View Full Version : Col. Roy Mustang: War Criminal?
Rheinhard
2004-02-26, 00:34
OK, I feel like playing instigator, so let's debate a bit more serious topic...
He looks cool. He can be funny, sarcastic, and goofy. He even seems to be a bit of a playa.
But is the Flame Alchemist, Col. Roy Mustang, also a War Criminal?
As we learn from Episode 15:
He appears to have shot, at close range, two civilians who were performing medical services without regard to nationality, and who appeared to be unarmed.
He burnt to the ground an entire civilian residential city district (and we are told via Marco that the Ishbal people have no real science or industry so they can't have many realistic targets of war production)
He seems to have felt regret about his actions afterward, sure, but does that expiate his guilt? Remember, "I was only following orders" was not considered a valid defense at Nuremberg! Or, does having a cool character design net one a "Get out of Spandau free" card? :eyebrow:
OK, I feel like playing instigator, so let's debate a bit more serious topic...
He looks cool. He can be funny, sarcastic, and goofy. He even seems to be a bit of a playa.
But is the Flame Alchemist, Col. Roy Mustang, also a War Criminal?
As we learn from Episode 15:
He appears to have shot, at close range, two civilians who were performing medical services without regard to nationality, and who appeared to be unarmed.
He burnt to the ground an entire civilian residential city district (and we are told via Marco that the Ishbal people have no real science or industry so they can't have many realistic targets of war production)
He seems to have felt regret about his actions afterward, sure, but does that expiate his guilt? Remember, "I was only following orders" was not considered a valid defense at Nuremberg! Or, does having a cool character design net one a "Get out of Spandau free" card? :eyebrow:
The side that wins the war gets to decide who are the war criminals. As far as I know, the military won that war. This poll and topic are moot.
Rheinhard
2004-02-26, 01:59
The side that wins the war gets to decide who are the war criminals. As far as I know, the military won that war. This poll and topic are moot.
Well, to argue whether a person's actions should qualify them for the status of War Criminal is a different question from whether they will actually get prosecuted. Surely the people who ran Stalin's gulags should deserve this status but because the Soviet Union survived the war and continued for several generations they weren't ever prosecuted. I think this is more of a theoretical discussion more than saying such an event will definitely happen in the series.
But I wouldn't totally rule out that something like this could happen in the series anway. We have a lot of episodes to go, and it's clear that alchemy is being used for a lot of just plain evil by a lot of people and the government. Might not the average citizenry eventually grow tired of seeing people being experimented on? Could the nation see a revolution against the military? And there are still expatriate Ishbal-ites wandering around, not to mention Scar, so all kinds of things could happen.
Well, to argue whether a person's actions should qualify them for the status of War Criminal is a different question from whether they will actually get prosecuted. Surely the people who ran Stalin's gulags should deserve this status but because the Soviet Union survived the war and continued for several generations they weren't ever prosecuted. I think this is more of a theoretical discussion more than saying such an event will definitely happen in the series.
But I wouldn't totally rule out that something like this could happen in the series anway. We have a lot of episodes to go, and it's clear that alchemy is being used for a lot of just plain evil by a lot of people and the government. Might not the average citizenry eventually grow tired of seeing people being experimented on? Could the nation see a revolution against the military? And there are still expatriate Ishbal-ites wandering around, not to mention Scar, so all kinds of things could happen. For theory's sake, let's then get into the meat of things.
What is a war criminal? War is a state of environment. An environment where the objective of the participants is to subjugate the other(s).
As the objective is to subjugate the other(s), logically there is no restrictions on the acts of war. War is unrestricted. Total elimination or subjugation or subversion are the means to the end. There are no rules.
However with advent of technology and culture, men start to fear for their lives and introduce the "rules of war". With these rules, they hope to get through the carnage with their lives intact as well as giving them a sense of "honor" & "prestige" in executing the acts of war with these rules in place. These "rules" exist in many forms. Yet rules are only rules when acknowledged, followed or enforced.
