• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a crime?

See OP: Have the US soldiers committed a crime?

  • Total voters
    30
Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?
 
Goobieman said:
Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?
Click to expand...

a "crime" needs 2 parts:
- the material act (killing the civilians)
- the moral act (the willingness to do so)

I don't think that the US soldier wanted to kill civilians, so it is not a "crime"

But it's still a pretty bad accident, and depending on the circumstances (were they close? could he see them?) he could still be sued and condemned.

We should see if a normal soldier, placed in the same circumstances, would have done the same.
 
bub said:
a "crime" needs 2 parts:
- the material act (killing the civilians)
- the moral act (the willingness to do so)

I don't think that the US soldier wanted to kill civilians, so it is not a "crime"

But it's still a pretty bad accident, and depending on the circumstances (were they close? could he see them?) he could still be sued and condemned.

We should see if a normal soldier, placed in the same circumstances, would have done the same.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree in full.
 
It's a terrible accident, but the only crime would be trying the soldiers for an accident.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's a terrible accident, but the only crime would be trying the soldiers for an accident.
Click to expand...

why? he's still responsible!

when you kill someone while driving your car, it's not a "crime" but you still have killed someone and depending on the circumstances you could spend several years in jail

=> if he could not have seen the civilians, or if it was very unlikely to hit them, or if he was under enemy fire and was trying to protect himself and has not seen them, then OK he should not be sued

but if it was obvious that there were civilians around the armed guy, he should not have opened fire
 
Last edited:
bub said:
why? he's still responsible!

when you kill someone while driving your car, it's not a "crime" but you still have killed someone and depending on the circumstances you could spend several years in jail
Click to expand...
Clarification:
Combat is not legally comparable to civilian life.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Ok... and...
What part of the 4GC creates a legal liability for soldiers whose fire goes past its target and unintentionally kills civilians?
Click to expand...

article 3(a) says that civilians can't be killed

you say that the US soldier didn't want to kill them, but if he killed them because he was not cautious enough, I think he is still guilty

But it is impossible to guess, as you do not provide any detail
 
Goobieman said:
Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?
Click to expand...

I would say no, it's a war zone and it wasn't the intent to kill civilians. It's an accident.

Though I would say in general, we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
 
bub said:
article 3(a) says that civilians can't be killed
Click to expand...
Article 3 says...

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Click to expand...

... no such thing.

you say that the US soldier didn't want to kill them, but if he killed them because he was not cautious enough, I think he is still guilty
Click to expand...
Guilty of... what?
 
bub said:
why? he's still responsible!

when you kill someone while driving your car, it's not a "crime" but you still have killed someone and depending on the circumstances you could spend several years in jail

=> if he could not have seen the civilians, or if it was very unlikely to hit them, or if he was under enemy fire and was trying to protect himself and has not seen them, then OK he should not be sued

but if it was obvious that there were civilians around the armed guy, he should not have opened fire
Click to expand...

I never said that it shouldn't be investigated, but if circumstances occurred as described, trying them would be a crime.
 
Goobieman said:
Article 3 says...



... no such thing.
Click to expand...

you've found the right article, now you just have to read:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Click to expand...


Guilty of... what?
Click to expand...

maybe criminal negligence
 
Goobieman said:
Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?
Click to expand...
In a hot zone, no one can know with any certainty the destination of all fired ammunition. Bullets can embed in sturdy objects, and go right through flimsy materials. The trajectory can also change via deflection.

Beyond that, the above hypothetical lacks pertinint data crucial to arriving at an informed judgement (i.e. civilian position and observability etc.). One must remember also that civilians and insurgents are more often than not undistinguishable.

Soldiers are typically not held legally responsible for civilian deaths which occur while engaged in battle provided such deaths occured without malice and were unintentional.
 
bub said:
you've found the right article, now you just have to read:
Click to expand...
Your citation is taken out of context, and likely, deliberately so.
The prohibitions noted in that article describe deliberate, inhumane acts upon the helpless, not prohibited actions taken in combat against an enemy.

maybe criminal negligence
Click to expand...

So, back to the beginning:
What part of the 4GC creates a legal liability for soldiers whose fire goes past/through the intended target and unintentionally kills civilians?
 
This is not really a very good poll, because it is asking people to vote based on a blanket assumption that our troops are either scumbags or they are not. While our troops in general are decent people with decent motives, there are a few scumbags among them, and the military courts are dealing with those. As for the rest of the troops (99.99999%), they are doing a hell of a job under difficult circumstances, and I support them. Based on the arbitrary nature of the question itself, and based on a circumstance which cannot be confirmed, I cannot answer the poll.

