people can go see the debate on the subject-- this is why i liked the section that briefly listed the major alleged war crimes.

I think maybe you're thinking: "The Iraq war IS a war crime, there's lots of good evidence to make me think it's a war crime, therefore it is a warcrime and should be on the warcrime list. But, my own thinking goes this way: "Whether it actually IS a war crime or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the world definitely positively regards it as a war crime. Right now, the world hasn't made up its mind, so we can't take a position on the issue-- we have to treat it very neutrally".

So, I'm still not sure exactly how we disagree, except of course in the end result. Is it that you think the Iraq war IS a verifiably-criminal war crime? Or do you think, for Wikipedia purposes, that it's just an alleged war crime, but that we should include some allleged war crimes in the list? Or something else.

--Alecmconroy 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I remember Annan saying the war in Iraq is illegal. An illegal war is a war of aggression, and by definition is a war crime. However, you are correct that no judge has ruled on it, but it would be naive to think that any suspect that is not a mere soldier will ever be placed on trial.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy as I said before please see #Page one and the discussion on the "Wormhoudt massacre" that incident was a war crime even thought no-one was tried for it. How do I know it was a war crime? Because I have no evidence that the British Army regimental history is inaccurate and in a similar incident Le Paradis massacre a man was found guilty of a war crime.

Alecmconroy you wrote above "I don't know enough about the US-Vietnam war to say whether or not those events are genuinely regarded as war crimes or not. I won't presume to remove them myself, but I wouldn't have thought to add them into the list myself either." What special knowledge of the 2003 Iraq war do you have that is different from the Vietnam war that you presume to remove the incidents that you did not add. Also why did you think you knew enough about the Vietnam war to remove the alleged US war crimes but not the alleged North Vietnam crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So is a list of crimes a legal issue or a political one? A political case coulc certainly made for this argument but I don't think this is a good place for the political arguing. If this is a thread for historical refference there is no clear historical labelling of crime. Perhaps we should come to a concensus on the purpose of this thread, then come back and come to a concensus on how this section fit in with this thread. As it is, I don't think Greenpeace accusations qualify to inight an entire nation for a crime. One thing that is clear, this issue is not clearly agreed upon. No authoritative source has agreed with it, many here do not agree with it and it is extremely contentious. On that note alone it should not be added without some form of concensus. And for the record, when the vote comes, I vote no, this is not a war crime. The US acted on the best intrest of it's citizens, with UN rules in mind, on intel that all(most) polititians at the time agreed pointed towards taking out saddam. This was not a war of agression in the same way as other crimes where the objective had been to take control of a country. --DjSamwise 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What I know about US involvement in Vietnam and the current Iraq war is that the world definitely has not reached a conclusion that those events are war crimes. Everyone's still debating it. IF I walked into any restaurant right now, and said "These wars are war crimes", I would find many people who EMPHATICALLY disagree. It simply is not an established fact yet. In contrast, if I walk in a random room at look for people who think the Nazi attrocities were not war crimes, I would have a very hard time finding them--- even (especially) in Germany.

If we went to Vietnam and Iraq right now-- even THERE, would I find consensus that the wars were illegal? I don't know. But you definitely wouldn't find consensus in the world as a whole.

Tell ya what-- what if we just leave the war crime question up to the individual pages, and require that the pages on those two events have a consensus-supported, stable, statement on the page that the event IS a war crime. When Vietnam War has the sentence "The Vietnam War was an illegal war of aggression", then maybe we can say it on this page. When the Iraq Conflict has the sentence "This is a war crime"-- then we can revisit it. But the point is, you won't be able to do that, because there just isn't a consensus yet. --Alecmconroy 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, see this opinion poll (MARCH 2004) commissioned by the BBC on British opinions on the Iraq War. " Q3. Given everything you've heard or read, do you believe the war with Iraq was legal or illegal under international law?"

• Legal 37%
• Illegal 39%
• Don't know 24%

That many people think it was a war crime is just as important as those who do not think it was. What we can do on this page is present a NPOV on the issue. That does not mean removing the accusation when clearly many people disagree with you. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're 100% right in that we certainly CANNOT say that the war is NOT a war crime. When we discuss the question, we have to present both sides. But I worry that the inclusion of the Iraq war on this page doesn't do that. It doesn't talk about the people who support the war, or feel the war is justified-- it just presents the case FOR it being a war crime. You see what I mean?

When you say "That does not mean removing the accusation when clearly many people disagree with you.", you're assuming that I personally think the war is legal-- an assumption you should't make, for I haven't weighed in on that issue (nor will I :) ). I'm just saying that there isn't a consensus that it IS a war crime, so we can't include it in list of the war crimes-- we should either make an Alleged section that gives a short 1-line link to the debate page, or we should remove it. I personally favor the link. The only reason I ever deleted was that I somehow thought you prefered that option. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to say if the invasion was or was not a war crime. All we need to do is list any UN security council resolutions stating it was (as done in the Invasion of Kuwait, UNSCR 660) of which there are none for this invasion, and the outcome of any court cases on the issue which afaik we have done. The court cases are just as valid for a case of not guilty as they are for cases of guilty and they do not express any specific political POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But, that's the thing-- the court cases seem to say that it's not a war of aggression-- so.. why list the thing here? --Alecmconroy 10:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Below, you might want to add a 1-2 line summary of your position for the people who come here via RFC. --Alecmconroy 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that we get to vote on what is and what is not a war crime. Let's look at the facts

• A war of aggression is considered to be a war crime.
• A war of aggression is any war that 1 is not in self-defense, 2 is not supported by the UN.
  • Iraq was not invaded out of self-defense, unless we introduce the fuzzy logic the US administration advocates, that killing a man today so he can't kill us in five years is self-defense. Let's stick to being rational and use the definition of selfdefense being an act in response to an immediate threat. Clearly Iraq posed no threat to the US.
  • The invasion of Iraq was notr supported by the UN.

QED: since the Iraq war fails both parts needed to comply with jus ad bellum, it is a war of aggression and as such a war crime. We do not need a judge to explain that stealing a TV is against the law.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR - Please no original research in articles. If the US is found guilty of war crimes, I will completely support adding it, however there is not even a trial to that effect. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why US specific? What about trials involving UK and German involvement? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

From this users past edits he targets the US mainly, so I focused on that. However I think showing of trials or at least charges against any nation is at least the minimum. The real point of acceptance should be the guilty verdict by an internation court with jurisdiction. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Most war crimes are tried under national jurisdiction. Are you saying that soldiers found guilty of War crimes by a National Court Martial should not be included in this list? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, my apologies, I should not have specified an international court. A court that has jurisdiction in labeling something a war crime. It should also be a ruling hat is not debated, such as country X sentencing a soldier of country Y to death for war crimes, however the government of person X objects or does not recognize the charge or refuses to turn him/her over for whatever reason. Actually situations like that should be included, just under a different heading, maybe contested or something. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop stalking!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But Nescio-- many, perhaps even most people in the world today do not agree with your logic. Odd as it may sound to you, many in the US and elsewhere do feel the war in Iraq was one of self-defense. I think they have a hard case to make-- but they are trying to make it. Many people would also disagree with your statment that any war which isn't supported by the UN and isn't self-defense must necessarily be a war of aggression. Many people feel that there are such things as "War of Liberation"-- that you can use force to protect innocents even if you yourself are not involved-- i.e. the military actions in Somalia or Bosnia, for example. (of course-- those had UN support). It's just not an open and shut case, it's not a "war crime", it's just an alleged war crime. so it shouldn't be in the list. --Alecmconroy 11:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, against what was the US defending itself? "War of Liberation" would fall under the umbrella of the UN, since the UN did not support this war it cannot be used as argument. As to many disagree, please how many protested against the invasion worldwide? Millions. Second, how many legal scholars have already concluded several international laws were violated by invading Iraq. A war of aggression is a war crime, no debate about that. As to Iraq being a war of aggression, all you have to do is show how it was self-defense or the authorisation by the UN. Absent either argument the invasion was a war of aggression, it is as simple as that.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I see the link you are using to state any of the countries have been found guilty of commiting war crimes? Or even charged with it in a criminal court, at least being charged would allow us to say alleged. However if all we have is your original research, its not really anything to go on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments summary

There is a dispute about whether the US invasion of Iraq should be listed as an "Illegal War of Aggression" in the List of war crimes. In general, what should be the criteria for inclusion in the list? 09:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the discussion

• I feel the the Iraq war does not belong in the list at this time. I think there should only be a very brief link to the full debate on the legality of the war, or else the references to the Iraq war should be deleted from the list entirely. --Alecmconroy 09:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This article should be moved to a more descriptive tile - list of prosecuted war crimes, or list of proven war crimes (proven by adequate court of law) or list of alleged war crimes. The Iraq War would fit into only the last list. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is an adequate court of law? What if the perpetrator died before being tried (after all it is a crime committed during a war and people do get killed in wars), does that mean that no crime took place? Do you disagree with the paragraph in the article which says:

Since many war crimes are not ultimately prosecuted (due to lack of political will, lack of effective procedures, or other practical and political reasons), historians and lawyers will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators.

