Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchivenav}}
Hello Philip, [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia.▼
== Welcome ==
----
Line 132 ⟶ 135:
There is a danger that using law to limit war helps hawks justify war by pretending that it is a dule between warriors and it never effects inocents. "The old lie: ''Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.''"
I'll watch this page so you can reply here [[User:
:The law is clear cut: Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime, does not depend on the civilians nor on why they are killed. Spies cannot be killed simply because they are civilians of the enemy but because they commit a criminal act (treason) or because they are a direct danger (e.g. while engaging in sabotage). If they are captured, they cannot simply be killed, I guess they would have to be treated like prisoners of war. But while a spie in action who is uncovered can easily be distinguished from innocent civilians, when bombing
Line 154 ⟶ 157:
The only people found guilty of war of aggression were those who came from a country which had signed the[[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] of 1928.
Now that I have provided you with some of the law of war that the allies could have used to defend the policy of stratigic bombing (They would have argued that any civilians killed was a side effect of bombardment not the policy). Please provide me with the law which says that bombardment of civilian areas in a war is a war crime and also the law which says that the "''Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime''" because I do not know which laws cover this. [[User:
:I knew that the Nazis who were hanged for waging a war for aggression were bound by international law that had been established before the war. It is still in practice, so in my eyes Bush, Blair, Howard and their administrations should be tried according to it (cf. [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
this link for an analysis of why the Iraq war was illegal]). I am very puzzled that it is possible in democratic countries with an otherwise working legal system to break international law and not even get a trial for it.
Line 163 ⟶ 166:
You are mixing up those parts of Hague which now days are covered by GCIII GCIV which are both to do with "protected persons" under the control of a "power" (POWs and civilians in occupied lands) and civilians in enemy territory who are not covered by GC. Did you read what I wrote in my last reply to you? I quoted sections from Hague which state that bombardment is part of war. The British could use Art 23,25,27 to justify what they did (and I also provided the link to the article [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm Hage]). They never targeted civilians just their property. '''Which article in Hague are you saying makes their actions illegal under the international laws of war?''' This is not the first time I have asked this question, so I think that you are prevaricating. If not then '''please quote the Hauge or the section from any other treaty''' that you think the aerial bombardment by any of the powers in World War II broke.
Also you say ''The international law that prohibited the deliberate targeting of civilians was established by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907).'' '''Which article are you referring to because I have just read both treaties again and I can not find the article which says anything like this if they are still in enemy controlled territory.''' NB Please don't drag in current events because I am not interested. Please just answer my two questions I have emboldened them to make them clear. BTW "Article" means "Section" in the case of these treaties [[User:
:I guess prevaricate means evade, so while I search for the article I bold my question as well 8^p
Line 216 ⟶ 219:
# Any treaty that prohibits the killing any enemy civilian, not matter what they are doing or where they are is a war crime.
So unless you do please don't bother to reply. [[User:
:If you are unwilling to see that the points I marked with a point show that the allies committed war crimes I guess we have to agree to differ. Your argument that the actions were necessary in order to win the war would probably have been used in a trial. However, the trial never happened although the view that the allies committed war crimes is widely held, so we can only guess what would have been the outcome. I would also like to point out that if those actions were necessary to win a war the allies should not have defined them as war crimes before. In my eyes the use of nuclear weapons is the most striking example. I hope you go on having fun with wikipedia and engage in fruitful exchanges of ideas. [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 15:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
| |||