Have you been to war? I know you were in the military, but were you ever in the field? I haven't. There is a lot of science about adrenaline and fear and acting in the moment.

You think that guy who blew up a friendly is back home bragging about that? If he couldn't forgive himself, it is more likely that he is one of the thousands who come home and then kill themselves. Nobody does that on purpose. "No repercussions" is a false statement.

That is all very different from thinking about it beforehand and calmly deciding that it is a correct military strategy to kill the families of our enemies. That is currently a War Crime, unless Trump gets elected. (Although there are military higher-ups who have already publicly stated they will not follow orders to commit such acts. Will soldiers on the field say the same, when their "commander in chief" gives them permission? Some will, some won't. I'd just as soon not test that, thank you very much.)

Besides. My Lai happened and My Lai was prosecuted and military training has changed. It isn't as if we can't learn.

We do need to stop invading sovereign nations for our own gain. But that is a different topic.

"We need to find out how many vets are willing to do war crimes. Jesus."

You don't really follow current events, do you?

Since the Vietnam war, American soldiers have been rigorously trained to act instead of think. It's been very successful. So successful that the US is now the best country at the world when it comes to killing your own and accidentally targeting civilians. In the first gulf war, 12 Bradley AFVs were destroyed, NINE of them were by US troops. I saw a video during that war of a spotter for an A-10. Even on the poor-quality video we could see it was a Bradley (this was while I was working with an Armored regiment). The A-10 obliterates the Bradley and all the on board were certainly dead, he calls back over the radio, "I believe that was a friendly, over." To which the spotter says, "Oh shit, I was afraid of that."

Your soldiers kill eachother without fear of repercussions. Why the hell would they worry about war crimes against other people?

Three pieces for your entertainment:

The Grauniad ran an opinion piece by former NYT executive editor Jill Abramson abtly titled "This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest". The headline is enough to make my head spin, nevermind the content. Not worth spending time on, really. You can guess what the comment section thought of it. Not surprisingly, it was closed after an hour.

Worth a read, however, is a recent polemic by Sean Kerrigan: Will We Elect Hillary After Her Many, Many War Crimes?

What made me laugh was this: the supposed presidential frontrunner would have been hanged if judged by the standards set at the Nuremberg Trials, yet Amal Clooney, a human rights lawyer, holds a fundraiser for Clinton at $350k per pair for seats at her majesty's table. Who the hell needs satire anyway, not even Doug Stanhope could come up with most of the twisted shit reality confronts us with day in, day out.

Last but not least, Robert Fisk wonders why neither Cameron nor Obama seem to be celebrating the retaking of Palmyra from the IS.

"Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin's Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren't utter a single word to say well done."

@newtboy and @Dragen_Jager

My main point is just in agreement with Hayden, that given a grossly illegal and unpalatable order like targeting women and children just because of who they are related to is something that America's current top brass would say no to.

That said, in existential wars there is no such things as a war crime any more. Or at the least, the definition will be written by the victors(Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Furthermore, what is approved in a 'black ops' sense has IMO always been something that America and every other nation has done, and again with the only meaningful rule being that it be effective and secret and/or deniable. Hence my ask the CIA quip,

Look, it's really simple. The question was, "Will the US military obey unlawful orders."

I pointed to one proven instance where they absolutely did just that. I didn't bring up rape or any of that, you did, but it actually makes my case even more solid. Not only did they OBEY those orders, they took them several steps further on their own. Abu Ghraib is an excellent example because there was a court case and therefore there's a lot of documentation.

There are a ton of other examples, especially from WWII onward, firebombing major German cities, nuclear attacks on Japan, use of Napalm in Vietnam. Treatment of POWs.... It's a very long list of debatable war crimes, many of which are poorly documented. If you want to pick one as a better example, go ahead, but building up straw men to attack when you seem to essentially agree with the thrust of my argument seems petty and ridiculous.

I hadn't thought I was ever disagreeing on Bush and Cheney and company approving war crimes in the form of torture(in particular stress positions and later on water boarding). They were shockingly open about it and basically just defended it by saying they didn't think it was that bad...

When you posed Abu Ghraib as an example of military following illegal orders though, I disagreed. You know, based upon the fact that the acts of sexual assualt, physical assault, rape and murder were counted as crimes by the military. This standing apart from 'lesser' torture like loud music and stress positions which was 'ok'.

If you want to be taken seriously stick to the truth. Trying to run out hyperbole like you were by alluding to rape and murder being an executive order and standard procedure does you no credit. Trotting out Abu Ghraib is even worse as it disproves your hyperbole, what with the military discharging and putting on trial those involved and all.

Oh, okay.

Thanks for agreeing so easily.

They were ordered to commit war crimes, they followed those orders. I thought you were arguing against that, but I'm glad you came around.

Part of me wants Clinton vs Drumpf for the pure entertainment value. Just imagine all the skeletons buried in that chest of emails on HRC's server and how Drumpf would slap her silly with it.

But then I remember that Drumpf openly advocates in favour of torture and war crimes, which should disqualify his ass from holding any public office. At the same time, the Syrian refugees down the street from here are a keen reminder that HRC has been a major proponent of bombing brown people, and I don't believe for a second that she wouldn't sign off on waterboarding without hesitation.

So, nevermind #makedonalddrumpfagain and #whichhillary -- you've got yourselves some genuine barbarians running for the office of bomber in chief.

