What is a War Crime?

What is a "War Crime", anyway? "War Crimes" can only be prosecuted by the victors, who are themselves immune from prosecution. That is not a system of justice... that's a system of "Might makes Right". I am unwilling to spend time on the strategy alternatives that led the Truman administration to the decision to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets, AKA cities. It is my belief that the propaganda offensive convincing the American people of their exceptionalism has worked splendidly, and today the vast majority see the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justified.

The very idea that there can even be such a thing as a "War Crime" should give one a powerful clue that as the Hague Agreement, to which the U.S. was a signatory (more on this latter in the post), stated: “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.” I think that particular prohibition would cover dropping atomic bombs on inhabited cities. In having the concept of "War Crimes" and agreements such as "The Hague" means that the world's nation-states have accepted the idea that in terms of "men versus the mission", there are some acts which are simply unacceptable no matter how convenient or how many of the committing combatants lives will be "saved" (I put that in quotations because we all know about government projections... and people throw around some crazy and unrealistic numbers). If you are one of those that believes nuclear attacks on ANY CITY is acceptable, Please, please, please!!!... read that previous passage again.

My suggestion is that Americans that believed these bombings were justified are misinformed or uninformed or unversed in the theory of unintended consequences and absolutely do not play chess. WWII may be over, but the "Chess Game" is not. It is my fear that in using nuclear weapons on inhabited cities the U.S. has lost all moral standing in the future nuclear war. If you think welfare or bank bailouts has a slippery moral slope to them... they pale when compared to this.

As an American schoolboy learning history in the late 1960’s early 70's, my education on the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki consisted of several sterile pictures of the “mushroom cloud” that resulted from the explosion followed by some short copy about retaliating for Pearl Harbor and the subsequent surrender of Japan. That was it. No mention of people leaping into rivers to escape the fires and to ease the awful pain of their terrible burns; no mention of children’s skin melting from their bodies, suffering for what must have seemed and eternity only to die days later of radiation poisoning or kidney failure; no mention of thousands of “Hiroshima Orphans”, children who were sent to the country side to avoid conventional bombs only to lose both parents in the atomic attacks; no mention of the disfigurement of the survivors, or of the genetic diseases of their descendents. As a matter of fact, the United States prevented film footage and descriptions of the destruction and suffering from reaching the outside world, especially American citizens, until the occupation ended in 1955 (or so).

To be sure, the United States and its allies were at war with an enemy culturally incapable of surrender, that had attacked the U.S. without warning, and that had inflicted tens of thousands of casualties on Americans. The U.S. was facing the prospect of tens thousands of additional American casualties should an invasion of the Japanese Archipelago prove necessary. Would it have proven necessary? Was there a diplomatic solution? Were their other U.S. motivations for the use of Atomic weapons? Had the use of Atomic weapons against Japan had any effect on the “paranoia” of the Soviets during the Cold War? Did the use of The Bomb affect our standing with other nations? How did we get to this point, and why was it that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to pay with their lives for the aggression of the Japanese Government and Military?

Japanese history did not begin on December 7, 1941 and end on August 15, 1945. What were the events that lead these cities to their doom, and subsequent rebirth, and what unintended consequences might be visited on the U.S. in the future as a result of the bombings?

The Japanese Attack at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941

In speaking with the “man on the street” (or woman, as it were) in America about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the immediate response for the most part seems to be summed up something like this: “Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and in retaliation the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.

There is certainly a great deal of anger still lingering over the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and I must confess to sharing in that anger (no doubt an indelible mark left on me by my father, a member of the U.S Navy during WWII), particularly when I consider the fate of the servicemen of USS Arizona, the final resting place for 1,102 souls.

War is governed by international law, bizarre as that may sound, and anger has no place in the prosecution of War, lest we all become genocidal maniacs with no regard as to the purpose of hostilities in the first place, and only a desire for revenge through the death and destruction of any and all people associated with our enemy. Look no further than our current adversary, Al Quida and the attacks of September 11, 2001 to gain a picture of where that leads.

According to the to USS Arizona Memorial, the following is the damage assessment and casualty count as a result of the attack by Japan, December 7, 1941.
PERSONNEL KILLED
• Navy 2001
• Marine Corps 109
• Army 231
• Civilian 54
• Total 2395

PERSONNEL WOUNDED
• Navy 710
• Marine Corps 69
• Army 364
• Civilian 35
• Total 1178

SHIPS
• Sunk or beached 12
• Damaged 9

AIRCRAFT
• Destroyed 164
• Damaged 159

The attack at Pearl Harbor, was disgusting, ugly, and unconscionable – but most likely legal as covered by the:

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, II), July 29, 1899

CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

The Hague, July 29, 1899 [Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1902] ARTICLE XXV

"The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited."

This would seem to say that an attack on installations which are defended is legal. (I did not say right, fair, ethical, acceptable, etc..) although the Hague Convention also stated:

ARTICLE XXII

“The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.”