For example see Beevor 'They raped every German female from eight to 80', but all this is discussed in detail in this talk page and its archives, did you read them before writing the above comment? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the prior discussion, yes. I also reviewed that paragraph. If you want a list that has no limitations on what can be included, please move it to a list of alleged war crimes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as I don't want a a list with no limitations, I won't support a move to "alleged war crimes". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see on what basis the United States/Coalition to currently be on the list? Has the ICC or some other major body ruled that the United States/Coalition committed the crime of aggression? If not(and doing some quick reading, it would be appear that the answer to that question is "no"), then there is no basis for the current inclusion on the list. Right now, there are three sources listed, each of whom seems to have ruled that the war was not a war crime. As a result, this article is currently in violation of WP:NOR. It's quite simple really. Bibigon 07:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That many people think the invasion was a war of agression is a know fact. See the BBC poll (link given above) as an example and see this link: (Iraq war illegal, says Annan BBC 16 September, 2004). The rulings by the three legal bodies are interesting. The first says the ICC does not "have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression", not that it was or was not. The German one can be read either way, and the British one rules that English courts will not rule on this issue. So none of them has ruled un unequivocally that it was or was not a war of agression. So how you (Bibigon) can say that it is Original research when verifiable sources are given seems to me a little odd. Just so that this is clear that it is not "OR" I am going to add the BBC links to the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because a BBC poll isn't a reliable source saying the Iraq war was a war of aggression. It's the BBC reporting that that's what people think. Second, none of the three courts, the ICC, the German Courts, or the British Courts ruled that it was a war of aggression. That's all there is to it. No major body has ruled it was a war of aggression. Annan said it was illegal from the point of view of the UN charter, which is not the same thing as a war of aggression either. That makes it original research. Bibigon 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Not listed for the obvious reason of it not being proesecuted of even brought up in any court of law. The one court it was brought up in says its not hearing the case. That leaves it to only being an issue of what reporters want to call things, which is not valid. A court decides if something is a war crime. Anyway the list states list of war crimes, its not a war crime if no court hears it or even declares it, or even prosecutes it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the Wormhoudt massacre what about unrestricted submarine warfare? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To add my tuppence... the best way to divide this page, rather than by war, would be by some sort of classification, based on who says this is a 'war crime' - as all of the cases listed would be disputed by someone, I am sure. At the moment, the page is informative but slighlty confusesd. I'm no expert in this field, so these categories may be inappropriate; but how about:

• War Crimes that have been prosecuted
• War Crimes that have been proved to contrevene an international treaty (but for which no prosecution has occured)
• War Crimes for which an arrest warrent have been issued
• Alleged war crimes that have not been brought before a court of law
• Alleged war crimes that have been deemed legal in a court of law

--Robdurbar 09:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of breaknig up the article, but then the title needs to change. Some of these would also constitute original research and POV. If noone has found person or country X of being guilty, then Wikipedia should not be making articles based on media assumptions or editorials. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not convinced that the title needs to change per se, as long as we make clear in the article that not everything in it is necessairily a war crime. As an analogy, Foreign relations of Western Sahara is an incorrect title because Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony that basically doesn't exist any longer, cannot have foreign relations; the page instead discusses the foreign relations of those entities that lay claim to the territory.

That said, I think this would work if we farmed out some of the 'crimes' to a List of alleged war crimes page. --Robdurbar 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming that the US invasion be an "Illegal war of aggression", it would not by that reason belong here. Murdering Polish villagers is a war crime; simply invading Poland is not. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq is a war crime according to who? Have any charges been brought in any court (other than a make-believe court)? I say do not include. Crockspot 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Pardon me for jumping in here, but I clicked on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics from another page and was astonished to find this even listed. The answer to the question is of course not. Describing the invasion of Iraq in such terms clearly violates WP:NPOV. In point of fact, I believe that to describe it in such terms is actually false for the following reasons as well as others:

• The government of Iraq repeatedly attacked pilots lawfully enforcing the no-fly zone, a casus belli.
• The government of Iraq sponsored an assassination attempt on a former U.S. president, another casus belli.
• The government of Iraq provided safe haven for a number of terrorists, most notably Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. To provide shelter for the sworn enemies of another country is also a casus belli.
• UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorized Member States to use "all necessary force" to uphold Resolution 660 and "all subsequent relevant resolutions." Resolution 687 was a subsequent relevant resolution, and Resolution 1441 declared Iraq to be in material breach thereof.

To describe the invasion of as Iraq an "illegal war of aggression" is not a fact. It's a biased (and, in my opinion, flagrantly false) point of view, and it has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. I'm flabbergasted that it's even a question. VoiceOfReason 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If your sticking with only war crimes that have been put before an appropriate court then the second golf war just isn’t there yet(probable wont ever be I agee with the prier post).

The problem is using that logic you can never have current war crimes in your list and judging from the Vietnam war might be waiting 30 plus years to do so.

I really think you need alleged war crimes I too hate long articles but if you keep descriptions brief and link to a fair and balanced description of the facts it shouldn’t be also I wouldn’t worry so much about what is a war crime give wikipidience the info and they will be able to make there own choice. we could also put a current events warning on appropriate articles.Ansolin 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• There were mistreatment of POWs. Hence according to the article "war crime", war crimes were committed. In fact, GIs were being charged for these crimes. --Vsion 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, it's the mistreatment that's a war crime, not the invasion itself. I repeat that to call the invasion an "illegal war of aggression" is insanely POV-tainted and I cannot believe that anyone would argue this point. VoiceOfReason 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• • We know what the definition of war of aggression is: any war being fought which 1 is not out of self-defense and 2 has no UN support. If somebody can provide evidence of self-defense (which is not about preventing something that might, possibly, eventually, maybe happen in 5 years time) or the authorisation by the UN, then obviously there is no war of aggression. If however, these can not be found, by definition the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and as such a war crime.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Please consult WP:NOR. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Our disagreements regarding whether it was a war crime or not are completely irrelevant with regards to Wikipedia content. It could be the most obvious war crime in the world, but we still can't point that out ourselves, we must rely on reliable and notable sources to do it for us. When the BBC refers to the consensus that this was a war crime, then it can be added back onto the list. Not before then. Bibigon 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pleae read WP:NOR, can you point out where it says that citing the UN charter is OR? By the same token citing a newspaper is OR, odd logic. Second, I have provided more than sufficient sources to legal analysts to support the claim that the invasion is conside3red a war crime.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing the UN charter to make the case that something is a war crime is almost the definition of OR. You can cite a newspaper, if they make the claim that something is a war crime, but you cannot make the case yourself. Wikipedia's original research policy is often misunderstood this way, but you cannot cite even reliable sources if you are using them to make an argument, rather than to cite someone else's.

