War Crime or not?

GePap · March 20, 2003, 12:08

Over and over we have heard the admin. ask Iraqi units not to follow orders to blow up infrastructure, most specifically oil fields.

Now, some things are obvious war crimes, such as the wanton killing of civilians. One can state that destroying vital civilian infrastructure is a war crime, since it leads to humanitarian crisis, and possible deaths.

But is blowing up an isolated oil field a war crime? What, if any, legal authority would the US have to persecute Iraqi soldiers and officers who participated in the torching of oil fields as the admin. keeps stating?

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 12:14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1420133.stm

Worthingtons · March 20, 2003, 12:16

I would say it is , not for the economic consequences (remember what Stalin did to his own country!) but for the environmental consequences , this will not only wreck many people's life's in the region but will kill all sorts of sea/air life

reismark · March 20, 2003, 12:17

What the coward is doing is most assuredly a war crime.

GePap · March 20, 2003, 12:18

Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

So the question remains: if Iraqi forces blow up the oil fields, have they commited a war crime?

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 12:23

Have you checked the link for legal definition, or do you just want people's opinion about what they individually think should be a war crime, which doesn't really matter?

Garth Vader · March 20, 2003, 12:23

A war crime is whatever the victor decides.

That might not be fair or right, but it's the way it is.

Sava · March 20, 2003, 12:27

Since the US is the boss, anything they say is a war-crime. IMO, there were far more war crimes in South-East Asia against the civilian population by US forces than there were in Kosovo or Bosnia. Yet, Milosevic is in The Hague at a joke of a trial while Kissinger still gets work thrown at him from the Republican party.

When you're a leader of a smaller nation, it's a war-crime. When you're a leader of a superpower, it's called collateral damage. Go figure!

GePap · March 20, 2003, 12:27

That was true in 1946..not anymore, since it has been codified into international norm.

Sloww: I did shearch the link, and thus the part of my post that read:

Quote:

Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

Oh, and of course what i want is opinions: they might not matter, but they make for better argument.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

So the question remains: if Iraqi forces blow up the oil fields, have they commited a war crime?

Yes, the wanton destruction of private or public property without a compelling military reason is a violation of the laws and customs of war.

In the case of the USSR, and Russia in Napoleon's time, the scorched earth policy did not fall under this definition, as the goal was to deny materiel and potentially useful assets to an invading enemy military force. The French or Germans doing the same thing on retreat is a different story, except in specific cases - demolishing bridges or railways, etc. makes sense from a military standpoint.

Blowing up the oilfields has only the most indirect military aims (respiratory problems, visibility), which are minor in military significance in view of the overall health, environmental and economic impact on combatants and especially noncombatants.

rah · March 20, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Have you checked the link for legal definition, or do you just want people's opinion about what they individually think should be a war crime, which doesn't really matter?

Despite the definitions layed out in the link you provided, there is considerable room for interpretation.

Which the winner usually does.

On oil fields.
listed in your link, only one area seems to cover it.

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

Plunder of public or private property.

Last night someone said that torching an oil field could provide some strategic advantage by lowering visability for advancing aggressors. Sure sounds like a valid military action to me.

RAH
and of course MTG beat me to it by two minutes. Must learn to type faster

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
That was true in 1946..not anymore, since it has been codified into international norm.

Ideally, everybody follows these.

In reality, though, being a superpower grants immunity to international law.

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 12:47

"But is blowing up an isolated oil field a war crime? What, if any, legal authority would the US have to persecute Iraqi soldiers and officers who participated in the torching of oil fields as the admin. keeps stating?"

The USA and Britain smoked Iraq to a degree last night.
Iraq can burn their oil fields.
Burning Kuwait's oil wells, is a war crime.
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 12:51

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

Despite the definitions layed out in the link you provided, there is considerable room for interpretation.

Which the winner usually does.

Of course, since only the winner gets to hold the trials.

Quote:

Last night someone said that torching an oil field could provide some strategic advantage by lowering visability for advancing aggressors. Sure sounds like a valid military action to me.

It will only significantly* lower visibility in the vicinity of the oilfields themselves, which are not really close enough to any military targets. A far larger effect was demonstrated last time, in terms of respiratory distress and significant skin irritation from precipitated oil droplets many miles downwind.

*significantly meaning from the tactical perspective of a military unit. Five to ten miles away or less, the tactical visibility on the ground is going to be pretty much the same, as wind and dust will be the constraining factors. For aircraft, the visibility hazard is larger, but they just change altitude and/or route to the target, so there's still no tactical significance.

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

Why?