EDIT: Stupid me. I read the question wrong. DUHHHH!!!

Under this particular circumstance, no crime was committed.
 
Last edited:
bub said:
you've found the right article, now you just have to read:

maybe criminal negligence
Click to expand...

You know, in the end it's war. And all these rules and laws sound nice and dandy, and I agree that civilians should not be purposefully targeted (not like this hasn't been done. Hell the US did it in WW II when we fire bombed the crap out of Tokyo). But to think that in war that civilians won't get killed is insane. It's going to happen, it's just a fact of life. Even if you're doing your damnedest to prevent loss of civilian life, it's going to happen. I don't think you hold people accountable for accidental casualty, not in wartime. It's something that's unavoidable. It's one of the reasons why we shouldn't go to war so quickly because you know that by doing so, innocent people will die. War should be a last resort only option.
 
danarhea said:
This is not really a very good poll, because it is asking people to vote based on a blanket assumption that our troops are either scumbags or they are not.
Click to expand...
You have the option of not addressing the poll.
You also presume way too much in your discussion of a 'blanket assumption'.
 
Goobieman said:
You have the option of not addressing the poll.
You also presume way too much in your discussion of a 'blanket assumption'.
Click to expand...

Read my edit. My bad.
 
Tashah said:
In a hot zone, no one can know with any certainty the destination of all fired ammunition. Bullets can embed in sturdy objects, and go right through flimsy materials. The trajectory can also change via deflection.

Beyond that, the above hypothetical lacks pertinint data crucial to arriving at an informed judgement (i.e. civilian position and observability etc.). One must remember also that civilians and insurgents are more often than not undistinguishable.

Soldiers are typically not held legally responsible for civilian deaths which occur while engaged in battle provided such deaths occured without malice and were unintentional.
Click to expand...

Tashah is exactly right. The hypothetical is far too vague to analyze.

I'd say generally that the fact that a civilian is accidentally killed in a firefight is not grounds for criminal charges against soldier. But you could imagine lots of scenarios within the parameters of the OP and come of with different conclusions. What if the soldiers knew there were lots of civilians behind two insurgents that were likely to be killed in gun fire? What if they knew they could hold their fire without compromising their position while the civilians dispersed? What if the soldiers were mad about the loss of a buddy and decided to take down a few Iraqis while they were at it?
 
Iriemon said:
Tashah is exactly right. The hypothetical is far too vague to analyze.

I'd say generally that the fact that a civilian is accidentally killed in a firefight is not grounds for criminal charges against soldier. But you could imagine lots of scenarios within the parameters of the OP and come of with different conclusions. What if the soldiers knew there were lots of civilians behind two insurgents that were likely to be killed in gun fire? What if they knew they could hold their fire without compromising their position while the civilians dispersed? What if the soldiers were mad about the loss of a buddy and decided to take down a few Iraqis while they were at it?
Click to expand...

A lot of what ifs there. If the soldiers were being threatened by 2 insurgents, even if civilians were standing behind them, I would not fault the soldiers for taking whatever actions necessary to save their own lives.
 
danarhea said:
A lot of what ifs there. If the soldiers were being threatened by 2 insurgents, even if civilians were standing behind them, I would not fault the soldiers for taking whatever actions necessary to save their own lives.
Click to expand...

That's a what if too. What if fire wasn't necessary to save their own lives?

That's why the hypothetical is too vague to answer.
 
The idea of applying normal, civilian standards of care to military operations is simply staggering in its asininity.

But it IS symptomatic of the toxic levels of silliness and self-loathing Western civilization is displaying along the curve of its death spiral. I am glad I will not be around to witness the savage world in which the people 100 years from now are going to have to live. My only question is how bad it's going to get while I'm still here.
 
danarhea said:
A lot of what ifs there. If the soldiers were being threatened by 2 insurgents, even if civilians were standing behind them, I would not fault the soldiers for taking whatever actions necessary to save their own lives.
Click to expand...
As long as the soldiers were not deliberatly targeting said civilians, any civilian deaths caused by legitimate combat operations are not a crime.
 
Harshaw said:
The idea of applying normal, civilian standards of care to military operations is simply staggering in its asininity.

But it IS symptomatic of the toxic levels of silliness and self-loathing Western civilization is displaying along the curve of its death spiral. I am glad I will not be around to witness the savage world in which the people 100 years from now are going to have to live. My only question is how bad it's going to get while I'm still here.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
Someone understands the reasoning behind the poll...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom