Whold this be a warcrime??

[Vietcong]

i wanted to know if this would be considered a war crime.

a pow ship is transporting prisoners, but is sunk during a storm.
many prisoners are left alive swimming in the ocean, but so are the guards and sailors of the ship. a near by destroyed of the ships nationality finds them and but has very little room on it. so rather then picing who ever they can up, they go around ONLY picking up the guards and sailors of the pow ship, leaving the pows to drowned sense there's no room left for them.

or, if thay pic up a few pows, then realize some gards are still alive in the water, rather then leaving the guards to die thay kick the pows back into the watter and pic up the guards that are still left.

whold this be a war crime?? i hope not, becus i rather save me own gards and fellow country men then enamy pows.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think kicking pows back into the water would be a war crime. Choosing to save only your own people might not be a war crime, unless you left before the ship was full.

The nation that takes prisoners accepts responsibility for those people.

 

[Vietcong]

yes, this is asuming the ship is full, and no room left for pows, so u leave them to drowened

 

[CartesianFart]

Look up into international laws.You will be surely be hit with alot of informations.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

It depends on who wins the war. If it is the prisoners nation, it is a warcime, if it is the captors nation, it is merely an unfortunate event.

 

[El_Machinae]

:rimshot:

I assume that if the ship is full, there is no crime about choosing your own people over pows.

Sinking ships might be the next Auschwitz. Send out a ship with 2,000 prisoners in it, sink it, and only rescue the crew.

 

[Little Raven]

It'll be a great bit of propaganda for your enemy, but it's not likely to put you in the Hague.

 

[GinandTonic]

Breach of international maritime law.
Breach of the Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Breach of the Third Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War
If there were civilians in the water then it would breach the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

It would also breach the G+T convention on being a passible member of the human race.

 

[MobBoss]

i wanted to know if this would be considered a war crime.

a pow ship is transporting prisoners, but is sunk during a storm.
many prisoners are left alive swimming in the ocean, but so are the guards and sailors of the ship. a near by destroyed of the ships nationality finds them and but has very little room on it. so rather then picing who ever they can up, they go around ONLY picking up the guards and sailors of the pow ship, leaving the pows to drowned sense there's no room left for them.

or, if thay pic up a few pows, then realize some gards are still alive in the water, rather then leaving the guards to die thay kick the pows back into the watter and pic up the guards that are still left.

whold this be a war crime?? i hope not, becus i rather save me own gards and fellow country men then enamy pows.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where a ship would have room for crew in the water, but not POWs. Rescuing only the crew would be a warcrime. I find letting the POWs drown because there is no room on the ship....questionable. Seems to me, it would be a hard thing to prove and thus not be subject to a warcrime.

But then again.....if you stack the POWs up in a pyramid in order to make more room that might be a warcrime as well, so maybe its just best to leave them in the water!

 

[Sidhe]

Breach of international maritime law.
Breach of the Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Breach of the Third Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War
If there were civilians in the water then it would breach the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

It would also breach the G+T convention on being a passible member of the human race.

You are of course forgetting not every country recognised or recognises the Geneva convention. In some countries they place value on life differently. Yes under western eyes this is a war crime, but if the Sailors are following their own moral standard no, not as such, only if they lose the war.

I too find it hard to believe that there was no room but?

 

[GinandTonic]

You are of course forgetting not every country recognised or recognises the Geneva convention. In some countries they place value on life differently. Yes under western eyes this is a war crime, but if the Sailors are following their own moral standard no, not as such, only if they lose the war.

I too find it hard to believe that there was no room but?

Well there are no such thing as natural rights. No human rights, no animal rights other than what we decide. While the yank egos here dont need the boost the declaration of rights puts it best "We hold these Truths to be self-evident". Others might believe all manner of unpleasantness is ok, but i will fight for the Geneva convention.

 

[CartesianFart]

Breach of international maritime law.
Breach of the Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Breach of the Third Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War
If there were civilians in the water then it would breach the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

It would also breach the G+T convention on being a passible member of the human race.

Looks like someone was doing the research.


@vietcong:is this the answer that you are looking for?

 

[Sidhe]

Well there are no such thing as natural rights. No human rights, no animal rights other than what we decide. While the yank egos here dont need the boost the declaration of rights puts it best "We hold these Truths to be self-evident". Others might believe all manner of unpleasantness is ok, but i will fight for the Geneva convention.

Agree with cart

However these truths to be self evident is a nice sentiment, but they aren't always cut and dried in a culture very alien form your own. There are historical reasons why a society would place a certain life of more value than another and these aren't based on western values they're based on expedient oriental values, that work for their society, now they may be behind the times as far as the western world is concerned, but their moral code has lead them to a society that works in the same way yours has, just because it is out of sorts with the times does not mean it doesn't promote morals or preservation of life within a culture. And the ability for that culture to remain at peace within it's own moral guidelines, and that culture to flourish over thousands of years, to step in and say nah it's all wrong when it's worked and promoted growth for thousands of years is somewhat ignorant.

Good example although a morally dubious one by our standards: a Samurai falls off a cliff but is still alive although unconcious, the tide is coming in and starting to drown the unconcious lord, a peasant who works for that Samurai volunteers to throw himself off the cliff in the hope that if he lands close he might wake the Samurai if he does so and lands near enough to rouse the slumbering lord: he does so, the lord is saved and is dragged up the cliff, in honour of his loyalty his familly is made Samurai from then on his line is able to progress and more people survive to make it to adulthood under the system. Who are we to judge the welfare of a system based on our own moral codes? If more lives are saved by one death than are killed is that not moral?

Now OK before everyone says yah but if he missed he was still dead this is allegorical, the fact is a society that has rules that save more lives than it kills is a good society, who are we to judge their beliefs, yah if those beliefs no longer promote growth, but man they did for thousands of years? try and think outside of your own moralistic code, not every culture has survived and flourished because they found those truths to be self evident within the narrow confines of their own culture.

 

[GinandTonic]

Any search for an ultimate "truth" in ethics leads to pointless hermeneutics or god. If you dont call for the validation of the almighty you have to just assert a position. The Geneva convention isnt even a baseline, its a vague leveling of the dirt under the foundations and failure to acheve this level is unacceptable.

Now I cant prove that someones position isnt equally valid, but in truth that isnt something that still keeps me awake at night.

You decide you own ethics, or you pick a god and assert the ethics handed to you. Its just a choice, however I hold these truths to be self evident...

 

[7ronin]

There are a lot of things to consider here. As has been pointed out, did you win? Victors tend to downplay or ignore war crimes committed by their own forces. Are you a signatory to the Second and Fourth Geneva conventions? If not, you might get off on certain charges. On the other hand, were your actions considered a violation of the generally accepted "laws of war?"

Dumping previously rescued POWs back into the water is murder under any circumstances (Geneva Conventions or no Geneva Conventions) and would be prosecutable as a war crime.

Rescuing your people first would not be a war crime. The laws of war generally recognize that a combatant's first duty is to the persons on his side. That said, however, he still has well defined responsibilities towards the unrescued POWs.

Failure to ensure the safety of the POWs by not having enough life rafts, ship's boats or other emergency equipment and devices is a violation of the Second Geneva Convention but as an act of omission rather than commission is probably not a war crime.

Failure to render all possible aid to the POWs by the destroyer might or might not be a violation of the Second Geneva Convention. For example, if the destroyer stopped the rescue and left the area to participate in a battle, that military exigency is a justification.

On the other hand, if there is no military necessity, the destroyer must make a good faith effort by attempting to save as many of the POWs as possible. This includes radioing for the assistance of other ships both allied and neutral. It also means staying in the area until there is no longer any hope for the POWs.

One thing everyone seems to be unaware of is the difficulty of rescuing anyone at sea, even just one person, a process complicated by weather and time of day. You also have the problem of distinguishing a person of type a from a person of type b when they are both in the water. Then you also have the problem of separating the living from the dead (there are going to be a lot of the latter). Destroyers typically only have two ship's boats. My guess is that the destroyer would not be very successful, even under the best of conditions, in rescuing very many people, friendly or POWs, rendering most of this discussion moot. Rescues must be conducted as quickly as possible as survivors tend to die quickly when they are in the water.

 

[Elrohir]

If there was no room for any of the POW's, then that's that, you can't do anything. But if you had room, and just left them, then I think it would be. You would be condemning them to die just as if you had lined them up and shot them. Rescuing your own soldiers and crew first is simply common sense. And there is a precedent of a sorts for it; in war medics tend to the wounded of both sides - but they deal with their own soldiers first. If one of the enemy dies because the medic is patching up one of his own guys, that's too bad, but it's not a warcrime. I think it's the same principle here.

 

[GinandTonic]

Rescuing your people first would not be a war crime. The laws of war generally recognize that a combatant's first duty is to the persons on his side.

Not true. It would be a crime not to rescue as oppertunity presented. You could therefore head to your fellas, but would be obligated to rescue such persons as oppertunity presented.

Eg - to sail around and get all you boys before you let the POWs on would be a crime.

 

[bhsup]

Just out of curiosity, and to add a different twist to the original question, would the actions of the British warships after the Bismarck was sunk in WWII be considered a war crime under modern treaties?

They were diligently picking up sailors in the water when they got a report that German U-Boats were approaching, so they abandoned rescue operations and boogied out of the area. Personally, I can't say that I blame them, but I'm curious if they'd be in trouble for it now.

 

[FriendlyFire]

But then again.....if you stack the POWs up in a pyramid in order to make more room that might be a warcrime as well, so maybe its just best to leave them in the water!

And the US torture prisoners by putting panties on peoples heads
what will they think of next ? using rap music as a form of torture

 

[Vietcong]

my question came from a real life event.
a jap pow ship sunk, and the american pows and jap sailors and gards whear all in the watter.
a jap destroyer started picing up all the japs first, then started picing up pows, but then realized more japs whear in the watter. since thear was no room left on board, thay took all the rescued american pows, and and throw them back into the sea, then rescued the remaing jap sailors.
most of the american pows drowend cept a few that the destroyer did pic up.