Regarding the sources you cited, I have already addressed that point several times. You need to first pick one of those sources specifically to cite, not just have a list of them posted in the talk page. Second, in order for this not to violate NPOV, there must be a consensus existing that the war is considered a war crime. One legal analyst can have a POV and that is notable, but it is not sufficient to list here. This is a list of war crimes, not a list of alleged war crimes. Bibigon 08:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be clear: 1 We all can read the UN charter, and we all can see the invasion of Iraq does not meet the required standards, but none ofg us is allowed to say; the invasion of Iraq is a war of aggression? 2 We have the UN, in the person of Annan, stating the invasion was illegal, yet we are not allowed to say that under the UN charter this means it was a war of aggression? 3 Although I provided sources you are unwilling to look into them and see whether they meet your standard. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not address whether the UN charter or Annan's statement entails that the invasion of Iraq was an "illegal war of aggression", though that has flaws too. Even assuming that it was such a war, absolutely, no doubt, every single person in the world agrees, and every history book ever written from now on agrees, the fact remains that being an "illegal war of aggression" does not entail that it was a "War crime". A war is not a war crime, it is a war. —Centrx→talk • 08:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

1 Yes! That's exactly right!

2 No. We have Annan saying the invasion violated UN law. He never said it was a war of aggression. To take the leap from violating UN law to it being a war of aggression means violating OR rules, which bring us back to 1.

3 Well, I looked at several of them, and none of them seemed to meet with the needed standards, no. I was suggesting that you pick one out that you thought met the needed standards, since you were likely more familiar with them, given that you posted them. I'm not going to check 30 sources for you however. Bibigon 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer both editors:

• A war of aggression is considered to be the ultimate war crime. Therefore, should Iraq be a war of aggression then automatically it is a war crime. Please read the relevant articles.
• An illegal war by definition is a war of aggression (remember war of aggression is an illegal war), what else do you think it means?
• Please, don't be obtuse. All sources meet the required standard. Beyond that I think discounting professors at law is rather odd.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. You still don't get it. Okay, fine, let's read the UN Charter. Article 41 of Chapter VII reads "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures." The Security Council decided, in Resolution 678, that all necessary force was to be employed to enforce Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions. Resolution 687 was both subsequent and relevant, and Resolution 1441 declared Iraq to be in material breach thereof. Therefore, military action to enforce Resolution 687, which the Security Council had unanimously decided had been breached, was authorized under the terms of Resolution 678, and was therefore in compliance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

That's my argument, but that's not even the point. I firmly believe that my argument is valid and cannot be refuted, but I would never use that as a basis to edit an article on the invasion to include the line, "the war was indisputably legal under both statutory and common law." Why? Because that's not an encyclopedic fact, it's a point of view. Points of view have no place here. Leave them out. Go stand on a street corner with a NO BLOOD FOR OIL sign if you wish, but keep your political views out of the encyclopedia. VoiceOfReason 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

There are no reliable sources currently cited for the United States/Coalition having committed a war crime. There is a BBC poll, which is farcical at best, and is certainly not a WP:RS. Then there is a Kofi Annan quote, which is not about this being a war crime, but about this being illegal under the UN charter. Given that there are no sources cited for this being a war crime, and given that this article is thus in violation of WP:NOR, I see no reason for this section to remain in the article. Does anyone have a reliable and notable source saying this was a war crime? If so, then please add it immediately, because right now, there is no reason for this text to remain here. It is original research without such a citation. Our debates of whether or not this was a war crime are totally irrelevant. WP:NOR makes that quite clear. Bibigon 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That the US, barring catastrophic loss of political or military power, likely won't ever recognize the legitimacy of courts willing to rule against it in what passes for international law, suggests that its actions more specifically in the Iraq war seem unlikely to achieve NOR status. So far, certainly, I've seen no evidence of such. Nysin 19:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Several legal analysts have concluded it is a war of aggression. Further, please read the UN charter as to what constitutes a war of aggression: you will find the Iraq invasion meets the standard needed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See, that's what makes it original research. That the source is a reading of the UN charter is a pretty good sign that this is not suitable content for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOR for more information. "Several legal analysts" would perhaps be more suitable, depending on their reliability, their notability, and their standing. Currently however, the article does not cite any of these "several legal analysts," so the inclusion of this content is still inappropriate. Please add these legal analysts, and we'll evalaute from there. Bibigon 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"There is a BBC poll, which is farcical at best, and is certainly not a WP:RS" Since when has the BBC not been a reliable source? Do you question the source does it not fulfil the bullet point in WP:RS#Some definitions which states:

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

The BBC is a perfectly reliable source. I believe them completely with regards to the results of the poll. However, a poll is not a reliable source for calling something a war crime. The BBC is not calling this a war crime, just reporting on the results of a poll which does. The results of the poll are not suffiently notable in and of themselves to label this a war crime. Polls are not reliable substitutues for facts. Bibigon 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Yes Kofi Annan in the BBC interview, does not say that a war crime has been committed what he says is:

"Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[7].

If States breach of the UN charter when invading another country they have committed a crime against peace[8]. But if that is not enough for you, then please consider this ICC PDF document Page 4 which states that the ICC received "38 communications expressing the view that a crime of agression took place in the context of the war in Iraq". It is quite possible to pile in reliable sources which clearly show that many people and organisations hold this opinion, but a representative two should be sufficient. That one international judicial enquiry and at least two national appeal courts have ruled on this issue is not original research. Placing the allegation and the Judicial findings on this page is NPOV not OR. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Annan did not say that a war crime was committed. For you to interpret his statement as meaning that a war crime had taken place, even if your interpretation is based off a plain text reading of the UN charter, is original research.

2. 38 communications expressing the view that a crime of aggression took place were sent to the ICC, which did not issue a ruling that a crime of aggression had taken place. We do not know the details, the notability, or the reliability of those communications simply from the ICC document. They are not notable or reliable in and of themselves. For you to take them as evidence of a war crime is original research.

3. One international judicial enquiry and at least two national appeal courts have ruled on this issue, none of them issuing a finding that a war crime had taken place. This page is a list of war crimes, not alleged war crimes. As per the introductory paragraph to this page: "This article lists and summarizes War Crimes committed since the Hague Conventions of 1907." Given that the Iraq War is at this point nothing more than alleged war crimes, and there are no WP:RS yet saying that a war crime has taken place, it is original research to place the Iraq War on this page. This page is not a place for allegations, as that is not what the title or introduction to this article call for. Bibigon 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the template [original research?] against the statment "2003 Invasion of Iraq" because I do not believe that you need a source to confirm that this invasion took place. Do you wish me to provide one?

" To reiterate I agree with you, Annan did not say that a war crime had been committed. He said "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." A breach of the UN charter when invading another country is a crime against peace (See Article one paragraph 1 of the Charter). This is standard international law and has been since the UN Charter was created. The reference I provided above show that lawyers at CND interpret it this way, but rather than rely on an NGO, rely on previous UN security Council Resolutions like 660. That is not to say that a breach did take place just that a lot of people allege that one did take place. The reason for including the court cases is to provide a NPVO to the allegations made by many people including Annan. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you need to send me to "Article one paragraph 1 of the Charter" is the very proof that this is original research. Relying on primary source documents to make the case that a war crime occured is original research, and that is what the inclusion of the Iraq War seems to do.

This page is not the place to allege that a breach took place. The article is titled "List of War Crimes" not "Alleged List of War Crimes" and the introductory paragraph says "This article lists and summarizes War Crimes committed since the Hague Conventions of 1907," not that it lists alleged War Crimes. Let say we had a list of murderers on Wikipedia. The list was called "List of Murderers" and it said "The following is a list of murderers:" Do you think it would be acceptable to include say Ted Kennedy for what happened in Chappaquiddick? Some people allege he's a murderer for what happened there, but for Wikipedia to put him on the list would be original research, as no reliable source has currently said that. The same is true here. Every other incident here is not an allegation, but a war crime that a reliable source says took place. The Iraq War does not fit under the heading "List of War Crimes" simply because at this point, it is no more than an allegation. Bibigon 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia original research to use a primary document. However despite this, in this case, the text of the UN charter is not quoted in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is original research to use a primary document to make a case that the war in Iraq is war crime. Why? Because original research is using your own reasoning to reach conclusions. That's exactly what you suggested. However, you are correct, the UN charter is not quoted in the article, thus making the presence of the War in Iraq even more unsupportable within this article. Bibigon 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To use your a slant on you murder analogy, John Wilkes Booth was not found guilty of assassinating Abraham Lincoln, does that mean that he did not assassinate Lincoln, that it should not be mentioned on the Wikipedia John Wilkes Booth page and that his name should be removed from the List of assassins? Or those regicides who fled justice in England and were never tried should not be listed in List of regicides of Charles I? --Philip Baird Shearer 02:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No absolutely not. As long as we have a reliable and notable source saying that Booth killed Lincoln, or that the various regicides who fled justice actually did what they're accused of, then they belong. Find a WP:RS which says the United States committed a war crime, and then the claim can be made on Wikipedia without OR concerns. It must however be a both a reliable and notable source, saying explicitly that the United States committed the crime of aggression(or the crime against peace). That's all that's required. Currently the article lacks even that much. I don't believe it's a particularly tough standard to reach. At that point you're no longer in the territory of original research or factual accuracy issues. You are still facing a NPOV issue however, since you would be presenting only the point of view of those who allege it is a war crime by doing so.