Ozz · March 20, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The USA and Britain smoked Iraq to a degree last night.
Iraq can burn their oil fields.
Burning Kuwait's oil wells, is a war crime.
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.
Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

War crimes are bullshit anymore, just an excuse to
kill off an embarassing captive after the war is won.

PLATO · March 20, 2003, 12:56

I don't believe that blowing up the oil fields would meet the standard. There are various military reasons for destroying oil fields to deny them to an invader. Presumably in a drawn out conflict where an oil supply line is jepordized then an invader might want to sieze control of oil to supply its forces. Obviously this is more than highly unlikely, but it is a legitamate reason.

PLATO · March 20, 2003, 13:01

Donald Rumsfield:

Quote:

"I have seen indications and reports that the Iraqi regime may have set fire to as many as three or four of the oil wells in the south," Rumsfeld told reporters.

Rumsfeld, who said the U.S. military was trying to get more information on this, appealed to Iraqis not to burn the riches of their country. "It is a crime for that regime to be destroying the riches of the Iraqi people."

Hmmm...

Inverse Icarus · March 20, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Since the US is the boss, anything they say is a war-crime. IMO, there were far more war crimes in South-East Asia against the civilian population by US forces than there were in Kosovo or Bosnia. Yet, Milosevic is in The Hague at a joke of a trial while Kissinger still gets work thrown at him from the Republican party.

When you're a leader of a smaller nation, it's a war-crime. When you're a leader of a superpower, it's called collateral damage. Go figure!

no one is proud of what we did in nam / korea. my grandfather served in Korea, and he and his team were ordered to burn a village to the ground, and kill the populus, after one of the civilians blew themselves up taking the lives of several soldiers.

again, no one is proud of what we did. but it had to be done. i'm not going to sit here and explain how the term "war crime" is overly redundant. you do what you have to do to win.

now, "crimes against humanity" are a bit different. we can be justified (to a degree) for killing civilians if we deemed them a threat. take that as it is, please.

Iraqi forces recently sent 2 attack choppers to attack a Kuwaiti village. Where was the threat there? What the hell were those cattle farmers going to Saddam and his battle plans? Nothing. There was no reason to do that, whatsoever.

The use of chemical / biological weapons on civilians are also crimes against humanity, IMHO.

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 13:04

quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why?

You can't be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

badman · March 20, 2003, 13:06

I don't think it's a war crime. Those oil fields belong to Iraq and the Iraqis just like the Russians back in WW2 have the right to destroy their own country in order to weaken the enemy.

GePap · March 20, 2003, 13:06

Accordign to current news, the Marines have begun an intensive barrage into Southern Iraq, and may be moving in soon..perhaps because several oil wells have been set ablaze.

Since when it blowing up your wealth (are not Iraqi soldiers Iraqi people?) a war crime?

Personaly I don't think blowing up the oil fields is a war crime, unless, as Sloww said, it is blowing up fields in a land under occupation.

Inverse Icarus · March 20, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by badman
I don't think it's a war crime. Those oil fields belong to Iraq and the Iraqis just like the Russians back in WW2 have the right to destroy their own country in order to weaken the enemy.

how exactly does it weaken us?

the only things i can see are
1. black smoke makes it harder to to air missions, but we have radar guided cruise missles / bombs anyway
2. it could cause ecological problems, we'd need our masks, etc.

does this count as a chemical attack on civilians / troops?

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Personaly I don't think blowing up the oil fields is a war crime, unless, as Sloww said, it is blowing up fields in a land under occupation.

Like that ass Sherman burning Atlanta.

Sorry. The thought of you agreeing with me at all blew my mind, so I had to come up with something.

Ozz · March 20, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand You can't be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

I'm waiting to see your answer too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867619.stm

ruby_maser · March 20, 2003, 13:21

Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals, some (unfortunately, not all) of whom have received justice. So don't point to the United States and say that superpower status is a shield to hide behind.

I'm interested to know what war crimes you think the US has sanctioned?

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 13:23

"Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals, some (unfortunately, not all) of whom have received justice."

Calley was a fall-guy.
I know, here comes flames.

ajbera · March 20, 2003, 13:24

The wells! The wells!
The wells are on fire!
We don't need no oil,
let the motherf***ers burn!

So sorry, but I couldn't resist.

PLATO · March 20, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Like that ass Sherman burning Atlanta.

Sherman was a war criminal...bigtime. He was probably the worst of the northerners in The War of Northern Aggression

Ozz · March 20, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals

They're called "Presidents"

Proven:

Crown fruit Company,- isn't assassinating foreign presidents against US law?

The Contra - affair, guns to Iran, money to rebels
fighting a democratically elected government.