Has the US Committed War Crimes?

Question

I think the world has judge that we have in Iraqi, Korea and WW II, it appears that WW I was a different climate they last of the gentlemen warriors, what about the American Civil War?

Answer 1

On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code.” The Code’s author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings, Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created "confederacies of petty sovereigns" and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of "obsolete ideas.” In Germany, he was arrested several times for subversive activities. He was a perfect ideological fit with Lincoln’s own political philosophy and was just the man Lincoln wanted to outline the rules of war for his administration.
The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda.
The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government’s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.
As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 – one year into the war – General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.


God Bless The South

Answer 2

Yes, definitely. A few criteria by which to judge:

- initiating war without an indisputable 'casus belli' and using 'intelligence' known to be flawed

- killing civilians without taking all reasonable steps to avoid so doing (and, as a subsidiary, not counting how many, which just shows how much care is taken)

- wanton destruction of infrastructure

- inhumane treatment of prisoners

One could go on. And as a British citizen I have to admit that my own government is also complicit in the latest outbreak.


The big schism came about when wars were no longer fought by professional soldiers, and when it became OK to have the kind of war aim that involved destroying the country rather than simply changing its policy or its ruler. One could argue about when that started (and the argument would have to include questions about when 'war crimes' started to be defined as such) but what is happening now is disgusting and dishonourable and indefensible.

Answer 3

There are always some soldiers who will commit war crimes; more serious is the fact that people very high up may be complicit or even order such crimes to be committed.

Realistically, if a government goes to war, it knows that a certain amount of crimes against civilians is likely; they are responsible when making that decision for the crimes that are bound to follow.

It can be argued that war itself is a crime. It should always be the very last resort. War means we have failed to resolve a problem. War itself is just unimaginably disgusting. On our TVs we don't see a tenth of the reality of it; if we did, perhaps it would be more difficult for governments to get people to go along with it.

Answer 4

Nominally, definite. Use of weapons that indiscriminately aim civilians is against the regulation under the Conventions, as is failing to take lifelike care to sidestep civilian casualties. human beings in simple terms decide on o recover from their objections and knee jerk responses - 'communicate over with veterans" or "Ask appropriate to the Bataan March" are actually not valid counterarguments. conflict crimes do no longer justify conflict crimes. in simple terms as those that realize it grow to be a conflict crime could desire to recover from the certainty that no longer something will ever come of it. every physique that tnks US forces do no longer/did no longer devote conflict crimes simply by fact they have been American is eye-catching in willful lack of understanding. US forces devote crimes, in simple terms like numerous different armed forces. The poster that stated the GC's weren't in place for the time of WW2 heavily desires a background lesson.

Answer 5

Every nation has at some point during a war committed violations of international law. The United States is however, one of the few nations that prosecutes its own soldiers for crimes.

Answer 6

there have certainly been crimes commited during the wars we've been in, but that doesnt necessarily mean they fit the definition of a War Crime with capital letters. Im not sure of the definition, but even some of the abuses in the prisons, even if sanctioned by the government, might only be abuse and not a "War Crime". Since no one is likely to take us to court, and win, it will probably be hard to convict anyone of them

Answer 7

Some of you people and your answers kill me. Rather than answer some of the moronic comments, lets answer the question with a few basic comparisons:

Abu Garab. Was a terrible series of event with several hundred soldiers and leaders punished. Lets compare that to prisoners of war that have been taken by the terrorists. Unfortunately, none are available for comment because their fricken heads were cut off with rusty butter knives.

Holy cow...can you name any other crimes against US Soldiers that can be substantiated beyond "He Say, She Says". A "innocent" guy just minding his own business digging on the side of the road...oh, the road with convoys that go down it daily...oh, in the same spot that multiple IEDs have been placed...yeah, that spot...why did you kill that innocent man...PLEASE!

There are unfortunately crimes in war, but I have yet to see Coalition Soldiers whacking off heads of innocent people or blowing themselves up in front of children's school because they are a different ethnic group than me.

Answer 8

No. Not based on what the "world" considers war crimes.
The American Civil War, are you serious? What do you know about the US Civil War? Do you even know what a war crime is?

Answer 9

Yes, they have. Research the Vietnam war - there were several publically aired instances.

Unfortunately perpetrotors cannot police themselves.

Answer 10

are you kidding me... if the U.S committed war crimes then they would be carpet bombing all of Iraq and Afghanistan(which they easily could if they wanted), maybe you should look up the definition of war crime