The way to avoid both these issues would be to move the entry on the Iraq war to a seperate article on alleged war crimes. There, you list one of those reliable sources, and you don't face a NPOV issue, since it is merely an allegation, one backed up a by a reliable source. Or you could retitle this article "List of possible War Crimes" or something like that. You cannot include the Iraq war here however without an extensive discussion of the merits of that accusation, which would clearly be inappropriate for a list. There is to my knowledge, no reliable source which disputes that Booth killed Lincoln, and even if there were, there is a consensus that he did. In the case of the Iraq war, no such consensus exists, instead there is a great deal of debate.

Find a reliable and notable source first however which outright says the Iraq war was a war crime. Without that, you can't even have the allegation without violating WP:NOR. Bibigon 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

About war crimes in Iraq and in general:

• Parsing pain By Walter Shapiro, Salon
• Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman article in The Nation posted June 28 2005 (July 18 2005 issue) about The Geneva Convention
• Former NY Congress member Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Thursday, June 30 2005 on Democracy Now
• Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff Newsweek May 19 2004
• US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes Global Policy Forum January 28 2003
• Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan by Human Rights First, March 2006
• Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture? By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 04, 2006
• Death in US Custody By William Fisher, Truthout, February 26 2006
• More documents prove that t]op defense officials approved of abuse at Guantanamo detention center] by Diane E. Dees, Mother Jones, February 23 2006
• Taking on Torture by Benedicta Cipolla, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, January 20 2006
• The Torture Policy By Tom Regan, Christian Science Monitor, Posted January 19 2006
• UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC News, 16 February 2006
• Guantanamo report puts pressure on stubborn US By Bronwen Maddox, The Times, February 15 2006
• A U.N. inquiry says the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay at times amounts to torture and violates international law By Maggie Farley, Chicago Tribune, February 13 2006
• Accountability Absent in Prisoner Torture by John D. Hutson, Pioneer Press, February 28 2006
• THE MEMO How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted, by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, Issue of February 27 2006
• War Crimes and Commanders-in-Chief George Bush and Tomoyuki Yamashita, By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, February 9 2006
• The Gonzales Indictment by Marjorie Cohn in truthout Wednesday January 19 2005
• The Quaint Mr. Gonzales by Marjorie Cohn in La Prensa San Diego, November 19 2004
• Rumsfeld, Bush, and 'command responsibility'
• From John Ashcroft's Justice Department to Abu Ghraib by Joe Conason article in Salon May 22 2004
• The Real Meaning of the Hamdan Ruling Supreme Court: Bush Administration Has Committed War Crimes By Dave Lindorff, CounterPunch, July 3, 2006
• Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
• War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006
• Condi, War Crimes & the Press By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 3, 2006
• Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq June 23 - 27, 2005

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable and notable source first however which outright says the Iraq war was a war crime. Without that, you can't even have the allegation without violating WP:NOR. Bibigon 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved this comment since you evidently ignored the numerous sources I provided. Please read them and then repeat your assertion there is no reliable source saying war crime.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I ignored it because none of these sources are cited in the article. If you would care to pick one of these which you feel makes for the best source, then please go right ahead and add it, and then we'll take it from there. There is no reliable source saying a war crime has been committed in the article, and that means this violates WP:NOR. I'm not going to read through all of these for you to find one which is notable, reliable, and explicitely says a war crime was committed. I suspect at least one of them does however, so you finding one to pick shouldn't prove too difficult. Please add it once you pick one(or several for that matter, multiple sources are always good). I'm quite serious, if one of these meets the criteria, then the original research issues will be solved. There might still be NPOV issues, but that's a major improvement nonetheless. Bibigon 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibigon I do not understand why you keep writing war crime do you mean war crime or a crime against peace? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the two terms interchangeably. Because this article is about "war crimes", I have been tending to use that specific term. Don't read too much into my usage of war crime as opposed to crime against peace, or crime of aggression however. Bibigon 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to salami slice the problem so that we can come to an understanding. Do you need a source to confirm that there was an invasion of Iraq in 2003, or can we take that a common knowledge? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In looking over your sources, I should say that most of my arguments are against refering to the invasion itself as an illegal war of aggression. There just isn't a consensus that that's the case right now. This is DIFFERENT however, from argument that there have been crimes committed DURING those wars. Abu Ghraib and some of the other incidents that have led to arrests, and very few people would defend them. In short, there seems to be a consensus that those actions were criminal. (as to whether they're a war crime, i dunno.. Is any crime committed during war a war crime, or are war crimes just wars as a whole). When the "Persons Responsible" however are names of nations, not people-- that's when things get a little dicey.

But those events are different from saying the Iraq War as a whole is a War Crime. Maybe it is-- but there isn't a consensus that it is-- just opinions. If there's no consensus, then Wikipedia can't say it's a war crime. period. It's gotta be deleted or more to a list of alleged.

I for one don't doubt you can cite sources to show that SOME PEOPLE think it's a war crime-- but that doesn't solve your problem for you. You have to cite sources that prove there is a complete consensus that it's a war crime-- The evidence you've cited all seems to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a consensus yet. The poll you cited shows 61% do not currently believe it's a war crime (about 50-50 yes vs no, 24% undecided). That's not a consensus-- that's not even a majority yet!!!! It can't be on the list.

--Alecmconroy 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if you want to list people who have been found guilty of committing war crimes during the Iraq War, that is fine. However there is no court that has ruled that the war itself is a war crime. You cannot say since crimes were committed the whole war is a war crime ... There is no line being drawn to connect the two statements from a source that can actually determine if something is a war crime. A court that determines if the war itself is a war crime needs to speak out. Or you can change the name of the article to something like "Alleged war crimes by media sources." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"You have to cite sources that prove there is a complete consensus that it's a war crime--" Why for this incident and not for the others on this page? The current wording does not say it was a war crime it says alleged war crime, and two sources are there to back it up that some/many (or whatever) people think it was a crime. BTW no court has said it is not a war crime what the ICC and the Law Lords have done is to say that it is outside their jurisdiction. The German court is an ambiguous decision. By presenting all three (and any more that come to light, helps to explain the current legal position on the invasion, this a an NPOV, as it accommodates both POV (it was/was not illegal) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's disagreement about whether the others incidents were war crimes or not, then they absolutely have to be sourced too. In an ideal world, they'd all be sourced no matter whether they were disputed by anyone or not. I'm fine with Iraq being in a list of alleged war crimes-- the british poll conclusively proves there ARE people who allege that it's illegal, many of them in fact. If we want to put the alleged crimes list as a subsection of this page, I'm okay with that, although many people have told me that that list is likely to get very big so I think it might make more sense to have it on a separate page. --Alecmconroy 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But the selective action of removing the US and leaving others, can only be interpreted as protecting the US and not as asking for NPOV. Otherwise you would either accept the numerous sources that talk of war crimes, or remove all evident allegations, most importantly Saddam Hussein has not been convicted so he too should not be on the list.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly disagree that there is a consensus that Hussein committed war crimes? If people really sincerely disagree with it, then we need to look at either justifying it or removing it. I personally do think there is a consensus that Hussein is war criminal, he is currently on trial, and I don't think that his inclusion is controversial.--Alecmconroy 08:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if we agree there were war crimes it can stay, and otherwise we need a court ruling? Does sound a bit odd, and surely this can't be in line with policy. Anyway, I think that worldwide there is consensus Iraq is a war crime and numerous legal analysts have siad so. Warrants inclusion IMHO.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone agrees it should stay, why should we remove it? As to your claim of a worldwide consensus-- a substantial chunk of the populations of the "Coalition of the Willing". A consensus is more than a majority, at least more than 80% or so I'd wager. As best I can tell, there is no such consensus yet. I don't even know that 80% of Iraqis would feel the war is a war crime. Maybe, but I certainly haven't seen proof of a consensus-- you've just cited evidence that shows SOME people feel that way-- not any evidence showing almost everyone in consensus about the issue. --Alecmconroy 09:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved Iraq War

Based on No Original Research, NPOV, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and a lack of consensus to support its inclusion in this List of Non-Alleged War Crimes, I have moved the 2003 Iraq War allegations to List of war crimes allegations. Do not just copy it back in to the List of war crimes until such times as there is a consensus to do so.

