Forums | MacLife

A Japanese general named Tomoyuki smurf was executed after World War 2 for

unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes.

US Captain Ernest Medina was charged similarly, creating this amendmant to the Geneva Conventions:

the fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from …responsibility…if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

These trials were important in shaping the current command responsability standards.

cosmicosmo wrote:

A Japanese general named Tomoyuki smurf was executed after World War 2 for

unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes.

US Captain Ernest Medina was charged similarly, creating this amendmant to the Geneva Conventions:

the fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from …responsibility…if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

These trials were important in shaping the current command responsability standards.

Do you think that there just might be a slight difference between the rare but tragic abuses by US soldiers in Iraq, and the scale of what the Japanese military did on the Asian mainland?

Think that just maybe there was no way in smurfing hell the Japanese general didn't know about what his soldiers were doing, yet took no action to stop it?

resedit wrote:

Do you think that there just might be a slight difference between the rare but tragic abuses by US soldiers in Iraq, and the scale of what the Japanese military did on the Asian mainland?

Difference of scale, sure, I'd hope. Whether or not there's a difference in principle remains to be determined. Or at least, some think so. Apparently, others think such determination is wholly unnecessary and this can all safely be swept under the rug.

Hey, if he's innocent, what's he got to be hide, right? Isn't that pretty much the gist of the Bush administration way of looking at (possibly frivolous) legal proceedings? Isn't what's good for the geese good for the gander anymore?

,xtG
.tsooJ

resedit wrote:

cosmicosmo wrote:

A Japanese general named Tomoyuki smurf was executed after World War 2 for

unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes.

US Captain Ernest Medina was charged similarly, creating this amendmant to the Geneva Conventions:

the fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from …responsibility…if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

These trials were important in shaping the current command responsability standards.

Do you think that there just might be a slight difference between the rare but tragic abuses by US soldiers in Iraq, and the scale of what the Japanese military did on the Asian mainland?

Think that just maybe there was no way in smurfing hell the Japanese general didn't know about what his soldiers were doing, yet took no action to stop it?

He wasn't in charge of the Japanese military, he was in charge of his own part of it. During the earlier part of the war, he conquered Malaysia and Singapore in a brilliant campaign, and treated his prisoners humanely. Afterwards he fell out of favor with the leadership and was sidelined for most of the rest of the war.

His war charges stemmed from the last months of the war, when he was placed in charge of Japanese forces in the Philippines. The Japanese forces were incredibly brutal, committing countless war crimes. However, historians generally agree that due to breakdown of communications and command, he wasn't actually in command of most of the forces in the area, and in fact wasn't aware of what was happening.

Another Japanese general named Homma, who had earlier gone up against Macarthur but was relieved late in the campaign and sidelined for the rest of the war, was also executed for war crimes, especially the Bataan Death March -- even though documentary evidence and witness testimony proved beyond any doubt that he wasn't even in command, to say nothing of ordering the brutality.

Yet they were still tried and executed, under the legal belief that as commanders, they were ultimately responsible, even if they didn't order the acts or even know about them.

Legal precedent's a bitch, ain't it?

In Rummy's case, there is a danger for him. If lawyers can prove that decisions he made made Abu Ghraib more likely to happen, or even possible, I think he could be found culpable. And I think there's a pretty good case for that. The authorization for CIA interrogators to work there without oversight, creating serious confusion in the chain of command, points to him. So does the ignoring of a scathing report carried out by the military, after which no action was taken.

I don't see how it's possible to overlook all this.

Or in this case, whether he is responsible by merely being at the end of the chain of command.

Wonder if Bush could get away with the same old Reagan early onset Alzheimer's defense.

huh? what's that?

....

WHO ARE YOU? I DON"T KNOW YOU!

....

Have you come to bring me my present.....?

resedit wrote:

Bratboy was asking if anyone in command "at the site" was being prosecuted.
I was pointing out a lack of such prosecution (I don't know actually) doesn't mean Rummy is fair game.

To prosecute Rummy for it, you have to show that either he ordered it, or knew about it but did nothing to stop it. The action was clearly in violation of US Military policy, and Rummy never ordered it. He had nothing to do with it - unless you know of some document I don't know about.

Are you speaking with actual knowledge of what "you have to show" in such cases, or are you simply guessing?

The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates.”

Even without being personally at the site, he could still have "failed...to punish their subordinates."

Any comment on the other article that I posted?

In Rummy's case, there is a danger for him. If lawyers can prove that decisions he made made Abu Ghraib more likely to happen, or even possible, I think he could be found culpable.

Never going to happen, so it is a moot point.
It will never get to the point where lawyers have an opportunity to show smurf.

The US will not allow its people in position of power to be tried in a world court for doing their job any more than Saddam allowed the world inspectors to do their job - and he did face a real military threat for not complying.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-14 1:27 pm)

And if he prefers to stay at home, there's always extraordinary rendition.

resedit wrote:

In Rummy's case, there is a danger for him. If lawyers can prove that decisions he made made Abu Ghraib more likely to happen, or even possible, I think he could be found culpable.

Never going to happen, so it is a moot point.
It will never get to the point where lawyers have an opportunity to show smurf.

The US will not allow its people in position of power to be tried in a world court for doing their job any more than Saddam allowed the world inspectors to do their job - and he did face a real military threat for not complying.

I'm curious...

If Rummy was in fact the end-of-the-chain and was actually responsible for (as in in charge of, gave orders or willfully ignored) the actions at Abu Ghraib and other locations (say grabbing German tourists and dissapearing them), do you, res, feel that he should stand trial?

Or does the fact he's a powerful American somehow rid him of any responsibility and consequences?

Your stance here seems to be "he did nothing" but what is your view if he indeed DID DO something?

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

I think that the German government should be allowed to do its job, even in the face of US intransigence.

Are you saying this because you think Rummy is responsible for what happened at that site, or because you want to see Rummy punished with whatever they can throw at him?

If the first, present evidence that Rummy was responsible.
If the second, think about the unintended consequences if you allow that kind of prosecution.

That's what the courts are for. And frankly I'm not worried about "unintended consequences". The courts can deal with that.

Last edited by jerwin (2006-11-14 3:12 pm)