- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Your argument is analogous to wiping out an entire city because a single resident of that city, or another city, tried to kill you. --BM
That would certainly go against the concept of proportionality and would, therefore, at the very least be a moral war crime. However, if the GCs and HCs weren't in force, then I don't know under what international law you would be prosecuted. Whatever international law that now defines crimes against humanity (UN charter, etc.), I would guess.
If that's the case, we should never have put Japanese on trial for war crimes after WWII since both sides in that conflict engaged in atrocities. --Jebbie
Victors write the history (and conduct the military tribunals). Just because we were not prosecuted does not mean we were not actually also guilty of war crimes.
You and Baldie do make a valid point though. I do believe the Japanese were also a High Contracting Party to the HCs during WWII. As such, the HCs were in force in our conflict with them. So, I believe both sides were guilty of war crimes under the HCs.
I find your explanation regarding claiming "self-defense" as a justification for responding to a war crime against it rather confusing also. If there is no danger of the initial attack continuing, the term self defense is not applicable.
My true point was that if the HCs and/or GCs do not apply to a conflict then we cannot possibly be guilty of war crimes under them. I was incorrect when I said that if one HPC does not hold true to the rules of war, then the other side is also free to ignore them in response.