This is a "for now" measure, and is not meant to disrupt the on-going conversation about the accuracy of the section, or whether the page as a whole should be restructured based on Robdurbar's suggestions. If, through further discussion, a consensus emerges that it DOES belong in the list, we can always put it right back in. For now, however, there definitely no consensus that it belongs in a list of war crimes, so it shouldn't be there. I really don't want to turn on my television tommorrow and see a story that says "Wikipedia lists Iraq invasion as a War Crime!"-- there have been enough Wikipedia Innaccuracy stories in the news lately as it is. --Alecmconroy 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO List of war crimes allegations is a WP:POVFORK it has been nominated for deletion see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war crimes allegations --Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I have moved it back. Since I provided more than enough sources to support the claim of war crimes (the invasion, torture, et cetera) this is not OR. Second, why remove only this? If the problem is an official court ruling we should move ALL examples that lack such a ruling. To exempt only the US is highly POV.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Providing sources that says soldiers commited war crimes is not stating the invasion itself was a war crime. Furthermore citizens views are not valid sources for determining what a war crime is, and who commited one. A court ruling would be sufficient to state one occured, a hearing or beginning of a trial would be enough to state one was alleged. However alleged does not belong here, as this is a list of war crimes, not alleged war crimes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

providing sources that say that in the opinion of many a crime was committed and legal postion over those allegations is a valid NPOV postition. If the two sources given so far are not enought then what other sources do you require for show that people have alledged a crime was committed when the invasion went ahead? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article for "alleged" war crimes. The title states "List of war crimes" A valid source for determining what is and is not a war crime is a court with jurisdiction to handle the case. Not some random sampling of citizens that may or may not have any legal expertise at all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I provided more than a dozen articles discussing why it is a war crime, so please take your pick.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How many from a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction? Please point my to that one and I will drop my arguement and apologize. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please pick one of those sources yourself and insert it into the text of the article, thus removing original research concerns. Your posting a bunch of potential sources here in the talk page does nothing to alleviate OR concerns. I would like for you to pick one, so we can finally source the claims. Bibigon 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph to the page:

Since many war crimes are not ultimately prosecuted (due to lack of political will, lack of effective procedures, or other practical and political reasons), historians and lawyers will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators.

I can produce a page written by layers who are "mak[ing] a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators. That should be sufficient for you. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is not, having a lawyer state that its a war crime is not a valid source. Articles on Wikipedia are not to be used as a soapbox for commentators. If I can produce a lawyer that says otherwise does that mean its then negated? The issue is factual representation, unless you are stating this article is strictly based on random choosing of opinions by lawyers we can find on the internet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as they are Wikipedia reliable sources, and notable in the field, then yes, that is sufficient to allay my original research concerns. The article of course would still suffer from NPOV concerns however, because there is not widespread consensus that the Iraq war was a war crime, unlike the other incidents on this page. Given that no consensus exists, there is no basis for including the Iraq war on this page, and it must be removed. It should perhaps be added to a seperate page on alleged war crimes, where the aforementioned sources would be sufficient there for both NPOV and OR concerns. Currently however, without widespread consensus on the issue, you cannot list the Iraq war here without violating neutrality. Bibigon 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not as a middleground we just split this page in pieces to determine how far along those allegations went? Convictions, Trials, Allegations. Kind of thing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That is what the columns are for in each entry which has been put into a table. The listing is in cronological order and that is the easiest way to find an incident because even if one does not know the status one normally has a good idea when it happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone agree to renamnig the article to alleged war crimes then? Since by admission many of these are just that, and have not been prosecuted or proven to be a fact yet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful to maintain a seperate list of JUST the war crimes that either have 1) a conviction or 2) a strong international consensus. If we intermingle the two lists, the real ones will get lost in a deluge of allegeds (or so I'm told). --Alecmconroy 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is international consensus Iraq is a war crime. Even Annan says it is.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the map of Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq, it looks like a very divided world, not world united in opposition of the war. And even the countries that oppose it do not necessarily regard it as a war crime.

In your reverts, you ask why we don't remove OTHER content. If you can show me other war crimes currently listed on the page which you disagree are actually war crimes and which are unsourced, I'm completely open to debating them. I didn't put any of them up-- I'm not familiar with whether any of them debated or not. I 100% agree that if there are any other alleged war crimes, they don't belong on this page. --Alecmconroy 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this, and will not revert this article again today. Arguing for keeping OR violations or factually false information, because other information is factually false, seems like backwards logic. Telling people if they cannot locate all of the fallacys, then they cannot remove any ... I do not know what to make of that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Analysis from sources

• The invasion of Iraq is a war crime.[9][10][11][12][13]
• Torture and killing of detainees is a war crime.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
• The number of innocent civiliansd dying in Iraq may be a war crime.[22]
• NATO's invasion of Yugoslavia was a war of aggression that violated the United Nations Charter. <......>The American Association of Jurists and a group of Canadian lawyers and law professors filed a war crimes complaint against NATO leaders in the ICTY. Yet that tribunal conducted only a perfunctory investigation of the serious charges. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the ICTY for failing to thoroughly investigate.[23]
• The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and 66 other Japanese cities are some of the most heinous war crimes ever committed.[24]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Now while most of these are not Wikipedia reliable sources, as per WP:RS, some of them might be. Thus that probably deals with the OR concerns. However, we still can't list the Iraq War on this page, because those are mere allegations at this point. It is not widely accepted fact, and it is actually widely disputed. Given that this is a List of War crimes, and the Iraq War is not yet considered by all relevant points of view to have been a war crime, it cannot be listed here without violating WP:NPOV. Were we to list it, we would only be presenting the POV of those who claimed it was a war crime. This is not a page of alleged war crimes either, so we can't list it as a mere allegation. Thus, there is no way, at least that I can think of, to present this without violating NPOV. Do you have any ideas how to do so without such a violation perhaps? Bibigon 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How are they not reliable? You are shifting the goalposts, not very constructive. To be consistent you must remove Saddam Hussein, he is not convicted so they are only allegations!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But see-- in order to qualify to be on THIS page, it's not enough to show some people believe it's a war crime. Instead, you have to show that practically everyone believes it's a war crime. Until that happens, it's just an alleged war crime. Otherwise, we shouldn't just have brief listing on this page, we need to have a full debate that shows both sides of the issuse on the individual pages for the incidents. --Alecmconroy 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gonzales and Yoo thought war crimes were being commited. At least that is why the torture memos were written.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people think war crimes are going on. Maybe _I_ even think war crimes are going on. But until practically everybody thinks it, we have to present BOTH sides-- and we can't present both sides on this page. --Alecmconroy 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

but these two are rthe legal advisors of Bush. If even they think of war crimes ....Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of those sources are not reliable because they don't fit with WP:RS's conditions for a reliable source. Some of them are self published, others are from far left websites, both of which are grounds for disqualification under Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. I'm not saying none of them are reliable however. As I said, you could probably do away with the OR concerns. Until there are no reliable sources who would dispute that the Iraq war is a war crime however, we can't put it on this list without violating NPOV. Bibigon 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will show you misrepresent policy, but will take some time.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, my reasoning is quite simple:

1. For reasons of space, we cannot include a full debate that includes both sides for all alleged war crimes on this one page.

