It seems to me that "War Crimes" are pretty subjective, and used to demonize the losers.?

Question

What do you think?

Answer 1

Actually, the varieties of conduct that qualify as war crimes are spelled out with extreme detail and specificity in documents like the Geneva Conventions, the UN's Human Rights Declaration, the European Human Rights Commission's legislation and judgments, and the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. The definitions are not at all subjective, though I would perhaps agree with you that their applications are always somewhat colored by the conflict that precedes the trials.

Answer 2

Damn straight my friend. You don't think the US hasn't committed war crimes in the last few decades since the term was coined. Do you think Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush will ever step foot in the International Tribunal Court at the Hague? Never. The strong get to write the history books and the weak have to buy them.

Answer 3

Yes the application of war crimes can sometimes be subjective. That doesn't mean we would live in in a better world if there were no such thing.

Answer 4

This question is probably more suited to the politics category...but here's my opinion: "war crimes" don't exist. How can there even be "rules of war"? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

Answer 5

Everything seems like something else. Glory seems like shame. Victory seems like defeat. Good seems like evil. War criminals seem like heroes. Perspective is a five letter word begining with B.

Answer 6

Yes, thats the only reason those are around...Its just to legally **** up the country that has been defeated and to charge outreagous crimes on the rulers that arent in powre anymore..I hope they charge George Bush with them, then he will be hanged!!