If acts of war involve knowledge that the acts will likely kill innocents by accident, is that a war crime?

Question

I find it appalling that most answers admit or agree explicitly or implicitly that killing innocents by accident in the course of a war is a war crime, but then go on to rationalize those crimes as necessary evils or lamentable or inconvenient events.

Folks, it is a fact that going to war with today's weapons on a planet where 6.5 billion humans live will always kill innocents. But does that make the such acts of war that terrorist groups and nation-states do less of a moral act, less of a war crime? Perhap's it is time to revise the definition of a war crime and remove the loopholes left in them. TWH 08172006

Answer 1

its a crime to humanities anything that would result to death is a crime to us humans bcoz it is us humans who give value to life we do not deserve to such untimely death

Answer 2

No. War kills people. Leaders of the typical army don’t want to kill, or harm, civilians. It is a waste of armaments and doesn’t help to get the people to support your side. That said, there are those who don’t accept such a perspective. These others actually target civilians by intent. They do this for three reasons. First civilians are easier to hit, civilians don’t shoot back, If they scare enough civilians governments will fall.

The points to look at are:

Which militants intentionally target civilians?
Which militants desire to support individual rights?
Which militants desire to take away individual rights?
Which militants want voting of the people to take place?
Which militants do not want voting to take place?

War is always a terrible thing. However, there are times when people must stand for the right thing and it may be that war is the only way to accomplish the right thing.

I wonder how people would respond to a question of, “If your country were going to fall under the armies of attackers and no defense was initiated because some innocent people might be killed, would that be a crime?”

Answer 3

A war crime is technically any violation of the rules of war that were put forth by The Geneva Conventions, The United Nations Charter and The Hague Conventions.

One such law states "that wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction" and "that people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

The key words in those sentences being "should not" and "unnecessary". It is inevitable that civilians will be killed in any modern war. The absolute destruction that can be caused by modern weapons makes it impossible not to incur any "collateral damages".

War is the continuation of politics by other means.
- Karl Von Clausewitz

Answer 4

Unfortunately in the face of war, loss of innocents is an inevitability. When you knowingly bomb a town filled mostly with innocents or something to that effect, I feel that it's crossing the ethical border, but short of that innocents die everyday. I find it sad also, but a fact of life and not a war crime. Any true ethical nation does everything in it's capacity to keep the fighting on the battlefield where in belongs, but mistakes are made and death does happen.

Answer 5

It depends. Ever since Sherman's March through Gorgeia (the introduction of the Total War principle) both sides on all wars have killed innocents while pretty much knowing about it. The difference between war crimes and collateral damage is who wins.

Answer 6

It would depend on the situation. I don't think it's a yes or no answer. I mean whenever u enter a war u know some innocents are gonna be killed so that would mean anyone who was ever in a war would have to be charged.

Answer 7

maybe no,if you seen the movie saving private ryan,that vin diesel save a french girl and he been shot, tom hanks says: "that is why we can't rescue them", co'z they will slow us down"....something like that!!!!
all wars, for them, innocent being is an advantage,to slow them down to have pity of them,then kill them or even use as a spy..... see what upham free the french soldier there?he returns with and enormous army?then later upham saw that the french man they freed, is the one who killed his captain (tom hanks)..
sivilians sometimes are part of a war,sad but true!!!
but when the war is ended they called them "pos" prisoner of war i think!!!!

Answer 8

yes, look at the nazis that killed all those people. there are still war trials going on.

Answer 9

it is unfortunate..sacrifice that must be... you know sacrifice a few.. to save a multitude

Answer 10

I would think so.