2. For reasons of NPOV, we have a duty to present BOTH sides of any controversy.

Therefore, we can't include controversial war crimes allegations on the List of War Crimes.

What's wrong with just having a full debate on the Iraq Legitamacy page?

--Alecmconroy 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go seeing as how most of that information and discussion is allready taking place there. --DjSamwise 13:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no controversy, notable legal experts have commented, and explained why certain actions would amount to war crimes, and there is no reason why, if BOTH sides are to be included, we should not mention that.

Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

• The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

• Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.

• The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

• Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Balance An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

I ask again, which of the sources I provided does not meet these standards? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Truthout does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability for one. They are self published it seems, and I'm not sure why they fit the standards of notability either. Regardless, this page is not the place for debates as to whether something is a war crime or not. It is a page to list war crimes. If there is debate amongst reliable sources, then it should not be listed here. Bibigon 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Truthout is acceptable under Wikipedia policy (please read the above) you might want to look at who wrote the article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, somehow we're not understanding each other. You say: "there is no reason why, if BOTH sides are to be included, we should not mention that." The whole point is-- this page isn't for issues where were present BOTH sides. This page is only for issues that have only one side. The page for both sides of this issue is Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. --Alecmconroy

Clearly many war criminals are never put on trial, proving it is more a political than legal excercise. If we can only use court rulings we must remove other examples too. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, you keep mentioning that we should remove other incidents, and I think you somehow expect us to say "No! We can't remove those others! We cant! We musn't! so... maybe the US War of Aggression should be allowed in after all". But you couldn't be more wrong. When I look at this list, I very much worry that there are many others in the list that shouldn't be there, but I don't know enough about history to pick them out. When I look through the list myself to try to examine those incidents which didn't lead to convictions, there's only one that I know anything about-- the unrestricted submarine warfare conducted by the US and UK during WWII. And from what I know about it, I absolutely believe there is a sufficent international consensus that those actions were illegal, so it should be on the list.

But if there are any other cases on this list right now that 1) didn't result in conviction and 2) don't have a very strong international consensus that they are indeed war crimes-- then I want them out.

On a related subject, what does everyone think about including Abu Ghraib in the list, as Ansolin suggests? Or what about some of the other murders we've heard about? There's no doubt that the actions are criminal-- but are they war crimes? Is any crime committed during a war a war crime? or does it have to be a specific type of crime? In any case, I definitely wouldn't have the same objection to including Abu Ghraib that I do with including the entire Iraq war as a "war of aggression". I don't think anyone's denying that Abu Ghraib was criminal-- not even the perpetrators.

--Alecmconroy 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Any violation of the laws of war is a war crime. Killing (unarmed) civilians is against the laws of war.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this statement. Nescio if you know of other items in this list that have not been found to be war crimes by a suitable court or an international concensus, then please help and remove them from the article. Or at least give examples that way other can research adn possibly support the claim with evidence suitable or remove them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a point, perhaps it should be removed till after the trial to see if he is actually guilty. Perhaps you should start a new section and put it to a vote or you can gather some sources, feel free to let me know what you need as assistance as I think this article has potential if we just remove the non war crimes from the list. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny story-- turns out he's not specifically named in this article right now, though the Iraqi government during Iran-Iraq war is, so I guess that counts. At some point, we should mention his gassing of the Kurds in the early 90s too. I personally don't oppose including Saddam right now, because I _think_ there is an international consensus that he's guilty, so I think he qualifies under criterion #2- international consensus. I mean, if I went to Iraq right now, wouldn't even they agree he's guilty? But if you know of a major international faction that does believe in his innocence, then maybe we should remove it until it's proven in a court of law. --Alecmconroy 10:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib

Although I don’t think the whole gulf war could be called a war crime Abu Ghraib should be considered so

The U.S. Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Pvt. Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brig. General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of colonel on May 5, 2005.Ansolin 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

mmkay. I added it- whatchya'll think? --Alecmconroy 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This currently unsourced material. Please source it being a war crime. Bibigon 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, see this is instructive. What sort of sourcing do we want to require for it to qualify as a war crime? There's ample sources of course to show they've been convicted of maltreatment, abuse, and assault of POWs. Similarly, there's ample sources to show that POW abuse is prohibited by the laws of war. But since they've been tried under US military justice rather than through the international justice system, they haven't, technically speaking, been convicted of war crimes. Obviously, no shortage of editorial sources that think they SHOULD be tried for war crimes by an international court, but realistically speaking, that's not going to happen.

Do we want to say that "being convicted of an action outlawed by Geneva -> being guilty of a war crime" and call it good? or do we want to have a very strict criteria, limiting the list only to those actions where there actually was an official international court finding of war crime guilt?

--Alecmconroy 16:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Even using that strict definition there seems to be a strong international consensus that this was a war crime but if it not allowed then it shows a big problem with the article we need either a section or satellite article with “grey” war crimes.

I couldn’t find the alleged war crimes article might just have been me though .Ansolin 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. If possible we should use court rulings, saying so-and-so has committed a war crime
2. It is naive to think that all war criminals will be put on trial since it is an inherently political procedure:
   • They may be killed before any verdict
   • They are part of Western countries and as such will not be put on trial for war crimes (the fact the US opposes a tribunal specifically created to judge war criminals says enough) or can we name Western convicts during the past 50 years?
3. If there is sufficient legal analysis it would warrant the inclusion of those crimes.
4. We know that killing unarmed civilians is a war crime, therefore any conviction for killing civilians can be seen as a conviction for war crimes, even if it is not explicitly named. It is hard to imagine how killing civilians is not a war crime as it is defined as such.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the fundamental problem with having a page such as this. This page is ostensibly a list of war crimes, but the problem is, that if any Wikipedia reliable source disputes that, then we cannot include it, because to include it would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This isn't like having a list of Oscar winners or something that is just factual information, this is a list where entries are routinely going to be disputed. Right now, this entry is unsourced, and is thus original research. It is also likely a NPOV violation given that it's likely that there are reliable and notable sources who deny that it was a war crime. I'm not sure about the latter part however. This is definetly an original research violation without a source however.

"Sufficient legal analysis" is just one source's POV. It is not objective fact that nobody will dispute.

Including killing civilians as being a war crime without it being named as such is almost the definition of original research Nescio. We cannot draw that conclusion ourselves using our own reasoning, no matter how valid our reasoning is. We report on what other sources have said, we do not draw conclusions. Please review WP:NOR. Bibigon 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, this is a tough page to do right, so it's good we're talking about it. And obviously, if we can't decide on some good criteria that we can all accept, then Abu Ghraib has to come down as NOR or NPOV.

I think that in deciding whether something belongs, we're looking at two questions:

1. Did they commit a crime?

2. Does that crime constitute a war crime?

I think my proposal would be to have very stringent requirements for question #1, but to be somewhat more liberal requirements for #2. Which is to say this: When deciding if a person was indeed guilty of a crime, usually insist on a conviction, but in rare cases, allow an incontrovertable consensus to stand in for a guilty convinction. Once we've established that a crime was indeed committed, I think we can be a little more liberal about whether we call it a war crime or not and take a more straightforward, commonsense approach.

So, doing this with examples:

• a not-guilty verdict of any kind is an automatic not-eligible for listing on this page.
• a murder conviction against a civillian commited during a war would qualify for this page.
• a killing of a civillion during a war, absent a conviction or incontrovertible consensus, would not qualify for this page.
• POW abuse supported by conviction or consensus would qualify.
• Alleged wars of aggresion, outside convictions or overwhelming consensus, would not qualify.

What do ya'll think of this criteria? OR we could go the other way, and rename the page "List of war crimes convictions" and absolutely insist on a war crime conviction to qualify. This would have the benefit of having very stringent, verifiable criteria that would be easy to define and source. The downside would be we'd miss out on a lot of inicidents that are generally thought of as war crimes by historians in cases where there weren't trials.

--Alecmconroy 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I think this needs to be run is:

1. Does a Wikipedia reliable source say explicitely a war crime took place here. This source needs to be reliable, and notable in this field.