I think that that is relatively self-explanatory. Is the right of one of the belligerents to use an Atomic Weapon on city filled with non-combatants limited or not limited? If not, what limitations were the convention participants referring to? Is there something worse? Let’s move on to:

ARTICLE XXIII

“Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:”
a. “To employ poison or poisoned arms;”
b. “To kill or wound treacherously (emphasis added) individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;”
c. “To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;”
d. “To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;”

Please note section b. of Article XXIII the word “treacherously”. Is the attack at Pearl Harbor “treacherous”, and, if so, does it constitute a prohibited war crime? If so, does that relinquish the United States of its responsibilities, legal, moral, and ethical, in its prosecution of the War? What about future wars?

Let us examine, once again:

ARTICLE XXV

“The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.”

Was Hiroshima or Nagasaki defended as of early August 1945? We will discuss Japan’s ability to defend itself in August of 1945 in greater detail shortly.

How many Americans are familiar with the Hague Conventions? How many Americans are concerned with whether or not we have conformed to the standards set forth in the conventions as ratified by the U.S. Senate? Does anybody in our government see any similarities between the killing of non-combatants (civilians) by terrorist political organizations and the killing of non-combatants (civilians) by the U.S. Military?

More to come

----------

I look forward to a spirited yet courteous debate with my fellow thinking persons commenting here.



Hiroshima

I am proud and thankful to have been born in America and to enjoy all of the privileges that comes with it. That does not mean that the actions of every American Administration gets a pass for anything and everything.

It was 65 years ago today that the United States dropped a nuclear bomb over the civilian population center of Hiroshima killing an estimated 70,000 men, women and children. I love my country and am thrilled to have been born an American in this time, yet when I visited Hiroshima several years ago I was thoroughly embarrassed. If December 7, 1941 is "A Day which will Live in Infamy", August 6, 1945 is A Day which will Live in Shame.

It is a sad state of affairs that it is commonly accepted by Americans that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city filled with civilians was a legitimate and necessary step to ending WWII. Many commanders in the U.S. military at the time were completely opposed to the use of nuclear weapons - but history is written by the victors and the politicians. In the aftermath of the bombings the U.S. kept all reports of what actually occurred on the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki classified - for nearly 20 years. No one knew what had really happened because in the aftermath our government at that time realized what it had done.

As an American traveling in Japan not a few Japanese asked me how I felt about the bombings. If Americans think that the Japanese have forgotten and forgiven, they are sorely mistaken.

I was in Hiroshima a couple years, almost to the day, after 9/11. This is sure to meet with criticism, but I could not help but feel that the Taliban's murder of nearly 3,000 American civilians at the Trade Towers and the Pentagon was an attempt to influence policy in Washington via terror and was strikingly similar to the Truman Administration's desire to influence policy in Imperial Tokyo with nuclear strikes resulting in the murder of 140,000 Japanese civilians. Murdering innocent civilian to influence policy has been going on since the advent of sticks and stones, but it was a crime against humanity then and it is a crime against humanity now.

Imperial Japan was every bit the disgusting animal that Nazi Germany was. What the Japanese did in Mainland Asia and China has been glossed over by history while the atrocities of Nazi Germany have received the proper airing (if that is even possible). I read the book "The Rape of Nanking". After reading that book one might be sorely tempted to think of the nuclear bombings as some kind of crude justice - but only for a moment. Killing innocent people is not justice. Justice must only be brought to bear on the guilty.

I have also been to the Nazi Concentration camp at Dachau. This might also meet with criticism but I do not see a difference between the crimes of Dachau and Hiroshima.

Americans, through our controlled version of history, have swept Hiroshima and Nagasaki under the rug. Our enemies, and even our allies, have not. Should a nuclear weapon be detonated by some group in an American city, I do not think that many "man on the street" types in Japan, China, Viet Nam, the Middle East and quite a few other places will not see this as evening the score. "What comes around, goes around", if you will. Many of America's military leaders warned the Truman administration of this unintended consequence before the bombings. The bombings were hardly uniformly supported both within the Administration itself and the Pentagon Brass, though you wouldn't know it by reading the American history text books of the 50's thru today.

A nuclear blast in ANY city anywhere in the world would completely end banking, trade, fiat currencies, etc.... wrap your mind around that... THINK of the repercussions... if Paris or Sao Paolo or Tel Aviv experienced a nuclear explosion, would you trust the media explanation? Would ANYONE remain in New York City, London, or Moscow? Trade and commerce would shut down immediately. Everything as we know it would end.

Let us hope the Genie stays in its bottle.


"Peak" Victimization, Peak Wheat?

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." – James Bovard

I sincerely HOPE that the USDA, enshrined on my list of the Anti-Christ, is taking in a good, long, and hard look at what is happening in Russia's grain producing region with the advent of their record breaking heat wave and 22 month drought. (I sold my wheat position several weeks ago, thinking I was a genius after buying at the exact bottom... woulda, coulda, shoulda held on to that position.)

