Is it just to punish war criminals?

sledger · 12-07-2005, 12:53 PM

I believe that it is correct and just to punish war criminals for their actions. I believe that it is only right that someone who has ordered a genocide operation such should serve a very harsh punishment despite the fact that it is unlikely that any punishment that can be given will fully compensate the genocide itself. I also believe that dictators who are found guilty of carrying out a mass genocide should be stripped of their human rights and given as harsh possible punishment. This is one instance I would say that it would perhaps be correct to use torture, although its usage would be determined entirely by the circumstances and the severity of the war crime. For instance I would have no qualms about using torture as a punishment for those responsible for the holocaust during the Second World War.

To me it seems only logical that war criminals should be punished as it must be made clear that such actions are completely unacceptable, I see no reason for why they should not be punished as they are no different to any other criminals in my opinion and so they should serve their punishment duly.

However I only believe that what I have said above should only apply to very serious war crimes and their culprits and those who conduct them such as genocide. If a soldier out on a battlefield refuses to conduct an order given to him as he sees it as immoral, for instance if he refuses to shoot an innocent civilian who refuses to get out of the way, a lesser punishment should be sort out. I certainly do not believe that this type of war criminal should be tortured or given capital punishment but none the less they should be punished in my opinion. The reason for me seeing things this way is due to the fact that they should have expected such an occurrence whilst they were in the process of signing up for the army, they would have expected to follow orders and would have taken an oath to obey, and so refusal to do this is inappropriate. In the instance of refusing to open fire on a civilian I would sympathise with the soldier but would accept that he would be punished. I myself would also refuse to shoot a civilian, but I also would have foreseen this circumstance and would not have joined the army in the first place. If you join the army you have a responsibility to follow orders and so this should be the case in my opinion.

An exception I would make to this ruling is if a soldier was ordered to do something truly horrific such as rape someone or kill a child I would say that they should not be punished as this sort of action is not appropriate in any circumstances to me. Although such an instance is probably unlikely I would say that it would be a huge miss-carriage of justice if a so-called “war criminal” were to be punished if they failed to obey an order to rape or kill children or suchlike.

To conclude I would say that punishing war criminals is justified in certain situations and definitely not in others, situation ethics would have to be applied and every war criminal would have to be dealt with differently whilst attempting to work out a punishment for them if it was necessary. Although I do believe for major war criminals that punishment should be carried out and in some cases be as severe as possible.

kendall · 12-07-2005, 01:08 PM

I would agree that the ringleaders are the main people who should be punished as punishing normal soldiers is always difficutl as they are so many and in such countries whare conscription exists and whare not obeying orders is punished in the extreme ordinary soliders cannot be held 100% repsonsible. As for giving these men no human rights i disagree the rule of law must always be followed and by giving them this basic right that they havnt given others we are taking a far better postion while still alowing for a severe punishment

cricket player · 12-07-2005, 01:52 PM

Iraq and Iran war which lasted for 8 years,

I saw The history channels and oh boy,The Iranian soldiers which were captured by the Saddam Army They were punished very heavily,

some examples

cutting hands
cutting legs
cutting necks
cutting ears
burning
torturing
taking finger nails off

It was so disgusting that i could not sleep for one week,

Saddam hussain is an evil mother ****er.

kendall · 12-07-2005, 01:54 PM

Unfortunatly that sort of thing has always happened and sadly probably always wil

sledger · 12-07-2005, 01:55 PM

indeed that is true, and he should be punished for that.

kendall · 12-07-2005, 01:58 PM

Im sure everyone would agree with that but it is very important how that punishment is brougt about and conducted

cricket player · 12-07-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sledger

indeed that is true, and he should be punished for that.

He has also killed 5000 kurdish people

Give him alif kurdish people so they can do the same eat that mother ****er alife.

sledger · 12-07-2005, 02:02 PM

i dont know if that is an ideal punishment, is that what you would grant ?

kendall · 12-07-2005, 02:03 PM

He has too face a fair trial and due process of international law

sledger · 12-07-2005, 02:11 PM

i would agree with that, my theory is a bit radical i accept, but i still see right to fair trial in a lot of occasios so that justice can truly prevail.

lord_of_darkness · 12-07-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Saddam hussain is an evil mother ****er.

Lol..

Buddhmaster · 12-07-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cricket player

He has also killed 5000 kurdish people

Give him alif kurdish people so they can do the same eat that mother ****er alife.

HAHAHA

Top_Cat · 12-07-2005, 10:55 PM

Yes if two things occur; the crimes are put in the context of the day as best as can be done (for example, if it can be proved that they were following orders and would have been executed otherwise, some leniency might be warranted. Especially if they used that repreive to do some good) and that they can be proven and corroborated. Certainly time past should not diminish the impact of their crimes. They should be treated as if they had committed them recently.

SJS · 13-07-2005, 03:08 AM

YES !

I am only disappointed that we dont punish those from the rest of the world who could do something on time and didnt eg when Srebenica happened and the world watched from close up pretending to see nothing.

luckyeddie · 13-07-2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJS

YES !

I am only disappointed that we dont punish those from the rest of the world who could do something on time and didnt eg when Srebenica happened and the world watched from close up pretending to see nothing.

I guess a lot of 'leaders' felt that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - something that has been all too familiar throughout history and continues to this day (witness the orchestrated demonstrations of unbridalled joy by ululating morons when news of 9/11 came through).

