posted
I was reading OSC's column, and he made this comment regarding World War II:
quote:Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- considers it a war crime that some Gis, having just lost a buddy or two to this very German soldier and his meaningless resistance, chose not to accept his surrender.
The reasons given for not accepting surrender are perfectly logical--not having the resources to take prisoners, not being able to just leave enemy soldiers out running around--and yet, I can't see shooting an unarmed soldier who is legitimately trying to surrender. I couldn't find anything in the Geneva convention relating to the act of surrendering itself. It all seems to be concerned with what happens after surrender, or with the protection of non-combatants, which a surrendering enemy soldier certainly isn't. But is there really no obligation whatsoever to accept surrender?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- considers it a war crime that some Gis, having just lost a buddy or two to this very German soldier and his meaningless resistance, chose not to accept his surrender."
Whether it's a war crime or not, surely OSC agrees that it's still murder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure which way OSC is arguing, but I will also point out the rules of engagement have changed quite a bit since then.
The term "war crimes" didn't even exist until the end of WWII.
Additionally, the Nazis were portrayed unconditionally as total and absolute evil. As a result, there are very few people willing to shed a tear over the handling of such "inhuman monsters."
I don't believe there has been a war or major conflict since that has seen such a massive propaganda machine directed at vilifying the enemy - although the concentration camps were enough to seal that particular fate without the aid of spin doctors at home.
To bring this point home, the expectations and standards of the audience changed dramatically while the fundamental actions of war have not. GIs in Viet Nam suffered much worse treatment at the hands of the enemy, but the media coverage at the time was also highly skewed and biased.
They didn't mind showing pictures of GIs torching villages, but God forbid they show pictures of Little Johnny strung up and tortured to death.
Although it could be argued the editors were trying not to offend Ma and Pa Kettle at home and their highly selective editing produced unintentional results.
posted
I should really know this. Having done my thesis on international law and all. (In fairness to me I have focussed more on the ICJ rather than international criminal law).
I can make a few points - it is possible for something to be illegal at international law without it being a "war crime". That said, I am not sure whether there is an obligation to accept a surrender. My gut instinct would be yes but I don't have the documents to back that up.
It has been argued that pretending to surrender and then attacking enemy troops is, however, a war crime.
**
Ok, I do have some answers: Under the International Criminal Court (note: the US is not a party so its troops cannot be tried before the Court. However it is widely accepted that the elements of crimes as defined by the Assembly of State Parties in 2002 codified customary international law on the subject and therefore these definitions are binding on all countries) it is a war crime to:
s8(2)(a)(i): kill a person protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions.
So if surrendering gives a person protection under the Geneva Convention (and I'm pretty sure it does) then it would indeed be a war crime to kill someone who was attempting to surrender.
There's also s8(2)(b)(xi): the war crime of treacherously killing or wounding. This is where the perpetrator invites the confidence or belief to a person that they were entitled to protection under the international rules for armed conflict and then wounds or kills that person.
So if the soldiers said "Surrender and we won't kill you" or words to that general gist and then did kill the German soldier that would also be a war crime.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
