Should Putin be Considered a War Criminal?

[code1211]

Only if GWB and Tony Blair would be considered war criminals for invading Iraq

In retrospect, the stated motivations to invade were faulty.

The outcomes were horrible.

When men do stupid stuff like this, it almost always causes more damage than good.

The justifications offered after the invasion occurred, planting a seed of democracy, sound eerily similar to the fig leaves offered by Putin to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

Eerily similar and equally dishonest.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

He could just say there was evidence of Hamas in Ukraine.

 

[oneworld2]

I think we should be careful with that term or else it become another watered down term.

Does him crossing an established border with the intent to annex it meet the standard of war criminal or has he crossed another barrier that would qualify him as one?

The support for the none universal application of international laws is what truly " waters them" down and it enjoys plenty of support here.

To invade a state with the intention of overthrowing the government is illegal, whether its Putin doing it of Bush/Blair.

 

[oneworld2]

He could just say there was evidence of Hamas in Ukraine.

I had that down as sarcasm, which is ok with me.

I would argue that Putins cases/justifications are more credible than those given by the West prior to its illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

If they wanted to take down nations in the ME that threaten their neighbours , had invaded their neighbours and actually had WMDs they would have taken out Israel and Syria first of all.

 

[code1211]

He should be.

Of course, he would never allow himself to be arrested and flown to The Hague.

He is like those top Nazis who were too chicken to face the music, so they (along with their children) left this world.

Why did you post a shred of a thought and present it as if it was a whole thought?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I had that down as sarcasm, which is ok with me.

It was sarcasm. A bit dark, but sarcasm.

 

[ataraxia]

Only if GWB and Tony Blair would be considered war criminals for invading Iraq

GWB and Dick Cheney should have been considered criminals for many other reasons too: the tortures of prisoners and violations of international treaties at Abu Ghraib, as well as the wiretapping of American citizens, violating the American Constitution itself.

But whatcha gonna do? It's hard to bring down men in positions of great power. But, if you are a black man in Philly and ever get suspected of shoplifting some gum at the local 7/11? Your life is forfeit.

 

[oneworld2]

It was sarcasm. A bit dark, but sarcasm.

I would rather defend in Putins case than in Bush/Blair cases even though I consider them all to be war criminals.

It's just illegal to invade a nation so as to induce a change of regime regardless of who does it. Some people prefer a different truth ( that's not the truth) because it is just easier for them to deal with their long held beliefs about western exceptionalism.

 

[oneworld2]

GWB and Dick Cheney should have been considered criminals for many other reasons too: the tortures of prisoners and violations of international treaties at Abu Ghraib, as well as the wiretapping of American citizens, violating the American Constitution itself.

But whatcha gonna do? It's hard to bring down men in positions of great power. But, if you are a black man in Philly and ever get suspected of shoplifting some gum at the local 7/11? Your life is forfeit.

None of those men are in positions of power now though and haven't been for many years. If the Hague's cell blocks were not so full of brown skinned people I'm sure they could have found space for them by now and possibly even indicted them all.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

In retrospect, the stated motivations to invade were faulty.

The outcomes were horrible.

When men do stupid stuff like this, it almost always causes more damage than good.

The justifications offered after the invasion occurred, planting a seed of democracy, sound eerily similar to the fig leaves offered by Putin to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

Eerily similar and equally dishonest.

Not in retrospect

It was an illegal invasion from the get go. Bush used American anger and idiocy over 9/11 to get them on board with invading Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush lied and used purposely manipulated data to justify it. Americans for years after defended it.

Millions across the world protested and it went nowhere, Bush and Blair are free men and Putin will be as well.

Note I supported the US invasion of Afghanistan as it was used as a base for the group that attacked the US. I was opposed to the Iraq invasion from the start of the talk about it

 

[code1211]

It really boils down to whether Russia is militarily defeated. It is not an academic matter. To only the victor is the privilege to declare war criminals.

I'm not sure that the idea of War Criminals was a consideration prior to the 20th Century.

During the 20th Century, that idea seems to have become a thing as the Nuremberg Trials demonstrated and the Geneva conventions took hold.

Given the nature of war, criminality seems to be inherent in the prosecution of aggression. Self defense or national defense in the face of aggression seems different than aggression on a level of criminality compared to aggression.

I could be wrong.

It seems that applying the descriptor of war criminal to those who commit crimes as acts of war would be appropriate.

Again, I could be wrong.

 

[code1211]

This is an interesting question. While what he is doing is clearly wrong, it opens the question of what the standard is to be classified as a war criminal.

I think we should be careful with that term or else it become another watered down term.

Does him crossing an established border with the intent to annex it meet the standard of war criminal or has he crossed another barrier that would qualify him as one?