12-07-2005, 12:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
sledger Spanish_Vicente Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: cricsim, lol Posts: 28,021	Is it just to punish war criminals? I believe that it is correct and just to punish war criminals for their actions. I believe that it is only right that someone who has ordered a genocide operation such should serve a very harsh punishment despite the fact that it is unlikely that any punishment that can be given will fully compensate the genocide itself. I also believe that dictators who are found guilty of carrying out a mass genocide should be stripped of their human rights and given as harsh possible punishment. This is one instance I would say that it would perhaps be correct to use torture, although its usage would be determined entirely by the circumstances and the severity of the war crime. For instance I would have no qualms about using torture as a punishment for those responsible for the holocaust during the Second World War. To me it seems only logical that war criminals should be punished as it must be made clear that such actions are completely unacceptable, I see no reason for why they should not be punished as they are no different to any other criminals in my opinion and so they should serve their punishment duly. However I only believe that what I have said above should only apply to very serious war crimes and their culprits and those who conduct them such as genocide. If a soldier out on a battlefield refuses to conduct an order given to him as he sees it as immoral, for instance if he refuses to shoot an innocent civilian who refuses to get out of the way, a lesser punishment should be sort out. I certainly do not believe that this type of war criminal should be tortured or given capital punishment but none the less they should be punished in my opinion. The reason for me seeing things this way is due to the fact that they should have expected such an occurrence whilst they were in the process of signing up for the army, they would have expected to follow orders and would have taken an oath to obey, and so refusal to do this is inappropriate. In the instance of refusing to open fire on a civilian I would sympathise with the soldier but would accept that he would be punished. I myself would also refuse to shoot a civilian, but I also would have foreseen this circumstance and would not have joined the army in the first place. If you join the army you have a responsibility to follow orders and so this should be the case in my opinion. An exception I would make to this ruling is if a soldier was ordered to do something truly horrific such as rape someone or kill a child I would say that they should not be punished as this sort of action is not appropriate in any circumstances to me. Although such an instance is probably unlikely I would say that it would be a huge miss-carriage of justice if a so-called “war criminal” were to be punished if they failed to obey an order to rape or kill children or suchlike. To conclude I would say that punishing war criminals is justified in certain situations and definitely not in others, situation ethics would have to be applied and every war criminal would have to be dealt with differently whilst attempting to work out a punishment for them if it was necessary. Although I do believe for major war criminals that punishment should be carried out and in some cases be as severe as possible.

12-07-2005, 01:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
cricket player International Debutant Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: usa Posts: 2,308	Iraq and Iran war which lasted for 8 years, I saw The history channels and oh boy,The Iranian soldiers which were captured by the Saddam Army They were punished very heavily, some examples cutting hands cutting legs cutting necks cutting ears burning torturing taking finger nails off It was so disgusting that i could not sleep for one week, Saddam hussain is an evil mother ****er. __________________ Bob is very insane stay away from him FAVOURITE UNDER 19 CRICKETER JP McNamara AKA ORTHODOX

12-07-2005, 10:55 PM	#13 (permalink)
Top_Cat Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 21,164	Yes if two things occur; the crimes are put in the context of the day as best as can be done (for example, if it can be proved that they were following orders and would have been executed otherwise, some leniency might be warranted. Especially if they used that repreive to do some good) and that they can be proven and corroborated. Certainly time past should not diminish the impact of their crimes. They should be treated as if they had committed them recently. __________________ Check out my bands! The Colourphonics http://www.youtube.com/user/TheColourphonics http://twitter.com/colourphonics Candice and The Arcade Villains http://triplejunearthed.com.au/Candi...ArcadeVillains

13-07-2005, 03:08 AM	#14 (permalink)
SJS Hall of Fame Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Mumbai India Posts: 19,170	Is it just to punish war criminals? YES ! I am only disappointed that we dont punish those from the rest of the world who could do something on time and didnt eg when Srebenica happened and the world watched from close up pretending to see nothing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-07-2005, 01:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
kendall U19 Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: kingsclere Posts: 575	I would agree that the ringleaders are the main people who should be punished as punishing normal soldiers is always difficutl as they are so many and in such countries whare conscription exists and whare not obeying orders is punished in the extreme ordinary soliders cannot be held 100% repsonsible. As for giving these men no human rights i disagree the rule of law must always be followed and by giving them this basic right that they havnt given others we are taking a far better postion while still alowing for a severe punishment

12-07-2005, 01:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
kendall U19 Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: kingsclere Posts: 575	Unfortunatly that sort of thing has always happened and sadly probably always wil

12-07-2005, 01:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
sledger Spanish_Vicente Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: cricsim, lol Posts: 28,021	indeed that is true, and he should be punished for that.

12-07-2005, 01:58 PM	#6 (permalink)
kendall U19 Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: kingsclere Posts: 575	Im sure everyone would agree with that but it is very important how that punishment is brougt about and conducted

12-07-2005, 02:02 PM	#8 (permalink)
sledger Spanish_Vicente Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: cricsim, lol Posts: 28,021	i dont know if that is an ideal punishment, is that what you would grant ?

12-07-2005, 02:03 PM	#9 (permalink)
kendall U19 Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: kingsclere Posts: 575	He has too face a fair trial and due process of international law

12-07-2005, 02:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
sledger Spanish_Vicente Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: cricsim, lol Posts: 28,021	i would agree with that, my theory is a bit radical i accept, but i still see right to fair trial in a lot of occasios so that justice can truly prevail.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)