It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by daaskapital
Yes it is! Your ability to ignore the facts is astounding.
You are the one ignoring the facts, the bombings were not a war crime. Funny how a armchair apologist 67 years after the bombings want to just attack the USA!
Oh my God
You still don't get it do you?
I just showed you proof that the USA broke international law on more than 1 occasion in relation to the Atomic bombings of Japan.
So you think that just because the bombing saved lives, it should give the USA a free get out of jail card?
They broke the law, despite whether or not they were trying to save lives.
Grave breaches
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
taking of hostages extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[17]
Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[18] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.
The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches when the UN Security Council asserts its authority and jurisdiction from the UN Charter to apply universal jurisdiction. The UNSC did this via the International Criminal Court when they established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate and/or prosecute alleged violations.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Yes, but both military targets were in the presence of civilians, therefore the bombings were war crimes.
Again, i quote Article 24 from the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:
3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;
The bombings were clear war crimes even though the cities were valid military targets.
edit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: quoteedit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)
Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.[1][16] Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.[1][17] The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants.[18]
Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss.[1] Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body.[1] Some prisoners' limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.
Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines.[1] Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.[1][16][19]
In 2007, Ken Yuasa testified to the Japan Times that, "I was afraid during my first vivisection, but the second time around, it was much easier. By the third time, I was willing to do it." He believes at least 1,000 people, including surgeons, were involved in vivisections over mainland China.[20]
Germ warfare attacks
Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.[1] To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied.[1] Prisoners were infested with fleas in order to acquire large quantities of disease-carrying fleas for the purposes of studying the viability of germ warfare[citation needed].
Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around 400,000 Chinese civilians.[1] Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.[21]
Art. 4. Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.
Art. 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they cannot be confined except as in indispensable measure of safety and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.
Art. 6. The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.
When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.
The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.
Originally posted by Djayed
Originally posted by daaskapital
Yes, but both military targets were in the presence of civilians, therefore the bombings were war crimes.
Again, i quote Article 24 from the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:
3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;
The bombings were clear war crimes even though the cities were valid military targets.
edit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: quoteedit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)
Hague Rules are not valid any longer, we follow the Geneva Conventions now, and the Article 24 from the Hague laws were created for tossing projectiles out of balloons, not planes dropping bombs.
edit on 12/23/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where's the outrage over the Japanese war crimes? Or the German war crimes? Have you ever read up on Unit 731? You want war crimes? Go read on their activities.
...
I'd call those war crimes, wouldn't you? Where's the outrage over them? Most of the Unit 731 members were never even arrested, let alone charged with a crime.
edit on 12/23/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by daaskapital
If you're going to accuse one side of war crimes, you can't ignore the other sides crimes. What's good for one side, is good for the other as well.
Originally posted by daaskapital
I knew someone would raise that word in this thread. Just because i am talking about an American war crime does not make me anti-American. Nor does it mean i am anti-American. Grow up.
Originally posted by R_Clark
type in Douglas Dietrich WWII ... and go down the rabbit hole.