Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War crimes denial - should ACG have a policy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proconsul
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    We have always had a policy of not accepting posts denying historical war crimes in so far as those crimes have been subject to trial and conviction and for which there is ample evidence beyond refutation. Hence, Holocaust denial is not permitted for obvious reasons thanks to the Nuremberg Trials, documentary evidence, and admission even on the part of participants.
    This is a topic I'd rather avoid to touch with the proverbial one yard stick. However, there are some points I want to make: sometimes tribunals do make mistakes. And sometimes new evidence and new historical documentation are found. Some crimes are recognized by some parties but not by others. For instance, according to Wikipedia the Armenian genocide has been recognized by 29 countries and 48 US states. Is it not recognized as such by Israel, UK, the US government and, of course, by Turkey. That makes things complicated. That said, ACG can be considered like a private 'club'. Every club has its own internal rules and those who don't like them are free to move elsewhere. Personally, I'm for free speech, but it's not up to me to decide the policy of the forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    You including Clark, Nixon, or Obama in that list of war crime denials?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Except that the admins informed us long ago that the First Amendment does not apply here.

    Meanwhile, might work on fixing the IGNORE feature, which is the best way to deal with deniers and other such people.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    . . . . So my question is simply this:

    What should ACG policy be in regards to the denial/denigrating of historical war crimes, and the praising of those who were their perpetrators...particularly those who were tried and convicted?

    My answer - we don't need those people here. Allowing so would might also attract unwanted attention to ACG.
    My answer is diametrically opposed to your answer. The ACG administration need do nothing of a policy character in order to confront those who would deny war crimes/crimes against humanity/acts of genocide. The deniers of such are as common as dirt. No forum policy can change that. It is the duty of the forum membership to confront the deniers, to overwhelm them with the weight of their scholarship and evidence. If the administration establishes a policy of blocking posts and/or posters, then the members will grow lax in their duty: their duty as amateur scholars to seek out and promote truth whenever possible, and their duty as citizens to confront those who would sow such disharmony and discontent. The policy you suggest would serve only to infantilize the members, and nothing good can come from that.

    In a US context, the First Amendment not only extends freedom of expression to the citizens, but it also obliges citizens to speak truth to lies. I dare say, good sir, that your proposal not only relieves would-be scholars and citizens of their obligation to promote truth and confront deliberate falsehood, but it's frankly unAmerican, as well.

    Let the losers belch: they will be overcome, with aplomb.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    We have always had a policy of not accepting posts denying historical war crimes in so far as those crimes have been subject to trial and conviction and for which there is ample evidence beyond refutation. Hence, Holocaust denial is not permitted for obvious reasons thanks to the Nuremberg Trials, documentary evidence, and admission even on the part of participants.
    This implies that if a recognised international court or tribunal has recognised a war crime as having occurred and has arraigned or issued a summons for an individual or individuals to answer charges arising out of this ACG has no policy. This seems odd - after all one doesn't need to have had a murderer identified, arrested and convicted to recognise that a murder has been committed. A coroner's verdict would do and surely the same applies to war crimes and international courts?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post

    What should ACG policy be in regards to the denial/denigrating of historical war crimes, and the praising of those who were their perpetrators...particularly those who were tried and convicted?

    My answer - we don't need those people here. Allowing so would might also attract unwanted attention to ACG.
    We have always had a policy of not accepting posts denying historical war crimes in so far as those crimes have been subject to trial and conviction and for which there is ample evidence beyond refutation. Hence, Holocaust denial is not permitted for obvious reasons thanks to the Nuremberg Trials, documentary evidence, and admission even on the part of participants.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    The Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal regard them as universal

    Certainly.
    "Universal" however means that all the parties that count - sovereign states, not international bodies, however influential the latter may be - either accepted the rules by signing in, or behave in practice as if they have accepted them. And you know that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    One city here requires Police, Fire, and Animal Control to rotate every six months, but are supposed to ready for all three calls. Strange to see a fully kitted Animal Control officer with body armor and the works, AND firefighter gear in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Having gotten a chance to see if there are any AR-15's in the fire engines.

    I did watch a female officer come out of her police interceptor, take off all her stuff down to underwear and put on the firefighter gear.
    There is a very basic economic theory known has specialisation of labour. Clearly that city's administrators have never heard of it....

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    I thought the forum did have a policy against Holocaust denial?

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    I DO BELIEVE THAT AJR HAS BEEN employed as a pet control officer, chasing down strays....
    One city here requires Police, Fire, and Animal Control to rotate every six months, but are supposed to ready for all three calls. Strange to see a fully kitted Animal Control officer with body armor and the works, AND firefighter gear in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Haven't gotten a chance yet to see if there are any AR-15's in the fire engines.

    I did watch a female officer come out of her police interceptor, take off all her stuff down to underwear and put on the firefighter gear.
    Last edited by Salinator; 28 Mar 19, 22:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post

    Who says I was afraid? I was assisting in uncovering a murder scene...something you claim to know about but don't.



    Right....soldiers should be encouraged to take matters in their own hands. Just like COPs do! LOL!!
    I DO BELIEVE THAT AJR HAS BEEN employed as a pet control officer, chasing down strays....

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Michele View Post

    While I agree in general, I'd be less categorical with the Additional Protocols 1977, because there are some countries that are not signatories yet. Most scholars consider them to have entered customary international law by now, but the representatives of non-signatory countries would probably disagree.
    OTOH Geneva 1949 have no non-signatories, and that's why I mentioned those.
    The Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal regard them as universal

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    And the Additional protocols of 1977 further expanded coverage, particularly relevant being Protocol II which extends coverage to acts committed in non-international conflicts (insurgencies, counter insurgency, police actions, civil war etc etc) thus closing many loopholes and bringing a number of conflicts in Africa and the Balkans within the ambit of the convention. Again these were universally ratified and whilst some countries have shown bad faith in their application there can be no question that there is widespread recognition of war crimes
    While I agree in general, I'd be less categorical with the Additional Protocols 1977, because there are some countries that are not signatories yet. Most scholars consider them to have entered customary international law by now, but the representatives of non-signatory countries would probably disagree.
    OTOH Geneva 1949 have no non-signatories, and that's why I mentioned those.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post

    and exhaustive ****

    You should be a comedian, because that rant was funny.
    I strongly suspect that his plains tribe might have been Ghengis Khan' s Mongols....

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    I remember that yes, thanks.

    Full text of the verdict here, but probably better suited for the other thread.

    http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic..._judgement.pdf

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X