Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Arrest them and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. There were Nazis who got the noose because they filed paperwork involved with the Holocaust. These guys surely did even worse things.

If the US wants to start prosecuting war criminals, I suggest that they start by handing over their own. Ernest Medina and William Calley in particular are long overdue for their encounter with a rope instead of doing profitable speaking tours about how they committed war crimes and got away with it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Those laws need changing.

Then take it up with the UN and the international community who don't like having stateless people running around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
These people are UK/Swedish/etc. citizens by law. That gives them the right to return to the UK/Sweden/etc. If they choose to do so then we have the right to hold them accountable to UK/Swedish/etc. law. Those laws prohibit handing them over to other countries if there is the possibility of torture.

Blair didn't let that stop his government.

Just because Blair is a moron does not mean we should revert back to it now.

Stateless..

Clues is in name..

Islamic.... state.
Its unofficial but a state.

They enliested as part of a "country" , swore loyalty to it and served fighting for it.
However not on UN they still for intents did join a enemy state, whom declared war upon us.

Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.

Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.

Joining a psychopathic death cult has its downsides does it not.

 jhe90 wrote:

Islamic.... state.
Its unofficial but a state.

But you can't have the cookie and eat it too. Everyone, literally everyone, says ISIS is not a state and has no right to wage war. They're criminals and terrorists, not soldiers of any recognized country. No one (fighting them) is offering them the courtesy of the conventions that a member of a real army serving a real country would have. If you want to call them real soldiers of a real country you would also have to shout for everyone who summarily kills captured ISIS fighters to be tried and executed for war crimes.

You can't just make being a national of a country or member of an army illegal! That's a pretty big part of international politics and not blowing the whole damn earth up!

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.

Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.

Joining a psychopathic death cult has its downsides does it not.

Who do you turn them over to? Syria and Iraq are fighting civil wars and the Kurds don't have a nation of their own. This is even assuming that these countries want something to do with the people in question. What if they don't?

 jhe90 wrote:


Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.

Oh, dear God, where to start....

Ok, the result of that as a policy is the current North and South Korea.

Do you need further explanation as to why it's a really bad idea?


To be blunt, we've had a lot of Pot on Kettle action here where it boils out that 'If my country does it it's fine, but God help any heathen barbarians in any other country doing the same thing!' After all, England,the US and France kickstarted most of this mess, creating the situations that allowed ISIS to be a thing in the first place, and also directly or indirectly causing most of the middle eastern violence of the 20th and 21st century.

Ultimately it was your foreign policies that have killed hundreds of thousands, because a strong central power in the middle east was not in your collective national interests.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

But they HAVE committed crimes. Leaving Europe to join ISIS is a crime in itself.

And if they have broken UK law then they can be incarcerated here.

Aye, and they should also be tried for crimes against humanity, not just breaking a specific country's laws, because of what ISIS did.

If we could hang secretaries for filling out paper work while working at a concentration camp, we can put people on trial for crimes we know they were in proximity to while they were willing supporters of ISIS.

*Sigh* Can I have a source for these secretaries hanged after the Nuremburg trials, what crimes they were accused of and what evidence was provided?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_M%C3%B6ckel

He was, essentially, the head of maintenance and requisitions. He never was accused of actually directly taking part in any of the atrocities. All he did was handle paperwork and sort confiscated valuables, and manage building maintenance(including the gas chambers). He did not confiscate property from prisoners, nor did he actually perform any executions or abuse. He literally just did paperwork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

Streicher never took direct part in any atrocities, nor did he occupy any position of power within the government. He was "just" a writer.

There are many more, you can look up the rest of the Nuremburg, and all the related, trials and their very very long lists of defendants yourself.

Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.

Also, Mockel was not tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg but in the Polish war crime tribunal.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.

Also, Mockel was not tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg but in the Polish war crime tribunal.

In case you missed it, the Nuremburg trials can be used to refer to ALL of the war crime trials associated with the end of WW2. Not just the specific Nuremburg trial.

Either way, it does prove that you did not have to actually directly participate in any of the horrific crimes. You only needed to be associated with them in some capacity.

A dude who went and joined ISIS and was a member while they were doing these crimes is guilty to some extent. What extent would be determined at a trial. But it's not really a question of if they should be tried or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.

Being the Head of Administration didn't mean he was incharge of the whole camp. If you read up, the duties of the Head of Administration was purely maintenance, supplying food and sundries, and cataloguing the prisoners valuables. It had no direct involvement with the use of the gas chambers OR with any direct abuse of the prisoners.

It's possible he participated in direct abuse, but that was never proven. All that was proven was he was a pen pusher, but that was enough.

And yes, Streicher was an important propagandist. He still never directly did anything. He had no title or authority. He was, in essence, just a celebrity writer.

Both men were still executed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Either way, it does prove that you did not have to actually directly participate in any of the horrific crimes. You only needed to be associated with them in some capacity.

To say that this is wrong... would be an understatement.