A Criminal is one who goes against the rules/laws. Punishments are meted to award "justice". The objective commonly stated as "justice" is actually to sooth the grievances of the involved victims and/or to discourage others from rebelling against the rules/laws. Despite what is said, rules/laws do not follow moral concerns nor are they supposed to be.
So in effect, what is a war criminal? Basically they are criminals because the victors say these "criminals" have went against the rules of warfare. Whether the rules exist in the offender's society or not is generally ignored or rendered non-relevant by the victors. Even if the rules have been ignored by the victors during the course of the war is often ignored (hypocrisy).
In the anime, the Isshuvaru Massacre was an unrestricted warfare. Unrestricted warfare carries no rules on conduct of behaviour towards enemies. Hence there could not be a war criminal. Likewise the Isshuvarus conducted unrestricted warfare as well. Both sides operate under no rules. Both cannot be declared war criminals by the other without hypocrisy involved.
So to come up with a poll asking whether Mustang should be tried as a war criminal is moot since he did not commit any offence at all.
thier is no UN in that world, war crimes do not exist.
thier is no UN in that world, war crimes do not exist.
Yup -- that and Mustang really was following orders "The lives that they save eventually kill my men." (<---regarding the 2 citizens). nuff said
Bindibadgi
2004-02-26, 07:36
thier is no UN in that world, war crimes do not exist.
But surely morality and ethics do?
In our world and our ethics - No, not him personally but his superiors would be. As scientists too - they should never be directly used on the battlefield anyway imo.
But surely morality and ethics do?
In our world and our ethics - No, not him personally but his superiors would be. As scientists too - they should never be directly used on the battlefield anyway imo.
Morals? Ethics? Is there definite proof there are such absolute things? If they do, care to comment whether our societies are in which moral and ethical state?
Irregardless however the question is "Should Colonel (then of a much lesser rank) Roy Mustang be tried as a war criminal?" This implies he has broken rules/laws, not moral/ethical codes.
Here's another angle on the case.
We know the end result. The Dr Rockbells were shot dead by Roy during the Isshuvaru Massacre. At the scene were then Lt Col Goran Buskar & Dr Marcoh. What happened then?
Possible Scenario:
Buskar: Rockbells, you are hiding the guerillas. Hand them over now.
Rockbells: We are doctors. We save people irregardless of who they are, we do not kill. We are not hiding anyone here.
Buskar: Do not make me ask twice.
Rockbells: You cannot get anything from us.
Buskar: <lesser rank> Mustang. Shoot these miscreants at one!
Mustang: Wha!? But Colonel, they're civ-
Buskar: Do you hear me <lesser ranK>! Do I have to repeat myself? Shoot them!
Mustang: But-
Buskar: This is an ORDER. SHOOT THEM NOW!!!
Mustang: (soldier conditioning taking over at the sound of an order and in a state of confusion, draws the gun and fires.)
As the smoke clears, the realization of what his reflexes had just done dawns upon him. Here we now enter into that flashback scene in ep15. Note it is Buskar who justifies the killings, not Roy.
Now what is the moral viewpoint of this?
Lastly (yes these have relevance), why did Mustang chose to live at that suicidal moment? Why does Mustang has that driving ambition to become Fuhrer. Why is he so deadset to do so?
Lemartes
2004-02-26, 09:27
it would be a crime from todays ethic and moral standards.
But in a war, there isn't something like moral or ethic and you can't say that you wouldn't also do such a thing during war.
Soldiers can't be blamed by people like us for taking revenge on civilians for example - we never were in such an extreme situation under such circumstances.
In the end, almost all human beings hold their own life over the life of another human.
Bindibadgi
2004-02-26, 10:31
Morals? Ethics? Is there definite proof there are such absolute things? If they do, care to comment whether our societies are in which moral and ethical state?
