Originally posted by peachgirl
A concept that seems to be hard to grasp here is that all atrocities are not war crimes. I don't know, but I think setting a vilage on fire is pretty atrocious, but under the right circumstances, it's not a war crime.
Simply because Kerry came to believe that certain actions were atrocities, does not make them war crimes. Even if he believed they were war crimes, it doesn't mean they are.
1. war crime -- (a crime committed in wartime; violation of rules of war) from
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=war+crime
The Nuremberg Principles:
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2.
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages,
plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
From:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
In addition, the following are forbidden towards any persons in an area of armed conflict:
* Torture, mutilation, rape, slavery and arbitrary killing
* Genocide
* Crimes against humanity which include forced disapparance and deprivation of humanitarian aid
* War crimes which include apartheid, biological experiments, hostage taking, attacks on cultural objects, and depriving people of the right to a fair trial.
Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.
*
Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
* There is to be no
destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
* Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
* Civilians must not be used as hostages.
* Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
* Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
* Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
* Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
* Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.[/QUOTE]
Well, I see.. .this is your problem with this issue. Let me explain how others may see it. . .although it is only their interpretation of Kerry's own statements. Kerry said,
However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
And he said this:
There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals
In BOTH of these statements he mentions the deeds he took part in--(shootings) in free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground or search-and-destroy missions, and in the burning of villages.
Let's agree that he admitted this in both statements, --even though the phrasing of the burning houses/villages is a bit different in each, right?
Since when he was referring to these specific crimes in the second quote as being contrary to the laws of warfare, and contrary to the rules of the Geneva convention, I--and others--would tend to believe that they were also contrary to the laws of warfare and the Geneva conventions in the first quote, too--where he says that if you "if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."
So, you are correct in saying that "simply because Kerry came to believe that certain actions were atrocities, does not make them war crimes. Even if he believed they were war crimes, it doesn't mean they are. "
However, although he often is incorrect, this time he happens to be correct. According to the Nuremberg Principles, what he did is considered to be a war crime. Hence, Kerry is an admitted war criminal--not a convicted war criminal, just an admitted war criminal.
He has never come out and denied what he said years ago; he has not corrected his statements to say that the burning of those villages was military necessity. He stated they burned the homes and villages in the context of describing deeds done that were against the applications of both the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles. You made an interesting point, but in the first quote he made, he was speaking AFTER he FOUND OUT that they were indeed war crimes. To at least some of us here, it appears that he's smart enough to know that if he did the research to finally learn what a war crime is, and says that he knows he committed deeds that were in violation of these principles, then he must be in violation of those principles.
Of course, I don't think that he is actually in violation of those principles-I think he lied to make a point about the horrors of war. But, that doesn't change the fact that HE states he committed these crimes according to Geneva and Nuremberg.
Of course, if he came out and said he was stretching the truth 30 years ago to make a point about the horrors of war, I'd never refer to him again as an admitted war criminal. I'd refer to him as a liar.
Interesting MSNBC piece based on the NYT article that was more extensive, but similar to the article Peachgirl posted the other day. . .however, the vet has come out (I posted it on a previous page) and is standing by his story--and explains the discrepancy the NYT alleged. So, the allegation still stands for now.
If there is conclusive evidence that Bush funded those ads, that will indeed be a problem.
And how would those propositions negatively reflect on Kerry? 
Did they commit attrocities, yes. If anyone burned villages that had no Viet Cong or North Vietnamese ties, yes. Is he and thousands of other soldiers war criminals if they are following orders that seem to be orders that are the norm, the way war is fought? No! The commanders and the government that sent those men to do their dirty deeds who KNEW the orders they were giving were in opposition to the Hague and Geneva Conventions were! They "made" those unknowing soldiers break the conventions! 
)