I FEEL like the actions taken after crossing the border determine the Criminality.

So crossing a border to enter Haiti after an earthquake and feeding and clothing suffering children does not particularly seem criminal.

Crossing a border and killing everyone you meet and destroying property does seem criminal. But the mere act of crossing the border is only a part of the aggression that leads to destruction and murder.

I could be wrong. With the evolving understanding of war criminality, it seems that this might be a consideration.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm not sure that the idea of War Criminals was a consideration prior to the 20th Century.

During the 20th Century, that idea seems to have become a thing as the Nuremberg Trials demonstrated and the Geneva conventions took hold.

Given the nature of war, criminality seems to be inherent in the prosecution of aggression. Self defense or national defense in the face of aggression seems different than aggression on a level of criminality compared to aggression.

I could be wrong.

It seems that applying the descriptor of war criminal to those who commit crimes as acts of war would be appropriate.

Again, I could be wrong.

There were standards to fighting wars in many cultures throughout the ages. Many times they were ignored. In medieval Europe the leaders would be captured and ransomed back.

The Mongols would spare cities that surrendered, and those that fought back were often destroyed entirely. The Timurids pretty much the same.

 

[JMR]

Being a " fan" has FA to do with anything. They are both liars AND both war criminals

What you do is that you apply the same standards ,wrt the laws governing warfare etc, to everyone of them.

Putin has illegally attacked another nation so as to install a more pro Russian government.

Bush and Blair illegally invaded another nation so as to install a more pro West government,

In both cases they used the idea of threats to justify their actions.

I would argue that Putins case is stronger than Bush and Blairs .

If you are not prepared to apply the same standards to all parties it is highly questionable as to whether you actually believe in the laws you wish to see people held to at all..

We have seen thumbs up voting for the application of the law to Putin and Milosovic and BS/excuses/evasions to requests that those same laws be applied to Bush and Blair.

It's pathetic and the people who go along with it are pathetic and are actually undermining the laws they are asking be applied here.

Putins not the only crazy in town as these ongoing debates are confirming

I made the legitimate point that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. He killed thousands of his own people, and gassed the Kurds while maintaining his power over Iraq. Your statement that Putin's attack on Ukraine is more justified than the attack on Hussein is questionable at best.

Interesting that in 2016, Trump was singing the praises of Hussein. Seems there's never been a dictator that Trump didn't like.

From U.S. News, July, 2016:

At a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trumppraised Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for his handling of terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? ... But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good," Trump said. "They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk. They were a terrorist, it was over."

The truth of this claim is dubious: The New York Times notes that the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism before the country was invaded in 2003. Hussein was known for killing his own people, gassing the Kurds and also waging war with Iran with support from Western nations. At the time, the West feared an Iran ruled by Islamic fundamentalists would be a threat to Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Napoleon]

I made the legitimate point that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. He killed thousands of his own people, and gassed the Kurds while maintaining his power over Iraq. Your statement that Putin's attack on Ukraine is more justified than the attack on Hussein is questionable at best.

Is it? Because if you’re trying to use the deployment of chemical weapons in 1988 as a justification for invading Iraq in 2003 and occupying it for 18 years and acting as though it was a better reason then I’ve got news for you…

 

[JMR]

Is it? Because if you’re trying to use the deployment of chemical weapons in 1988 as a justification for invading Iraq in 2003 and occupying it for 18 years and acting as though it was a better reason then I’ve got news for you…

I have never justified the invasion of Iraq. I take issue with the statement that Putin's invasion is more justifiable.

 

[Napoleon]

I have never justified the invasion of Iraq. I take issue with the statement that Putin's invasion is more justifiable.

It is.

 

[oneworld2]

I made the legitimate point that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. He killed thousands of his own people, and gassed the Kurds while maintaining his power over Iraq. Your statement that Putin's attack on Ukraine is more justified than the attack on Hussein is questionable at best.

Interesting that in 2016, Trump was singing the praises of Hussein. Seems there's never been a dictator that Trump didn't like.

From U.S. News, July, 2016:

So Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, who knew?

So are Blair and Bush but you elected to evade that point. Why? Is it really so hard to cross that rubicon?

Putin, even as a war criminal, can at least cite a credible national threat to his country. The US had to engage in a series of outright lies and fabrications to get support for their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq

BTW it's not a case of what is justifiable wrt to the above criminals. The laws are pretty clear.

SH attacked Iran and Kuwait and that's enough to convict him

Putin attacked Ukraine and that's enough to convict him

Bush and Blair attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and that's enough to convict them

I don't know why you appear so caught in the headlights wrt being forced into applying the same standards to your own criminals

To have then down as liars doesn't exclude their very real and horrific crimes

 

[oneworld2]

It is.