There is absolutely no risk in the near term for fertilizer shortages or insufficient fuel for tractors... or what ever techno failure doomers or Hollywood can conjure up (I said NEAR TERM). The risk is, has been, and always shall be the WEATHER. The U.S. has the mother of all militaries, a massive Strategic Petroleum Supply, and a nationwide network for 911 and first responders... but, unbelievably, the U.S. has no plan for a multi year drought in the nation's grain producing region NOR for an earthquake in California resulting in the demolition of their reservoir system that would stop the production of well over half of the nation's fruits and vegetables. What, exactly, does the USDA do? Well, they do inspect meat, but only at the time of slaughter... and given that the real risk is after slaughter, well, I certainly feel better and better about their $48 gazzilion budget, don't you?

Our government is always fighting the last war... and they confiscate the resources people might use to make better arrangements in order to fight that wrong war.

-----------------------------------------

The Media Manipulation Machine was busy doing its dirty work this past week... but before I get on with my rant about what I fervently HOPE is "Peak Victimization" I want to point out this fantastic treatise from a self described "workers bee" at one of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Now, assuming you read that link... the writer makes a couple of fallacious assumptions, but not that Macro economics is hard.... it IS hard, he has that one correct... his first f***ed up assumption is that we need a Federal Reserve in the first place! Macro economics IS hard, and a couple of young, penniless PhD's (or even an army of them) working at the Fed is not a better alternative to the free market's million's of participants, each making rational decisions with his or her own money. As somebody recently pointed out with respect to this article and the economics "profession" general... Economics is not a hard science!! In economics, 2 + 2 does not equal four necessarily, although it certainly could.... but it does not have to. I assert that self-educated, professional Wall Street traders that made a lot of money taking risks with their capital and using their noodle everyday are a much better research vehicle than these "worker bees" at the Fed.

Worse, if you read this elitist B.S., the writer pretty much tells us that we shouldn't worry our slow and little minds about the subject.... after all, only input from PhD's in economics is required and worth listening to. These are the very folks that create these problems and then request greater resources to FIX the problems they have created... thereby creating more and greater problems... this is exactly how the U.S. got to the point where its government runs a deficit equal to 10% of GDP per year.

Neither I, nor any of the other professional investors/traders that blog only for fun and to vent ever said that any of this WAS easy. We merely saw the housing and banking disaster long before you, Greenspan, Bernake, Treas. Sec. Paulson, et al... Read my Blog, Mr. Athreya! If a self-educated average Joe like (and many other economic bloggers) me called: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Housing, Banking, and the CMO market's well in advance... why, exactly, didn't you and the rest of your credential stamped weenies? Could it be that our experience is of greater use than your "training"? Maybe this is like swimming.... you simply have to get wet before you can call yourself educated?

Nothing sharpens and focuses the mind like having your own skin in the game. We don't need the Federal Reserve whatsoever. Nor do we need Bloggers to set interest rates... let the Free Market make these decisions.

----------------------------------------------------

OK. Peak Victimization.



Oh.......... My............... G-d.................

No doubt, the Left will see this mass murder in terms of gun control... and NOT the fact that they have spent decades convincing everyone that they are a victim. This guy was a thief and a liar, and likely mentally ill, and now a mass murderer... and then you tell a person with these kinds of character defects, over and over and over again, that someone else is to blame... and he murders a bunch of "these" people in cold blood... and who exactly is at fault here? The NRA?

------

The Mommy Victim. That's right. You "gave up" a career which would have CERTAINLY been all that you dreamed of as college student (LOLOLOLOLOL) to actually breast feed your own children, read to them in bed, and provide a nurturing, loving home for your children and their father?!! What kind of professional ARE YOU??!! Don't you know that breeding and child rearing are the work of the underclass??!! Those g-d d-mn men did this to you!!!

Earth to the Media and to our last few presidents. There were PLENTY of married women with children (or single women with children, for that matter) that you morons should have considered for the Supreme Court!!! The nit-wit writing this article only sees this in terms of reproductive options for careerists?? What about the American PEOPLE? Remember them? Our Supreme Court Justices, for the most part, come from only 5 Law Schools! This was NOT the norm down thru the court's history, but it has become the rule over the past 4 decades. There is NO REQUIREMENT that a Supreme Court Justice even need be a lawyer. I have read the U.S. Constitution... I am not a lawyer... and I am more than capable of interpreting this document, thank you very much (non of the framers, you know, they guys that wrote the document went to Law School as we know it). It is high time we had a "soccer mom" Supreme Court Justice. It is high time we had a working class, non lawyer Supreme Court justice. Not everything is black man, white woman, Jew, Muslim... there are plenty of other backgrounds and experiences that would make a significant contribution to the Court.

But the media has an agenda... and that agenda has all career women, everywhere, as victims of their biology... is there any wonder at the state of the family here in the U.S. ?

G-d save our kids.



Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)