Well, to be brutally honest, I knew that before we even set foot in Iraq that this type of stuff was going to happen (if not even worse stuff further down the road) simply because the ONLY two examples in history we really have that allowed for the successful creation of new countries after horrific wars were: Japan and Germany.

But, there were some major things that needed to be noticed, if indeed Iraq ended up being a successful story; though it would have taken a few generations and perhaps 30 years... It would require us to remain in Iraq for a VERY long time.

I called it before the war even started. I literally stated that if we pulled out before we succeed in "our" goal (and BTW, we STILL have not "pulled out" of Japan nor Germany, but we aren't enemies either; but it shows you the level of commitment we had in the 50's versus our, "...we have to see results in one year, otherwise we'll just drop the whole thing like hot bricks...", type of idiocy prevalent in our politicians and populous right now...

I don't think we should have EVER gone into Iraq, simply because we never had the backbone NOR the stomach to actually remain there and to see it ALL the way through. When Bush proposed this war, if he would have been a smart man, he would have told the entire nation that going there would be a new level of commitment we hadn't been used to for quite some time. IT WOULD get Americans killed; possibly even a fairly high amount...

Nobody simply wanted to face the truth and reality of what they wanted to achieve and WHAT it would actually take to get it done. Instead, we went to war, just long enough (and I really hope this wasn't the biggest reason; but, my EXTREMELY cynical and negative side wants to say it's true...) to line the pockets of the politicians that signed on and, of course, the banks, portfolios, and third parties all involved in stealing--literally--billions of taxpayer dollars and making billions more in revenue and other sources...

Truly making Cheney and Bush utterly despicable. By that point, that everything was realized to be an utter falsehood we had two choices: stick to the course created for a false reason (but turn it into on of history's greatest success stories; and WE COULD have done it, it just required...well...something Americans didn't wish to give Iraqis, sadly); and dropping the war as fast as possible with some sort of "transition" to the Iraqi government.

We took option two and we KNEW full well (at least if you were smart enough to know ANYTHING about history, just what was about to come eventually for Iraq) that their "peace" we created for them, to "save" them, was utter horse-shiat. They are now paying for the war crimes our leaders perpetrated against them...

Had we stayed, if we were still there and the media was patiently trying to explain to the American people WHY we had to stay--if we TRULY wish to FREE a country and make it into something great and new--it takes time and a lot of it.

Like I said, if you want to see what you have to do to pull this off, go look at Japan and Germany following WW2. It's not pretty; life WILL be lost. But, it might, just might, be better than this jihad social network that is in its infancy trying to become a true monster...



/political rant--because like the guy that Chomsky refers to, I saw this crap coming a long, long, long time ago
//I really had issues with the whole Iraq thing back in the day; but, I did say that if we went in, we should prepare to commit not for years, but for DECADES... I think THAT is where the American people, in general, didn't realize how truly long this fight would really be as it was indeed a "generational" fight... To me, it makes complete sense why we utterly FAILED, but ALSO why we were beginning to get things to actually work (and then flushed it all down the toilet--because a President sent us over to fight a war that I don't believe we were mentally prepared to REALLY win/fight; and as I said at the end, our soldiers (and their families) simply weren't ready for a war that would span a decade or more...
///Too many people think like the politicians do with war; war should be "nice and clean", "quick and simple", "profits and power"; as Sherman once said which applies to these type of politicians, but sadly many Americans in general who see war like a video game, not recognizing the true horror AND the true lengths men, woman, and children in those areas will need to change to make peace a word that can once again be common place in their society--not just for the hopeful: "I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

"Independent CONGRESSIONAL inquiry"? How can a congressional inquiry be independent? They helped set up this practice.
We need an independent INTETNATIONAL inquiry, possibly leading to war crimes charges if they're warranted....AND a public congressional inquiry to look into whether even the 'law'/rules THEY set up are even being followed, and follow up with charges if they aren't.
I see this as a, if not THE major failure of the Obama administration, who promised transparency in the white house when he ran, but seemingly completely forgot that promise when he got into the office and instead started many new deadly secret operations and has zealously prosecuted whistleblowers. Many people voted for him based on that promise, and he's more than betrayed them.

No one did a war crime investigation when Israel repeatedly bombed hospitals in Gaza. At least Obama apologized which is way more than any republican would do.

We're really going to have a hard time explaining this one away. We knew full well this was a hospital, and inexplicably we bombed it anyway. Even if the claim that someone was shooting from the hospital were true (and it seems it's not) there's absolutely no excuse for bombing it. None.
30 minutes of bombing?!? While being begged to stop bombing a hospital?!? In self defense (I note there's been absolutely zero evidence that there was a single insurgent there, no bodies, no guns)?!? And it went through the 'vetting' process and they still said, 'yep, go ahead and bomb a hospital into dust'?!?
Sweet Zombie Jesus! I actually DO hope everyone involved, from the guy on the ground (if they actually exist) to the general that gave the go ahead, is indicted for war crimes and convicted. If that doesn't happen, we can definitely expect this to happen again, and we can expect repercussions....we won't be so lax and relaxed about things if a major hospital in America blows up, will we?

EDIT: Also consider, this hospital was in what's now Taliban held territory, so we WON'T be rebuilding this, the only hospital in the area.

Yes, the winners of wars never get charged with their war crimes, no matter how evil or horrific.

They were hung, in the Nuremberg Trial and Tokyo War Crimes Trials.

Your video, jeremy scahill lecture-war crimes and drone wars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.