Might be a lack of appreciation for geography on his part, who knows.

 

[JMR]

So Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, who knew?

So are Blair and Bush but you elected to evade that point. Why? Is it really so hard to cross that rubicon?

Putin, even as a war criminal, can at least cite a credible national threat to his country. The US had to engage in a series of outright lies and fabrications to get support for their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq

BTW it's not a case of what is justifiable wrt to the above criminals. The laws are pretty clear.

SH attacked Iran and Kuwait and that's enough to convict him

Putin attacked Ukraine and that's enough to convict him

Bush and Blair attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and that's enough to convict them

I don't know why you appear so caught in the headlights wrt being forced into applying the same standards to your own criminals

To have then down as liars doesn't exclude their very real and horrific crimes

I don't know why you keep harping on a statement that I have never made. Please indicate where I have stated that Bush and Blair were not wrong in their attack on Iraq.
Putin has no credible threat to cite. Ukraine is not attacking him, nor is NATO. These two entities stand between him and HIS goal to expand his empire. They are inconvenient to him, not threatening.

 

[oneworld2]

I don't know why you keep harping on a statement that I have never made. Please indicate where I have stated that Bush and Blair were not wrong in their attack on Iraq.

Nobody has accused you of making any statement of that sort. You won't be able to provide any evidence that they did either because it is just yet another example of the lengths you will go to so as not to give a direct response

You have consistantly avoided calling them criminals for their criminal attack and occupation of Iraq. That's what I have stated.

So, a direct question for you and we won't have to keep on dancing

Are Bush and Blair war criminals off the back of their regime change war in Iraq?

They invaded a sovereign state with the view to install a different government ,which is what Putin is doing and is the reason why he is also a war criminal

Putin has no credible threat to cite. Ukraine is not attacking him, nor is NATO. These two entities stand between him and HIS goal to expand his empire. They are inconvenient to him, not threatening.

You don't have to attack to be a threat,

The ongoing bs surrounding NATOs bid, or rather the US bid, to have Ukraine ( and Georgia) as a member states of NATO is a threat to Russian national security.

How was SH a threat to the national security of the USA? He was not attacking you and it is laughable to think he even had the capacity to do so

The proximity of Ukraine and Georgia to Russia and the threat of them being NATO member states IS waaay more credible than the SH threat to the USA bs

 

[joluoto]

Is he a criminal? Yes.
Is he at war? Yes.

Seems appropriate then.

 

[HK.227]

I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.

However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.

Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.

In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.

This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?

Evidence, not populism.

For starting a war?
No. Sovereign states can do what they want (and suffer the consequences from other sovereign states).

For starting a war without provocation?
The Romans used to ritually execute the leaders of their defeated enemies. Because those leaders were criminals for having made war on Rome. Rome was never responsible for any wars, it only ever defended itself and always justly so. It fought purely righteous, defensive wars until it ruled most of the known world, donchaknow? That is why educated people should be wary about denying legitimacy to sovereign entities, and why the Geneva Convention considers any declaration of belligerency to be legitimate, regardless what the other party thinks. Without such rules it is just a bit too easy for the winner to declare the defeated criminals for having fought, and kill or enslave them all.
So no, regardless what slogans proles are screaming in the streets.

For threatening the families of Ukrainian soldiers?
If true, yes.

For threatening deliberate attacks on civilian targets?
If true, yes.

For breaking any other stipulations of conventions one has signed related to conduct in war?
If true, yes.

For escalating the nuclear threat?
No. But there are worse things than being declared a war criminal. Such as watching your contry burnt to a cinder and the remains glowing in the dark.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Ukraine filed suit against Russia in the International Court of Justice. https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ainst-russia-world-court-zelensky-2022-02-27/

 

[code1211]

Being a " fan" has FA to do with anything. They are both liars AND both war criminals

What you do is that you apply the same standards ,wrt the laws governing warfare etc, to everyone of them.

Putin has illegally attacked another nation so as to install a more pro Russian government.

Bush and Blair illegally invaded another nation so as to install a more pro West government,

In both cases they used the idea of threats to justify their actions.

I would argue that Putins case is stronger than Bush and Blairs .

If you are not prepared to apply the same standards to all parties it is highly questionable as to whether you actually believe in the laws you wish to see people held to at all..

We have seen thumbs up voting for the application of the law to Putin and Milosovic and BS/excuses/evasions to requests that those same laws be applied to Bush and Blair.

It's pathetic and the people who go along with it are pathetic and are actually undermining the laws they are asking be applied here.

Putins not the only crazy in town as these ongoing debates are confirming

I like your general line of thought on this, but the highlighted portion seems to define a distinction that I don't think exists.