Irregardless however the question is "Should Colonel (then of a much lesser rank) Roy Mustang be tried as a war criminal?" This implies he has broken rules/laws, not moral/ethical codes.
We have morals and ethics that CREATE laws - Ie the Genevia convention etc, where do you think law comes from?? I did clearly state in our world, they oboviously dont have such a thing being it just 1 military in 1 country, they can do as they please to supress whoever doesnt agree with them. Being nice people doesnt make them right by our standards.
He'll never be tried as a war criminal cause by their code he was doing his job - his superiors would be tried if any - Ie: Molosovich in the Hauge for the "ethnic clensing" of bosnia and serbia. Im sure he commanded dozens of troops to kill civilians but they were just doing what they were ordered todo. Same as Nazi's in the 2nd world war. Its different whether they believe what they are doing is right though. In a war crimes tribunal Mustag would just voice what actually happened and the court would serve it justly (or so we'd hope).
Why didnt they just take them prisoner?
I cant answer the rest of your questions though.
Would you say Scar is a freedom fighter or terroist? Since he only (well not exclusively) kills state alchemists.
this is getting out of hand ... scar being a terrorist ?
Since Roy Mustang is given the orders to kill, he's not guilty unless he's not ordered to, but u have to look at the situation again, he's also a human. Who dont care for himself in the battle, he doesnt have 9 lives you know .. his reaction would be as many as what you all people would do under his circusmstance.
TireWe have morals and ethics that CREATE laws - Ie the Genevia convention etc, where do you think law comes from?? I did clearly state in our world, they oboviously dont have such a thing being it just 1 military in 1 country, they can do as they please to supress whoever doesnt agree with them. Being nice people doesnt make them right by our standards.
He'll never be tried as a war criminal cause by their code he was doing his job - his superiors would be tried if any - Ie: Molosovich in the Hauge for the "ethnic clensing" of bosnia and serbia. Im sure he commanded dozens of troops to kill civilians but they were just doing what they were ordered todo. Same as Nazi's in the 2nd world war. Its different whether they believe what they are doing is right though. In a war crimes tribunal Mustag would just voice what actually happened and the court would serve it justly (or so we'd hope).
Why didnt they just take them prisoner?
I cant answer the rest of your questions though.
Would you say Scar is a freedom fighter or terroist? Since he only (well not exclusively) kills state alchemists. Pray tell me then is killing and eating your enemies a moral or ethical act?
Is chopping off someone's hand for the crime of theft morally correct?
Is a soldier who is taught that scalping his kills is a healthy mark of respect for his enemies, ethical in his behaviour?
Is suing the person you saved to recover the for-life-injuries sustained in the rescue (his/her insurance company shall pay) ethically right?
Is letting a serial killer off the death sentence because it is cruel to kill a person and we should reform them instead an ethical or moral act?
Is wiping out an entire race because of the potential threat they pose to your own race morally or ethically right?
Is a law to seperate parents from their child, sending the child to a social home, just because the parents cannot earn above the minimum wage morally or ethically right?
Now... is the mass killing of civilians never an acceptable tactic of war? Is it immoral or unethical to do so? Consider history and the comments laid down afterwards with the outcome. Think about it.
Laws do not come from morals or ethics. They are laid down to preserve and hold society together. Punitive laws exist to assauge the vengeance of the agrieved so that they will not retaliate and incite a full scale riot or disturbance of the social fabric. We create the laws. We create the morals and ethics as well through our attempts to think ourselves as "good" creatures and polarize the world into good and evil (and now the gray).
The Geneva Conventions were not created out of "moral and ethical" concerns. It acts as a hope or limited contract that resource damages will be limited in warfare since murders gets easier with growing technology. Since each side these days seeks not to destroy resources but to assimilate them, the Convention can be a hinderance at most. The countries that signed the Convention have been known not to follow them when it is advantageous to do so.