2. If so, then does anybody dispute this? Do any Wikipedia reliable sources dispute that a war crime took place, instead insisting that it was something else, or that nothing happened at all.

If the answer to 1 is 'yes', and the answer to 2 is 'no', then we can list it. A non-guilty verdict would qualify as a reliable source disputing that a war crime took place, so we couldn't list it. It's really just that simple. There is no real room for reasoning or judgement by us here. Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, I can't actually find any sources who dispute that a war crime took place. The United States government hasn't commented on it, and neither has anyone else it seems who would dispute it. As such, assuming that some Wikipedia reliable source can be found alleging a war crime, then it seems reasonable to list it. Bibigon 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Abu Ghraib to List of war crimes/dispute until we decide what criteria we want to use and whether it belongs on the page. When I added it, I hadn't anticipated it would be controversial, and it's better to error on the side of non-including rather than wrongly including something that shouldn't be here. --Alecmconroy 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Bibigon on this one in regard to using wikipedia reliable source for or against war crimes, but there should be a page/section for disputed ones. Ansolin 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate is flawed. It simply ignores the fact that for political reasons many war criminals will never be put on trial. To demand a verdict by a court of law would reward politics by not mentioning evident war crimes. Second, if killing civilians is a war crime, and someone is convicted for killing civilians why can;t we say it was a war crime. It's like saying that although you ate an egg I cannot say you broke the shell since I have no proof of that. Yet, how can you eat an egg without breaking the shell, even if I did not witness the shell breaking?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:NOR. Please read up on perhaps Wikipedia's most misunderstood policy. We cannot use our own reasoning on these pages, no matter how solid it may seem to be. Bibigon 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's OR to say that if you eat scrambled eggs you have broken the egg shell? Do tell how you know the shell has not been broken?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your egg analogy is a bit strange, given that few Wikipedia articles would be focused on your breakfast. However, ignoring that distinction, yes, that would be OR, given that you're using your own reasoning to conclude that. You need to cite someone else's reasoning for it to be suitable content for Wikipedia. Bibigon 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that concluding something when there are multiple possibilities is OR, to reach the ONLY possible conclusion hardly is OR since nobody will or can dispute it. Other example, you describe a man with no hair and I state he is bald, you object because the fact he has no hair cannot be translated into he is bald. I find this illogical and a misrepresentation of policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating the reason person X or country Y is not put on trial is because of politics is not the only answer. It could be because there is no evidence, because the country doesnt get encompassed by that particular law, cause court Z doesnt have jurisdiction etc. I am not even a lawyer and I can come up with 3 reasons. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my earlier comments on that and remember that stating politics are not part of putting people on trial is utterly naive of willfull obstructive.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Its OR to state they are the reason when there can be other reasons. Please read things before replying to them. Thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as politics is part of it you cannot simply demand a court ruling. Second, have the Haditha war criminals been indicted? Why not, since it evidently meets all the criteria of a war crime? Third, since Iraq was invaded while it psed no threat to the US and the UN did not authorize it how is the invasion not a war of aggression?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Furthermore stating a soldier commited a war crime is not the same as stating the whole invasion was one. Also the investigation is currently ongoing. Again its OR for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over without any reasonable proof that it is a war crime. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Use a hypodermic needle btw is this breakfast discussion helping?.

I think that Bibigon suggestion that once we have by using good sources proved that a war crime happen it then up to other good sources to dispute it.

I think it work beyond question in this instance we have photo after all hehe. Ansolin 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's denying the crimes happened-- the question is: are the crimes a war crime? Here the question is: do we want to use a legal definition of "war crime" or do we want to use a colloquial definition?

Consider this analgous situation. Suppose we had an article entitle "List of murderers" and we want to consider adding Edgar Ray Killen, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who in 1964 killed three civil rights workers and was convincted of the crime only last year. Assume it's an accepted fact that the man is a killer-- but is he a murderer? It turns out that he was convicted NOT of murder, but of manslaughter.

Can we make the commonsense leap on our own that if he's unlawfully killed a person, he's a murderer, using the colloquial definition that if you unlawfully kill someone, you're a murderer? Or do we want to insist that we limit the list of murders to people who absolutely positively have been convincted of the legal crime of murder?

I can easily support either side in this debate-- and if we can't agree on which side to pick, we should pick the more conservative of the two by default. So, perhaps we should just rename this page to "List of war crime convinctions" and be done with it. Or perhaps we should accept the colloquial definition of war crime as a "violating laws of war". Either way works for me-- we should just decide on a standard and then make it clear what standard we're using on the page, and try to stick to it.

(in a separate legalistic debate that won't affect the outcome, I have to disagree with Bibigon. I think that this isn't so much a case of Original Research-- because we can cite sources all day that regard certain actions are war crimes. Rather, it's a case of NPOV-- whether we're devoting undo weight to sources that might not be reliable. This is just me being a nitpicking legalese geek, though, and doesn't me I disagree with the point he's making. :) )

--Alecmconroy 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reffering to the case where no source at all is cited, rather than the source being disputed. With no source, it's OR. With a source being cited, but other people disagreeing, it's NPOV. Bibigon 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I brought up Abu Ghraib but if we change from the war crime is a punishable offense under '''International Law''' couldn’t a solider stealing a pair of shoes in Iraq be a war crime?.

List of war crime convictions would mean the case with acquittals would go (really don’t like that these guys try very hard to hide the evidence) .we would need an alleged section/page for sure

Violating laws of war wouldn’t we just have the same problems?

My thinking and I am starting to get how this all could be very tricky is if we have say 500 people with 5000 7.62/.50 bullets in them hidden in a shallow grave in the wood we should mention it some where its hard to see how its not in some sense a war crime even if we know nothing else.Ansolin 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged

I am allegedly quite tired of all these alleged allegations allegedly found in this article. The alleged tripartite of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV allegedly summarises that alleged events that allegedly current and mainstream historiography allege to be allegedly true should allegedly be be treated as alleged facts despite what an allegedly insignificant albeit allegedly vocal minority allegedly says. Yours allegedly -- Миборовский 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here here! Agreed! :) I aledge that all such words will soon be deleted.. --DjSamwise 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

early detection of military misguidance

As an example of military misguidance, the war in Iraq is the most obvious and easily explainable 'blooper' that any textbook could hope to offer. As a nation, the United States is supposed to be sound-spectrographing all recorded music with the cooperation of SUNY (State University of New York). That such intent was communicated and misapplied during telephone call-demand strategies (also known as hazing) cannot be casually ignored during historical compilation activity. 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

That's interesting but what does that have to do with a list of warcrimes? :) --DjSamwise 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the military misapplication of the acronymn SUNY as changed to the word 'Sunni' is a warcrime in and of itself. 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

Also, how many more warcrimes resulted from the collaboration to institute the European

'euro' currency when the US was supposed to be instituting FBI-linked ATMS using 'euro' in the computer programming? With regard to lists of warcrimes, types of such crimes might need categorical breakdowns according to probable cause. 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

And how about the 'Gulf War', which was initiated in AfroAsian environs when the actual question concerned a French violin housed in Louisiana USA near the Gulf of Mexico, formerly the site of some sunken French vessels? I.e., did it float ashore from some foundered French ship? Suddenly, soldiers were being shipped to the Persian Gulf, possibly as a means of population control. 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC) beadtot

why Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki are not mentioned?

bombing civilian targets such as cities is a crime of war isn't it? is it just because those who judged what was war crime during WWII were the winners..? Shame On You 12:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Allies were not aggressors. Neither Germany nor Japan had surrendered; surrender would have averted those attacks. To be sure, both the Third Reich and imperial Japan were on the verge of either military of political collapse, but such was not utterly clear.

The atomic bomb blasts upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used against a political entity still fighting ferociously despite a hopeless situation. That Japan was on the brink of utter collapse (famine was a possibility) was not a consideration of any government. The atom bomb use on Japanese cities was often justified as ending a war faster than otherwise against an enemy that many thought likely to continue a ferocious fight in the event of an invasion of the Japan proper. One justification was that the atom bomb blasts saved more lives from military activities alone than they took in casualties.

