# Are War Crimes Trials effective?



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2010)

On the Dresden firestorm raid, posters have introduced the notion of War Crimes Trials - and as you all know we have them still going on today. Are War Crimes Trials appropriate? Do they work (to deter)? Do they only reinforce the rule that the winners write history?

Your views 

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> On the Dresden firestorm raid, posters have introduced the notion of War Crimes Trials - and as you all kmow we have them still going on today. Are War Crimes Trials appropriate? Do they work (to deter)? Do they only reinforce the rule that the winners write history?
> 
> Your views
> 
> MM



Read my wife's grandfather's book "Surviving the Day." He was captured at Bataan and later sent to mainland Japan. He testified against 2 of his captors and they were executed. You tell me if you want enemy officers who purposely starved and brutalized their prisoners walking the streets after hostilities...


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 20, 2010)

Sadly it is human nature to kill each other. No trial with deter that.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> ...Are War Crimes Trials appropriate? Do they work (to deter)? Do they only reinforce the rule that the winners write history?


If the 'winners' were running down war crimes suspects and shooting them on sight, then these revisionist nay sayers may have a case, the fact that perpetrators are getting something their victims were never offered - a fair trial - pretty much snuffs that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2010)

Well said guys, and there were plenty of former combatants placed on trail and acquitted of charges brought against them. From Nuremberg thru today I don't see any war crimes trial as a 'witch hunt' for blame or revenge, unless you were the Soviet Union in the post WW2 years WHO DID unjustly jail prisoners as we well know.


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 20, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well said guys, and there were plenty of former combatants placed on trail and acquitted of charges brought against them. From Nuremberg thru today I don't see any war crimes trial as a 'witch hunt' for blame or revenge, unless you were the Soviet Union in the post WW2 years WHO DID unjustly jail prisoners as we well know.



Absolutely. The verdicts and punishments given at War Trials are symbolic of the crimes committed by the accused, atonement if you will.

War trials in themselves do not deter future acts of war in the same way that the death penalty does not deter murder.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2010)

".... You tell me if you want enemy officers who purposely starved and brutalized their prisoners walking the streets after hostilities..."

No I don't.

I believe the key word is "trial". Were there war trials after 1918 ...? Not that I'm aware of. That itself would suggest progress.

MM


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Were there war trials after 1918 ...? Not that I'm aware of. That itself would suggest progress.



Well, the Nuremberg Trials spring to mind, which suggests no progress at all. If you are implying war trials specific to crimes committed in WW1 then I'm not aware of any either, but then again the massive reparations demanded of Germany in the Versaille Treaty might well be deemed sufficient enough punishment.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2010)

without war crimes trials, we have a choice...we can either leave the crime unpunished, or we can take the alleged perpetrators ou the back and just shoot them. that reduces us down to the lowest level of human existence no better than the brutes we are hunting down

I say trials may or may not be effective, but regardless, tey are essential


----------



## Willszenith (Mar 20, 2010)

War crimes to me is an such a grey area, perhaps war crime 'trials' are justice, perhaps they are nothing more then a justification of completely destroying an aggressor/opponent in what would seem to be a legitimate and civilized way , instead of taking the straight to a firing squad.

I used to believe that nuremburg was a real turning point in post war justice, however after the invasion of iraq and the hussein trial ( I know, I know you cant compare) , I would hate to think that a good prosecutor and court room is just another weapon...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2010)

"... massive reparations demanded of Germany in the Versaille Treaty might well be deemed sufficient".

Massive, I agree, but no battle 1914-18 took place on German soil. Much of Belgium and some of France were left in WW2 (type) bomber-raid condition.

I know the record of Nuremberg. I was specifically asking "Where there war crimes trials after 1918" and I believe the answer is no. And by that logic I think one could argue that the world (most important - the USA) DID learn a few positive things from WW1.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2010)

".... after the invasion of iraq and the hussein trial ( I know, I know you cant compare) , I would hate to think that a good prosecutor and court room is just another weapon..."

You think he and more recently Chemical Ali didn't get a fair trial? 

MM


----------



## Willszenith (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... massive reparations demanded of Germany in the Versaille Treaty might well be deemed sufficient".
> 
> Massive, I agree, but no battle 1914-18 took place on German soil. Much of Belgium and some of France were left in WW2 (type) bomber-raid condition.
> 
> ...




Hmmm id have to agree, the versaille treaty only served as a catalyst for WW2, so perhaps instead of sanctioning a country to its knees , distablising it and allowing whatever party etc to grab power, the powers that be decided to punish the ruling government, but help rebuild the infrastructure and have a sense of co-operation , not so much an occupation but a building of bridges...


