Homicide during war?

Question

Explain to me how killing someone gets people in jail, and it's called homicide or murder, but killing someone during a war it's called a casualty of war and doesn't oblige you to do time or face a sentence...
PLEASE, this is not an ethics forum (though feel free to leave an opinion), i just want to know what legal grounds or moral arguments make a civilian killable during a war. Or make a soldier something that is not a person, so you can kill him without beeing punished.
Keep in mind: Some warfare kill civilians taht were not supposed to be harmed BUT when someone kills another person on a car crash he has to do time even when he didn't "mean to" kill.
How many million person does law stipulate have to be killed during a war to allow a trial for crimes against humanity, like nuremberg or saddams? Are the dead people under this threshold not considered humanity by international laws?

Ok, stop giving me those arguments, i know them, i want to know the legal grounds, the legal stuff that stipulates the way killing is treated in an event of war, cuz i know there is. Stop telling me to grow up, i live in a city that suffers around 50 homicides per week

To the suggestion of an answerer, i'm narrowing down: Is there a law on war and belic conflict that defines when a killing is murder, homicide or cassualty? If there is, what defines them? Thank you Iraq51 for the suggestion

Answer 1

War is a government sactioned activity. And as long as the soldier is obeying legal orders, and violates no rules of combat, he has no culpability for the death of civilians in collateral damage.

Similarly, the killing of enemy soldiers, in combat is equally a legally sanctioned activity, providing the soldier violates no rules of combat and is obeying legal orders.

Because even in those circumstances, the soldier is not allowed to kill wounded and captured enemy troops. He can still be found guilty of a crime if he callously disregards civilians and kills them through negligence.

There are 3 key elements for it to be unpunishable:
1. Government sactioned
2. Obeying legal orders (US soldiers will be held responsible if they obey an illegal order - they have a duty to disobey illegal orders and report them)
3. Adhering to the rules of combat. (Geneva conventions, UCMJ regulations, etc.)

Answer 2

You seem to be operating under some misconceptions. First of all if you have a car accident and somebody dies as a result - you will not necessarily go to prison. An investigation will be conducted tio determine if your conduct was negligent - or if you simply made a mistake.

It is the same when a soldier kills a civilian in Iraq. Every time an Iraqi civilian dies in any incident involving US troops a formal investigation is conducted. If the investigation concludes that the soldier's actions were reasonable under the circumstances then the soldier is cleared. If the investigation determines that the soldiers actions were not reasonable - the case is turned over for criminal investigation.

It is a shame that the media has failed to inform you about this. But considering just how mad a job they are doing in informing you of what things are like in Iraq - I am not surprised.

Answer 3

You have a lot of growing up to do. If every soldier was prosecuted for murder every time a civilian was killed there would be no military. No one would enlist for fear of prosecution. Oh, did you forget about the civilians the terrorists killed on 9/11, how about the civilians the terrorist beheaded, while they were still alive, with pocket knives.

Answer 4

Rape is in no way proper in conflict or the different time. Civilian homicide is yet another remember through fact if the soldier had a reason to think of the guy replaced right into a threat to their protection, killing would have been justified. relies upon on the placement. it is civilians who strap bombs to themselves, walk right into a collection of squaddies and detonate, so it somewhat is extra reliable for me to sentence to be truthful.

Answer 5

Lot of variables.
We saved lives by nuking Japan's two island.
That was good.
But we (USA & Britain) slaughtered 60,000 to 120,000 German women & children at Dresden, Germany, for kicks.
FDR & Churchill did it for the bombing of London.
Both knew the war so over and that there were no German soldiers in Dresden. Just women and children.
It was for fun. It was evil.
(I wonder if the guy who wrote all the BUSH's is a foreign terrorist?)

Answer 6

You need to narrow the focus of your question, decide if it is a military or Law Enforcement question (or leave parts out) and be concise...you're rambling.

Rethink your question and try again. You seem to have some decent ideas you want to get across.

Answer 7

Crime does not pay when you get out of the line when on duty.
They never read the last chapter of our creator's universal gifts of life on planet earth.
End of the day they get caught and kick on the butts by our creator in planet of apes.
They were out there for the good of mankind not in doing things at their own whims and fancy for the glory of ratings in planet of apes.

Answer 8

In war it's collateral damage. Sounds heartless but somethings are like that. That's why they say that "War is Hell". The other expression commonly used is "For the good of the many."

Answer 9

war is hell. But compared to WWI & II, the current war is a day in the park. If we fought today like we did in I & II, we would already be out of Iraq.

Answer 10

Whats that guy EUSEBIO NOE M trying to say? & why don't he stop beating about the BUSH, & say what he realy means, that Bush is a TO553R.