@shavixmir saidViv is just trying to demonize Russians. In a war perceived as just, many Americans excuse soldiers who commit war crimes, so viv is holding a double standard that is typical. Russians are no different I am sure. Being judged in your own country is always better than another.
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).
Althou ...[text shortened]... ut Weberianism (civil servents doing exactly what politicians want them to do) than army structures.
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/12/09/war-perceived-just-many-americans-excuse-war-criminals/
We pardon our war criminals. Pardoned by the self proclaimed "law and order president". Isn't that ironic?
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-pardons-army-officer-war-crimes-charges-afghanistan/30274971.html
What is an objective arena? Did the Afghan's (that were victims of those Americans that committed war crimes) get justice?
@metal-brain saidYou know very well what an objective arena is.
Viv is just trying to demonize Russians. In a war perceived as just, many Americans excuse soldiers who commit war crimes, so viv is holding a double standard that is typical. Russians are no different I am sure. Being judged in your own country is always better than another.
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/12/09/war-perceived-just-many-americans-excuse-war-criminals/
...[text shortened]... rena? Did the Afghan's (that were victims of those Americans that committed war crimes) get justice?
And you should know that the Afghans getting or not getting justice from the Americans has nothing to do with an objective arena.
1 edit
@shavixmir said"You know very well what an objective arena is."
You know very well what an objective arena is.
And you should know that the Afghans getting or not getting justice from the Americans has nothing to do with an objective arena.
No, I don't based on your opinion. You suggested war criminals being judged in their own country. My government will not even accept blame. Trump pardoned war criminals and my government investigated itself and found no wrongdoing.
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/pentagon-clears-itself-blame-syria-strike-killed-piles-women-children
I would suggest that war criminals be judged internationally, but the ICC doesn't seem to be objective either. Milosevic was a nationalist like Abe Lincoln was. He shouldn't have been on trial at the Hague in the first place, let alone denied his heart medication to kill him before he could defend himself.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands became a founding member of NATO in 1949. I would suggest war criminals being judged in non NATO member countries. I suggest this in the memory of Slobodan Milošević, who was invaded by NATO in an unprovoked attack for the purpose of taking sides in a civil war in Serbia.
"And you should know that the Afghans getting or not getting justice from the Americans has nothing to do with an objective arena."
Absurd! The whole purpose of an objective arena is to achieve justice and you know it.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidIf his account is true, he shouldn't have been convicted at all. Shooting even an unarmed civilian IF there is a reasonable belief that he/she is going to give away military information is justified:
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.
"The Russian soldiers drove into the village of Chupakhivka where they saw an unarmed resident riding a bicycle and talking on his phone, they said.
They said Mr Shishimarin was ordered by another serviceman to kill the civilian to prevent him reporting on the Russians’ presence and fired several shots through the open window of the car with an assault rifle at the civilian’s head. The civilian died on the spot."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-soldier-pleads-guilty-in-first-war-crimes-trial-since-ukraine-invasion-1.4881873
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
2 edits
@no1marauder said'I was following orders,' is
If his account is true, he shouldn't have been convicted at all. Shooting even an unarmed civilian IF there is a reasonable belief that he/she is going to give away military information is justified:
"The Russian soldiers drove into the village of Chupakhivka where they saw an unarmed resident riding a bicycle and talking on his phone, they said.
They said Mr ...[text shortened]... orld/europe/russian-soldier-pleads-guilty-in-first-war-crimes-trial-since-ukraine-invasion-1.4881873
an invalid defense.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-sheet-following-orders-no-defense-war-crimes-duty-disobey-illegal-military-orders
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2013/10/just-following-orders-is-not-defense.html
1 edit
@jimm619 saidNo one said it was.
'I was following orders,' is
an invalid defense.
But a person reasonably suspected of being in the process of passing military information to your enemy is "taking an active part in hostilities" and thus is not subject to the prohibition against killing civilians.
See the section on the 1949 Geneva Convention here: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule89
"......civilians only lose their protection from attack and the effects of the hostilities if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities.[11]". https://casebook.icrc.org/law/conduct-hostilities#ii_4
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
1 edit
@vivify saidYou are obliged to disobey an illegal order.
He's saying the orders being followed were justified.
Geneva Convention and U.S. Military Code of Conduct
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/War-Crimes-Factsheet.pdf
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@jimm619 saidHe was told a civilian was broadcasting their position. The order to kill him was legal.
You are obliged to disobey an illegal order.
Geneva Convention and U.S. Military Code of Conduct
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/War-Crimes-Factsheet.pdf
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
1 edit
@jj-adams saidThere are rules to warfare....Nothing wrong?
I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of support the Russian soldier has received from the uber lefties here, and I am in total agreement with them.
Kid didn't do anything wrong.
It was an illegal order.
Murdered an UNARMED civilian?
@vivify saidThat's correct' "I was just following orders" isn't a defense IF the orders are a violation of the laws of war.
He's saying the orders being followed were justified.
But:
"Elements of attacks on civilians: the crime of attacks on civilians is constituted of the elements common to offences falling under Article 3 of the Statute, as well as of the following specific elements:
1. Acts of violence directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities causing death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population.
2. The offender wilfully made the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of those acts of violence.
- The notion of “wilfully” incorporates the concept of recklessness, whilst excluding mere negligence. The perpetrator who recklessly attacks civilians acts “wilfully”.
- In order to prove the mens rea for a charge of attacks on civilians the Prosecution must show that the perpetrator was aware of the civilian status of the persons attacked. In cases of doubt as to the status of those persons, the Prosecution must show that in the given circumstances a reasonable person could not have believed that the individual he or she attacked was a combatant."
https://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/jud_supplement/supp46-e/galic.htm
For the purposes of the laws of war, a person forwarding military information to the enemy is a "combatant", not a civilian.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt's a wonder The Nazis didn't contend that
That's correct' "I was just following orders" isn't a defense IF the orders are a violation of the laws of war.
But:
"Elements of attacks on civilians: the crime of attacks on civilians is constituted of the elements common to offences falling under Article 3 of the Statute, as well as of the following specific elements:
1. Acts of violence directed against the c ...[text shortened]... laws of war, a person forwarding military information to the enemy is a "combatant", not a civilian.
six million, Jews, homosexuals and Roma people,
weren't guilty of forwarding information on troop movements.
1 edit
@jimm619 saidCute but kinda stupid.
It's a wonder The Nazis didn't contend that
six million, Jews, homosexuals and Roma people,
weren't just forwarding information on troop movements.
Maybe Shelipov was just chatting about the weather to a family member, but what would it have seemed to a "reasonable person" in Shishimarin's and the other Russian soldier's positions?