However take japan for example the extreme is not allowing hirohito to be prosecuted, because of his divine like status in japan, which may have distablised the entire country and a re emergence of conflicts.


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> . And by that logic I think one could argue that the world (most important - the USA) DID learn a few positive things from WW1.



Until WWII, which as I stated could either show no progress at all, or at the very least a retrograde step.

One thing that is worthy of note is the fact that more than a few people who by all reasonable criteria should have ended up hanging from a rope actually escaped the Nuremberg Trials as they were far more useful to the victors alive. The idealogical threat of the Soviet Union and and inevitable drop of the "Iron Curtain" assured that.

So by any stretch of logic War Trials can only be perceived of having a symbolic value at the very most.


----------



## Willszenith (Mar 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... after the invasion of iraq and the hussein trial ( I know, I know you cant compare) , I would hate to think that a good prosecutor and court room is just another weapon..."
> 
> You think he and more recently Chemical Ali didn't get a fair trial?
> 
> MM



No its not so much that, although even amnesty international claimed it was unfair, my concern ( and im not overly great at typing) is that courts become an legitimate reason for military action, there was a heavy american influence in the courts, and after all the WMD talk, terrorism etc he was hung for and I quote reuters :On 5 November 2006, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging for the killing of 148 Shiites from Dujail, in retaliation for the assassination attempt of 8 July 1982

He deserved it no doubt, did it legitimise a coalition force invading, well no, was the courts just a 'legal' way to the rest of the world to remove him?

but to clarify he did deserve to go, my concern is how courts are used after a conflict is won


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 20, 2010)

Willszenith said:


> No its not so much that, although even amnesty international claimed it was unfair, my concern ( and im not overly great at typing) is that courts become an legitimate reason for military action, there was a heavy american influence in the courts, and after all the WMD talk, terrorism etc he was hung for and I quote reuters :On 5 November 2006, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging for the killing of 148 Shiites from Dujail, in retaliation for the assassination attempt of 8 July 1982
> 
> He deserved it no doubt, did it legitimise a coalition force invading, well no, was the courts just a 'legal' way to the rest of the world to remove him?


If I recall
it was an Iraqi court that executed him

As for landing on a figure of 148 victims, that's just laughable, they were still digging his victims up from mass graves two years after they hanged him. I don't think that they can actually count the number of Iranian soldiers that were taken prisoner and murdered.

Stabilising the Middle East is absolutely vital and it was always going to be a massive task; black ops and CIA subversion could have done the job of toppling him but without the coalition military presence there'd be nothing in place to stop the next wave of lunatics (or insurgents) from filling the vacuum left by Hussein. I'll make the same point I made the last time this came up, we can fight terrorism in their back yard now, or in our back yards in ten years time - but we'll end up fighting it either way.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2010)

"... take japan for example the extreme is not allowing Hirohito to be prosecuted, because of his divine like status in japan, which may have destabilized the entire country and a re emergence of conflicts..."

THAT was MacArthur at his most brilliant. 

"... He deserved it no doubt, did it legitimize a coalition force invading, well no, " 

I take it you're not a fan of Regime Change.
If the USA had done that to Hitler in 1938 we'd all be applauding here 

MM

POSTSCRIPT:

"... we can fight terrorism in their back yard now, or in our back yards in ten years time - but we'll end up fighting it either way."

Exactly


----------



## proton45 (Mar 21, 2010)

Maximowitz said:


> One thing that is worthy of note is the fact that more than a few people who by all reasonable criteria should have ended up hanging from a rope actually escaped the Nuremberg Trials as they were far more useful to the victors alive. The idealogical threat of the Soviet Union and and inevitable drop of the "Iron Curtain" assured that.
> 
> So by any stretch of logic War Trials can only be perceived of having a symbolic value at the very most.



Agree...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 21, 2010)

We all know the old saw: "Not justice done but justice *seen* to be done".

MM


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

I support properly conducted war crimes tribunals of course. So that we don't have the general public running around with hand waving declarations like claiming Hirohito was in any way directly responsible for war crimes or even the war itself without intimate personal knowledge of Japanese political culture of the period. It's why we have trial by law, so that evidentiary process rather than witchburning populism reigns.

Jesus F Christ.

FYI more than a few Holocaust survivors have publicly stated they do not in any way support "Nazi hunting," for whatever that's worth.


