Scenario-who is the war criminal?

[WI Crippler]

I just wanted to get an idea of how people approach the touchy subject of civilian casualties in war. In this particular instance, I will be setting up a situational example using what we currently see as a tactic in the wars we are fighting in. Then, I would like to hear opinions on who you feel has committed the war crime. Poll will be up shortly....

During a squad patrol, a group of Marines come under enemy fire. After establishing cover and returning fire, the decision is made to begin an assault on the enemies position. As the assault ensues, the enemy disengages, and takes cover inside an unmarked building, and re-engages the Marines from the building. Pinned down by the enemy fire, the platoon commander has a decision to make. Send in his Marines, to clear the building and risk casualties to his platoon, or call in an airstrike on the building. The platoon commander knows one thing. His Marines are under fire from an enemy in a building. There are no markings, showing the building to be a hospital or school, so he decides to go ahead and call for air support. When the air support arrives, it plants a GPS guided munition perfectly on target, severely damaging the building and causing casualties inside the building. The enemy fire abruptly stops.

As the rubble is being cleared, the bodies of the enemy fighters are uncovered, but also the bodies of a few women and children are found as well. It is later discovered that the building in which the insurgents shielded themselves, was a multi-family dwelling.

Who, in your opinion, has committed the war crime against civilians?

 

[Redress]

I do not see any one in that situation being guilty of a war crime.

I would ask some questions though. Is the squad able to disengage, and could they do so? Is there a time factor involved in their mission? In an urban environment with the potential for civilians, it is possibly better to disengage if possible? I do not know enough about ground warfare from that level to know for sure on that aspect. There is a difference between a war crime, and acting in the best manner.

 

[Tucker Case]

Sorry, I hit the wrong one.

The people using human shields in the given scenario would have committed the war crime.


But if the given scenario was different, and the Marine Commander was fully aware that there were civilians in the building, then he would also have committed a war crime in my opinion. But that wasn't the situation given.

The pilot is following orders and would never be guilty of a war crime unless he made the decision on his own to bomb a civilian building.

 

[Scorpion89]

Who is the War Criminal simple the Enemy they violated the Hauge Charter on Warfare.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Civilians are a strategic resource. It is legitimate for the enemy to use them and just as legitimate for our forces to take them away.

 

[Real Talk]

where is the building?
Why are you in the area?
Ever thought of ****ing off home?

By the sounds of it you are guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree of inocent civilians while conducting an unwaranted war of agression. In the case at hand. So this is how I will vote.

THe other person is merely excercising his human isntinct of self defense and self preservation against superior firepower.

It is completely illogical to expect him to line up to be slaughtered.

I am not responding according to the law. Because the option for whos REALLY guilty isnt up there (political decision makers who went to war). I chose the representatives of the U.S. military (pilot and platoon comander) to represent this. But im not sure theyre at all responsible for anything more than joining the millitary.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Depends. If those who hid in the building and continued their attack, used the civilians as human shields, then they are guilty of war crimes. If they did not and were unaware of the civilian presence, then no one was.

 

[Scorpion89]

where is the building?
Why are you in the area?
Ever thought of ****ing off home?

By the sounds of it you are guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree of inocent civilians while conducting an unwaranted war of agression. In the case at hand. So this is how I will vote.

THe other person is merely excercising his human isntinct of self defense and self preservation against superior firepower.

It is completely illogical to expect him to line up to be slaughtered.

I am not responding according to the law. Because the option for whos REALLY guilty isnt up there (political decision makers who went to war). I chose the representatives of the U.S. military (pilot and platoon comander) to represent this. But im not sure theyre at all responsible for anything more than joining the millitary.

Wow just Wow that is all I have to say. I'm sure your fellow Countrymen who gave their live's in defensive of NZ are just rolling over in their grave.

 

[Apocalypse]

This is an obvious one.
The combatants used a civilian building to shoot on the squad, while the commander couldn't know whether there are civilians in it or not.
That's all that needs to be said.

 

[WI Crippler]

But if the given scenario was different, and the Marine Commander was fully aware that there were civilians in the building, then he would also have committed a war crime in my opinion. But that wasn't the situation given.

For the sake of discussion, the Marine commander has no concrete knowledge of civilians inside the building. I don't want people to take this scenario, and then further twist it into a different scenario, so they can give an answer they want to give. I want people to take the situation as I have presented to them, and make their own judgements.

After all, for the people on the ground, that is what they have to do, while under fire.

 

[celticlord]

War is hell.

War crimes are a luxury for the winning side.

 

[WI Crippler]

Depends. If those who hid in the building and continued their attack, used the civilians as human shields, then they are guilty of war crimes. If they did not and were unaware of the civilian presence, then no one was.

This is an interesting point I was hoping someone would bring up. For the sake of discussion, the enemy combatants took cover in a building that happened to have civilians in it. We will not treat this as them taking cover in a hospital/school/mosque. However, once inside they were aware of the civilians inside the building, but continued to fire upon the Marines anyway.

 

[Tucker Case]

For the sake of discussion, the Marine commander has no concrete knowledge of civilians inside the building. I don't want people to take this scenario, and then further twist it into a different scenario, so they can give an answer they want to give. I want people to take the situation as I have presented to them, and make their own judgements.

After all, for the people on the ground, that is what they have to do, while under fire.

That's why I mentioned that it wasn't the given scenario. In the given scenario, the people using human shields are the one's committing the war crime.

 

[Redress]

This is an interesting point I was hoping someone would bring up. For the sake of discussion, the enemy combatants took cover in a building that happened to have civilians in it. We will not treat this as them taking cover in a hospital/school/mosque. However, once inside they were aware of the civilians inside the building, but continued to fire upon the Marines anyway.

Pinned down inside, or staying willingly?

 

[celticlord]

Pinned down inside, or staying willingly?

How do you tell the difference between "pinned down" and "willingly staying inside away from all the bullets"?

Which is why most definitions of "war crimes" involving combat situations are just absurd.

When both sides are throwing rounds down range, the only real "crime" is not coming home alive.

 

[Lerxst]

Not enough info really. If the aforementioned actors were purposely committing these acts, knowing they were killing civilians, then I could answer. As it is worded I can't determine if there was deliberate intent.