Julius Streicher incited others to commit war crimes on such a scale that he himself was found guilty as an accessory to it.

Karl Ernst Möckel withheld food and clothing from prisoners at Auschwitz. He also oversaw the confiscation of valuables from prisoners. Both of these are war crimes. In fact, the first is on the docket for the very first US war crimes trial, that of Henry Wirz, in 1865 for his treatment of the POWs at Andersonville.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A dude who went and joined ISIS and was a member while they were doing these crimes is guilty to some extent. What extent would be determined at a trial. But it's not really a question of if they should be tried or not.

By that argument, every single soldier in every single army must be tried for for the actions of those who committed war crimes. To say that would be impossible would be an understatement. It should go without saying that it would be unjust.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Being the Head of Administration didn't mean he was incharge of the whole camp. If you read up, the duties of the Head of Administration was purely maintenance, supplying food and sundries, and cataloguing the prisoners valuables. It had no direct involvement with the use of the gas chambers OR with any direct abuse of the prisoners.

Untrue, see above.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.

I don't care. They committed war crimes in Iraq, they should stand trial in Iraq.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.

I don't care. They committed war crimes in Iraq, they should stand trial in Iraq.

I don't care seem to be a common theme. Maybe you should a bit, and then you'd understand why it's a bit more complicated than "Grr, send 'em back"

Also do you have the proof of individual war-crimes that they have committed or helped commit? Because that's what you need.

Simply joining ISIS is a war crime as far as I'm concerned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news...Sally Jones wants to come home.

http://news.sky.com/story/is-recruiter-sally-jones-wants-to-return-to-britain-from-raqqa-10935755

Let the Iraqi's put her on trial, I say.

Here's hoping she never makes it back.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Here's hoping she never makes it back.

Jijadi recruiter..
Umm so on wanting her home I say a clear no with added drone strike.

Well sure, if you want to pass up the propaganda potential of her coming back and saying how gak it is to be with ISIS.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well sure, if you want to pass up the propaganda potential of her coming back and saying how gak it is to be with ISIS.

Sure or is it just because there losing?
Badly.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well sure, if you want to pass up the propaganda potential of her coming back and saying how gak it is to be with ISIS.

I prefer the propaganda potential of her being tried and executed for her crimes in the country she committed them.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well sure, if you want to pass up the propaganda potential of her coming back and saying how gak it is to be with ISIS.

I prefer the propaganda potential of her being tried and executed for her crimes in the country she committed them.

Female recruit lead.
So she sure is some no body who had nothing to do with them...

She was damned close to the centre of power.
Even a woman, she was head of a key branch of there infrastructure of terror.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I don't care seem to be a common theme. Maybe you should a bit, and then you'd understand why it's a bit more complicated than "Grr, send 'em back"

Also do you have the proof of individual war-crimes that they have committed or helped commit? Because that's what you need.

Oh my God, Reality? What are you doing here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

Sure or is it just because there losing?
Badly.

ISIS has been bleeding people since long before their actual fortunes turned. Something about people hearing how great it was and then seeing the reality. And getting out once you're in isn't so easy. They're hardcore believers in the old policy of executing deserters. That and some of ISIS rivals are pretty 'No Surrender' themselves.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Simply joining ISIS is a war crime as far as I'm concerned.

Funny thing is, that's not your decision to make, and good reason too. That way madness lies.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Funny thing is, that's not your decision to make, and good reason too. That way madness lies.

I have him blocked for a reason. I can't say why because the mods will invoke Rule 1.


Back to the subject of this thread:

Fighting Rolls on for Mosul:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40489816

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Simply joining ISIS is a war crime as far as I'm concerned.

Funny thing is, that's not your decision to make, and good reason too. That way madness lies.

So, are you saying that joining isn't isn't a war crime?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

So, are you saying that joining isn't isn't a war crime?

No, it is not. It is a Federal Crime in the US, and several other countries have comparable laws, but not an international War Crime. Harry Sarfo, for example, returned to the EU and confessed to being a member of ISIS, and got 3 years under German law, but is being looked at for war crimes prosecution due to involvement in the Palmyra massacre. They're two separate things.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Simply joining ISIS is a war crime as far as I'm concerned.

Funny thing is, that's not your decision to make, and good reason too. That way madness lies.

So, are you saying that joining isn't isn't a war crime?

Why yes I am, because "Being part of a militant group" is not a war-crime. There can be laws against being in a militant group (the US for example as laws against joining groups labeled as terrorist orginizationss), but the act of simply join one isn't a warcrime. If you think it is, feel free to cite what you are using to determine this.

To be fair, if someone is making a normative statement making a positive statement to rebutt it is a bit silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair, if someone is making a normative statement making a positive statement to rebutt it is a bit silly.

I can't cite laws that don't exist.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair, if someone is making a normative statement making a positive statement to rebutt it is a bit silly.

I can't cite laws that don't exist.

Never mind me actually, I misread your last statement.