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

> Stabilising the Middle East is absolutely vital and it was always going to be a massive task; black ops and CIA subversion could have done the job of toppling him but without the coalition military presence there'd be nothing in place to stop the next wave of lunatics (or insurgents) from filling the vacuum left by Hussein. I'll make the same point I made the last time this came up, we can fight terrorism in their back yard now, or in our back yards in ten years time - but we'll end up fighting it either way.


Hussein never had any celebrated or proven connection with terrorism, and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and furthermore, that event had nothing to do with England, Europe or Middle Eastern and central Asiatic politics.

Modern Middle Eastern politics entirely centres around the Persian Gulf, central Asiatic politics entirely centres around the Caspian Sea table, which actually is Russian property. The thing with Iran, activity in Afghanistan, blatant smokescreen over interests in the Caspian Sea. Iraq, blatant smokescreen over interests in the Persian Gulf. You don't need a slide rule to figure this out. If any of the claims about yankish-euroyank benevolence for the cultural well being of foreign nations were involved those armed forces were entirely on the wrong continent. They should've been in Africa sorting out their much worse problems instead.
The whole thing is big fat used car salesman wank and everybody capable of rubbing two brain cells together on the entire planet is utterly aware of this.
Hence universal protest from Detroit to Mongolia on this.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 26, 2010)

vanir said:


> FYI more than a few Holocaust survivors have publicly stated they do not in any way support "Nazi hunting," for whatever that's worth.


Yes
and the ones who didn't survive? Who speaks for them?

Nazi hunters - works for me


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Yes
> and the ones who didn't survive? Who speaks for them?
> 
> Nazi hunters - works for me



I understand and fully appreciate this sentiment. It is in part admirable. However my personal contention, and it is nothing more than that, is that Holocaust victims deserve pre-eminence over my own sentimentalities for them. If surviving victims say, "No, don't do that," then I must say, okay, say the word and we handle this as you wish. This is my support for the victims.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 26, 2010)

vanir said:


> ...is that Holocaust victims deserve pre-eminence over my own sentimentalities for them. If surviving victims say, "No, don't do that," then I must say, okay...


You couldn't apply that logic to any aspect of criminal law
Criminal law is, and needs to be, bifurcated from emotional response.
You could no more let a Nazi go than you could someone who murdered your wife who caught him breaking in, or a serial rapist of whom your daughter was a victim - you could be classified as the 'survivor' in either scenario. 

This is the nature of the evidence-driven process that you alluded to in post #20.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 26, 2010)

vanir said:


> I understand and fully appreciate this sentiment. It is in part admirable. However my personal contention, and it is nothing more than that, is that Holocaust victims deserve pre-eminence over my own sentimentalities for them. If surviving victims say, "No, don't do that," then I must say, okay, say the word and we handle this as you wish. This is my support for the victims.



Maybe more than a few don't support it. I'm betting more than that do support it.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 26, 2010)

To my mind, the War Crimes trials had several reasons for their existence. Depending on how you look on it, is your answer.

To avenge the victims- to a certain extent, yes. But it depends on who is having the trials and the victims involved. The Nazis are obviously perpertators of the massacres of the Jews and they were, to some extent, hunted down. If nothing else, their ideology was invalidated. The problem with avenging the victims is domestic victims are rarely avenged (the Kuliks come to mind) where as international victims generally get their moment. 

To prosecute the guilty- Generally not. Most of the time, these guys escape. Only when the trial gets to the level of a cause celebre' do the perps get tried. Cambodia and Rawanda come to mind immediately. They were important, until they dropped off the front page. Then, it became a back burner event for the UN. 

To stop the event from happening again- Usually, no. Massacres just keep happening. 

So, long and short, most war crimes trials are nice to look at, give the participants a "warm and fuzzy" (except if your in the dock) but don't change much.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 26, 2010)

But do create precedents - on which *our* legal system is built and modified.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 26, 2011)

May 26 -2011

'Justice' as most-wanted war crimes fugitive Mladic arrested in Serbia - The Globe and Mail

MM


----------



## proton45 (May 28, 2011)

vanir said:


> I understand and fully appreciate this sentiment. It is in part admirable. However my personal contention, and it is nothing more than that, is that Holocaust victims deserve pre-eminence over my own sentimentalities for them. If surviving victims say, "No, don't do that," then I must say, okay, say the word and we handle this as you wish. This is my support for the victims.


 

What about the surviving victims who still want justice? Do you ignore their feelings, because of the "survivors" who want to live and let live? And what about the law? You can't pick and choose who gets prosecuted...


----------

