Russian soldier convicted of war crime

YouTube

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/19/vadim-shishimarin-russian-soldier-asks-ukrainian-widow-to-forgive-him-during-first-war-crimes-trial

A Russian soldier was convicted of war crimes for shooting an unarmed civilian.

There are a number of issues this brings up:

- Can a soldier get a fair trial by the side he attacked
- Should such trials be held by an international court to ensure impartiality

But what I want to focus on: is a soldier who was just following orders guilty of war crimes? This is what the Russian soldier claimed. If true and he was just following orders, should this be considered in his trial or at the very least, his sentencing?

This excludes extremes, of course, like if he was ordered to rape, deliberately target children, etc.. But then there's the sticky line of where do we draw the line of "extreme". Killing an unarmed civilian who was not a physical threat is also extreme.

So even if "following orders" (assuming that can be proved) doesn't excuse a soldier's actions, should that fact at least be weighed?

Should U.S. soldiers who obeyed the order to launch drone attacks on civilians that killed women and children in Afghanistan be tried for war crimes?

@vivify
The wife of the victim said she would like this dude to be a token of an exchange of prisoners where maybe we get a dozen or more back for the one Russian.

@vivify

"But what I want to focus on: is a soldier who was just following orders guilty of war crimes?"

I think your 1st two question raise valid concerns. But this one goes back to Nuremberg. Did Nazis torturing and gassing Jews and other "undesirables" constitute war crimes (or crimes against humanity for that matter) if they were "just following orders?" Why should "just following orders" be a trumping moral standard? I don't think it is -- or ought to be. (I recall Hannah Arendt's phrase: "the banality of evil" -- excused by such notions.)

@vistesd2 said
@vivify

"But what I want to focus on: is a soldier who was just following orders guilty of war crimes?"

I think your 1st two question raise valid concerns. But this one goes back to Nuremberg. Did Nazis torturing and gassing Jews and other "undesirables" constitute war crimes (or crimes against humanity for that matter) if they were "just following orders?" Why should ...[text shortened]... r ought to be. (I recall Hannah Arendt's phrase: "the banality of evil" -- excused by such notions.)

What if a soldier from a county like North Korea says he was following orders? We know the punishment that soldier faces for disobeying Dear Leader. Knowing he faces unspeakable torture (and possibly his family to make him an example), should such a soldier be held guilty of war crimes if he was just following commands?

We should consider what type of consequences a disobeying soldier faces. If you were a Nazi soldier serving under leaders who send people to gas chambers...what would you have done? Knowing the penalties people who oppose Putin face, is that soldier really to blame?

@vivify

“What would you have done?”

What would I have done? What do I hope that I would’ve done? I hope I would have had the courage to say “No.” Knowing the likely consequences. Is cowardice a moral excuse? I would say that, in my life, I have experienced both (though without the most extreme consequences – both a minimizing and a condemnatory factor?).

I know I introduced a more extreme example. But is murdering civilians because you are ordered to not enough? What about My Lai?

Maybe the question is less about guilt, than about degrees of punishment?

@vistesd2 said
I know I introduced a more extreme example. But is murdering civilians because you are ordered to not enough? What about My Lai?

What are the worst punishments an American soldier who disobeyed commands faced? Possible prison time?

Compare that to a soldier under Putin, Kim or Der Führer. I don't think that necessarily excuses a soldier, but it should be at least something to be weighed. Perhaps, as you mentioned, degrees of punishment are in order. The soldier in the OP was sentenced to life in prison...I'm not sure about that.

@vivify

Viv, at this point I don't know how to extend the conversation. I understand what you're saying. In American law (as I understand it) there is a concept of "mitigating circumstances" that can be considered in sentencing. I just thought of that, so mention it. 🙂

Maybe some other poster can weigh in ...

And stimulate us both ...

_____________________________

EDIT: Let me add, if late, that I consider "I'm not sure about that" to be a positive ( and all too rare) way of putting things. 🙂

@vistesd2 said
@vivify

“What would you have done?”

What would I have done? What do I hope that I would’ve done? I hope I would have had the courage to say “No.” Knowing the likely consequences. Is cowardice a moral excuse? I would say that, in my life, I have experienced both (though without the most extreme consequences – both a minimizing and a condemnatory factor?).

I know I i ...[text shortened]... gh? What about My Lai?

Maybe the question is less about guilt, than about degrees of punishment?

I think given his age and vulnerability a superior officer ordering you to do something must surely be a mitigating circumstance. I don’t think the Geneva convention is ok with captive, no longer combative, soldiers being treated with less justice than a civilian defendant.
If you are sure you would not do what this soldier did with an armed superior officer telling you to you are more certain of your moral compass than I am of mine.

@kevcvs57

I did not say I was sure . I think we might be in the same "moral compass" ballpark here.

@vivify said
[youtube]U37dMsx-1_M[/youtube]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/19/vadim-shishimarin-russian-soldier-asks-ukrainian-widow-to-forgive-him-during-first-war-crimes-trial

A Russian soldier was convicted of war crimes for shooting an unarmed civilian.

There are a number of issues this brings up:

- Can a soldier get a fair trial by the side he attacked
- Sh ...[text shortened]... ch drone attacks on civilians that killed women and children in Afghanistan be tried for war crimes?

The Nuremburg trials of WWII, determined
that, 'I was only following orders,' is not a defense.

@jimm619 said
The Nuremburg trials of WWII, determined
that, 'I was only following orders,' is not a defense.

Okay. I guess there's nothing to really say after that.

@jimm619 said
The Nuremburg trials of WWII, determined
that, 'I was only following orders,' is not a defense.

But it doesn’t follow that it’s not a genuine mitigating circumstance, what Goebbels might say in his defence and what a conscripted 18yr old might say could be identical but the implications might be ‘chalk and cheese’.

He shot an unarmed civilian.
What were the circumstances?
Nothing in the article mentions any specifics.

@jj-adams said
He shot an unarmed civilian.
What were the circumstances?
Nothing in the article mentions any specifics.

He claims an officer ordered him to shoot the civilian to stop him informing on their position and strengths / weaknesses. We are talking about a late teen conscript being shoved into Ukraine and ordered about by a regular commanding officer who may or may not have told him to shoot the unarmed civilian. If his account is true then I would assume that would qualify as a mitigating circumstance.

@vivify said
[youtube]U37dMsx-1_M[/youtube]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/19/vadim-shishimarin-russian-soldier-asks-ukrainian-widow-to-forgive-him-during-first-war-crimes-trial

A Russian soldier was convicted of war crimes for shooting an unarmed civilian.

There are a number of issues this brings up:

- Can a soldier get a fair trial by the side he attacked
- Sh ...[text shortened]... ch drone attacks on civilians that killed women and children in Afghanistan be tried for war crimes?

A prisoner of war should not be put on trial during the war.
If a someone is guilty of crimes against humanity that person should be tried in an objective arena.

Now, if it’s not a war, that person is not a soldier and is a criminal. And should be put on trial in the country he committed the crime.

“Just following orders” is no longer a defence (since 1948).
Although, technically, the ruling was more about Weberianism (civil servents doing exactly what politicians want them to do) than army structures.