War crimes are moral crimes -- not blunders, and not miscalculations of anything other than the likelihood of avoiding the consequences.--Paul from Michigan 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that firebombing Dresden (which was not a strategic nor tactical target) was not a moral crime? Ameise -- chat 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, i know that the US are claiming that they have sacrificed civilian ennemies in order to save their own militarymen and used as a naive argument that the Japanese chief of staff was ready to fight until the very last man just to evade the defeat disgrace, but do you know that Hiroshima bombing is viewed a different way in French schools and in other independent countries as well? Most of the Japanese chief of staff was ready to surrender by august but the US used the bomb as a political weapon to impress the Soviet who were about to invade Japan and claim their part of territory (they didn't released Kouriles Islands -strategic area- yet...). To occupy Japan allowed the US to set military bases in Japan and get an increased geopolitical position in South East Asia to fight its new ennemy, communism. After the end of US occupation over Japan, military bases were left in the archipel and were used as a back base for the anti-communist operation in Korea. Once the Korean war ended the US left bases in Korea too that were later used during the Vietnam war... Saying that doesn't mean I'm telling the Japanese and the German were innocent or not evil (or that communism is a good thing). It's just that war crimes are on both sides and hard to admit for those presenting themselves as zealous teachers of human rights (it includes my own country of course). how can anti-human migration (poors trying their luck to a richer country, as were NA colons themselves...) wall builders could remain credible when giving Human Rights lessons to the Chinese or Russian (etc) regimes -older civilizations- who didn't asked anything? "War crimes are moral crimes" you said, "this generation must do its duty for the country like did the previous generation" said a man who never wore uniform nor was wounded, nor mutilated for his own country. don't you think that sending kids, fathers, husbands, to the slaughter like in battle of Verdun or in the battle of Marne is a moral crime? who is legitimate to define what is morality? are there the preachers, governments, commanding officers, nations, winners, defeated, god or just none of them? Self-defence is an hypocrit argument to justify civilian massacres, i.e. to justify the unjustifiable. Shame On You 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Germans also bombed cities during World War II (for example Coventry was coventriert) and Goering the head of the Luftwaffe, was tried at Nuremberg, but not for aerial bombardment. Unlike Doenitz who was tried and found guilty for breaches of positive international law (see First London Naval Treaty and 1936 Naval Protocol) when he ordered unrestricted submarine warfare. Because at his trial it was judged that the Allies had also used the same tactics, although he was guilty no time was added to his sentence for that crime.

Unlike naval warfare which did have a positive international treaty obligations over unrestricted unrestricted submarine warfare, despite diplomatic efforts between the world wars there were no treaties directly governing aerial warfare.[25] (See Aerial area bombardment and international law for more on this point). If the Allies had thought that aerial bombardment was a crime then they could have tried Goering for the crime without implicating their own personnel for the same alleged offence by structuring the argument that it was a crime when furthering a war of aggression (see Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity for examples of this linkage). One can sumise that Goering was not tried for his command of a stratigic bombing campaign either because there was not crime to answer for, or that the Allies thought there was but decided that it was not politically expedient to try him for this. There may be some article on the behind the sceens discussion about this at the time, if there is perhapse someone could post a reference. Without that, one is left to speculate whether it a legal decison, or a political expediancy on why Goering was not tried for the Blitz. The majority expert view in the English speaking world is that stratigic bombing was not a war crime and the decenting view is that it was, as was argued, for example, in a 1963 Japanese Shimoda judicial review. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, 1940

The Soviet annexations of the three Baltic republics, resulting from the decision of Hitler and Stalin to divide eastern Europe into "spheres of influence", resulting in the Soviet annexation of territories on the "other side" of the line, would seem to be war crimes because of diplomatic bullying, interference in the domestic politics of those countries, movement of Soviet armed forces in violation of treaties of "mutal assistance", rigged elections arranged by Soviet political hatchetmen, picked parliaments that voted for annexation to the Soviet Union contrary to no provable desire of the peoples of those countries to surrender their independence, and subsequent deportations and mass killings of persons that the Soviet regime considered untrustworthy.

--Paul from Michigan 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No German war crime during the First Wold War

The armistice began on the November 11th, 1918 when after a revolution in Germany (the Kaiser ran away) the SPD as leading party signed the conditions. During the peace conference in Versailles beginning on January 18th, 1919 Germany was not allowed to join the conference or to negotiate with the victors. The Versailles Teaty was completely dictated and the representatives Hermann Müller and Johannes Bell was literally forced to sign the document (Bad error in "Versailles Treaty": Ebert hasn't signed the document). The "War guilt clause" 231 was necessary to justify reparations; it was simply blaming Germany instead of documenting war crimes (By the way the USA has not ratified the Versailles Treaty). The allegation of "war of aggression" is completely absurd: The first time this crime occured in international law was during 1928 (!) in the Briand-Kellog-Pact. So the article must be deleted. Source: DER GROSSE PLOETZ (Encyclopedia of History) 34. edition p.735-737 --136.172.253.189 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I can agree on the fact that the clause 231 of the Versailles Treaty is not a clear condemnation of Germany for war crimes during WW1, during the invasion of Belgium and France, the Germans killed several thousands of civilians (5,000 in Belgium alone). This is quite well documented and would probably be regarded as war crimes according to the Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which was in use at that time, and to the current criteria defining a war crime (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocit%C3%A9s_allemandes, in French sorry). --Lebob-BE 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The atrocities are not mentioned in the PLOETZ, but searching in the Web I found "John N. Horne und Alan Kramer, Hrsg. German Atrocities, 1914. A History of Denial." with a short review of the book. The reason the atrocities are not mentioned in German culture seems to be that the Allies blowed the crimes out of proportion in war propaganda, claiming mass rape of women and cutting off limbs of children and babies. That forced the Germans effectively to go to the other extreme, denying any crime at all and accusing Belgian and French civilians for partisan warfare. According to the book there were indeed war crimes, but the victims were exclusively men who were shot or executed by overnervous, frightened and angry German soldiers (Reason: Belgium defended himself much harder than expected). 129 cities (most infamous Löwen, Andennes, Tamines and Dinant) were badly damaged or destroyed. I look for other sources, but you can insert it as long as I don't find counterevidence. --136.172.253.189 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001

Someone has added the 9/11 terrorist attacks into the list of war crimes. Taking into account the definition of war crimes, I wonder whether the 9/11 event has its place within this list. I suggest to remove it. --Lebob-BE 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I do not think that the 9/11 constitutes a war crime. As such I have removed it from the page, however if one disagrees please elaborate. --Tchakra 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be marked as terrorism, not a war crime. --69.239.175.29 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Croatian War Crimes During WWII

It is necessary to add that Croatian Ustase had a death camp at Jasenovac where they committed war crimes against thousands upon thousands of Serbs, Jews, and gypsies. Stop The Lies 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Criteria for WW2 war crimes?

Unfortunately, I was not surprised when I found neither Pforzheim, Kobe, Dresden, Hiroshima nor Nagasaki on this list. I couldn't asked for a more clear evidence that winners write the history. It shouldn't be necessary to the conservative Wikipedians in here that the Axis powers were *not* the only party to do horrible, exaggerated acts of warfare during WW2. It's simply cowardly to defend acts like Dresden just because Germany was the aggressive party in WW2. That is not an excuse for downplaying such acts 60 years later. If a city in US was firebombed during WW2, that would surely be stamped as a war crime. Keep that in mind. --Jambalaya 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If "Pforzheim, Kobe, Dresden, Hiroshima nor Nagasaki" were war crimes which specific war crime was commited. If for example Dresden was a war crime was the bombing of Covenrty a war crime? As neither are in the list have you considered that it might be because neither was a war crime at the time the attacke took place, and that it is " a more clear evidence that winners write the history"? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think almost wiping out two civilian cities in the course of three days would be considered unnecessary use of force no matter what century, which war or which nations were involved. BTW: Nobody says that the winners *have to* dictate the history. The use of reason should be encouraged in any case. --Jambalaya 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If for example Dresden was a war crime was the bombing of Covenrty a war crime? Twice as many were killed in Dresden compared to the Coventry blitz and maybe more importantly; Germany had practically lost the war when Dresden was blitzed in 1945. --Jambalaya 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3