Hmmm I wonder if we are communicating on the same wavelength here. I am stating that the applications of our morals and ethics (which are not absolutes) cannot be readily applied to the FMA world nor to Mustang. In fact applying them to our current world is a distressful result as well. What is moral for you is immoral to someone else. An unfortunate, unlikeable fact but true. The most important fact here remains that Mustang is not a war criminal since he broke no rules.
Scar? He's just killing for vengeance as I said before in another post. He's no terrorist (as of yet).
Bindibadgi
2004-02-26, 14:08
Well, technically scar is a terrorist cause he's rasing arms against the government (it was explained what a terrorist was in the first episode of GITS:SAC 2nd gig but i forget exactly). Freedom fighters believe what they are doing it right because of god/vengence/pissed off.. whatever. The fact that he kills members of government/military because he thinks its his duty to god reinforces this (dont quote me on that, i havent watched older FMA eps in quite a while).
Anyhow, its not like im saying this world is perfect either.
Hmmm I wonder if we are communicating on the same wavelength here. I am stating that the applications of our morals and ethics (which are not absolutes) cannot be readily applied to the FMA world nor to Mustang.
THATS MY POINT EXACTLY?! :rolleyes: I was saying our world it is different cause we have other powers and international law.
I fail to see the relevence of some of your specific cases.. the exact cases and outcomes of them bare little relevence imo, but that mebbe just me :):p The Geneva convention was made to protect human rights and those of vicitms of war and POWs, countries get around it and fail to remember it at times im not denying that either. It just happens to be all that war is about is natural resources and their accumilation (well, to use, in this day and age it seems).
Anyway, our world bears no resemblance to theirs cause a) we dont know about their government (or at least i cant remember it being mentioned) b) they have only 1 country c) no international law overseeing everything d) no media to answer to!
Mustag broke no rules, ok, but to me, imo, with what i consider moral/ethical (screw other cases and other people) i wouldnt shoot people who have no means or will to shoot back at me. Its the same is someone surrenders. They should be taken prisoner unless there are exceptional circumstances preventing this. He was ordered to - he broke no rules, otherwise he probably would have been shot or courtmarshalled himself for insobordinance (sp?). His superior who gave the order, imo, is in the wrong.
Im curious to ask - if we had no rules and you were in war, would you shoot anyone who you considered opposition?
Fair enough? ;) :uhoh:
Tbh i think we're both taking this a little serious tehehe. <note to self: Its not real>
On the other hand, if the supposed "war criminals" are deemed beneficial for the "winners," some aren't prosecuted, in exchange for valuable info.
A. Nazi scientists who worked on human experimentation
B. German nuclear scientists
C. Japanese scientists who worked on human experimentation
In the end, "to the victor goes the decision."
of course he's a war criminal. every murderer has an excuse, but if morals are absolute (meaning whether you get prosecuted or not you're still guilty) then he's a war criminal.
Bindibadgi
2004-02-26, 14:53
On the other hand, if the supposed "war criminals" are deemed beneficial for the "winners," some aren't prosecuted, in exchange for valuable info.
A. Nazi scientists who worked on human experimentation
B. German nuclear scientists
C. Japanese scientists who worked on human experimentation
In the end, "to the victor goes the decision."
True. But that's why the UN should technically be independent, but never is :(
Well, technically scar is a terrorist cause he's rasing arms against the government (it was explained what a terrorist was in the first episode of GITS:SAC 2nd gig but i forget exactly). Freedom fighters believe what they are doing it right because of god/vengence/pissed off.. whatever. The fact that he kills members of government/military because he thinks its his duty to god reinforces this (dont quote me on that, i havent watched older FMA eps in quite a while). terrorist
\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=web1913): Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn): WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Scar is not fighting a political battle. He is simply doing it for himself. Hence he is not a terrorist. Killing government personel does not mean politics is involved.
THATS MY POINT EXACTLY?! :rolleyes: I was saying our world it is different cause we have other powers and international law.
I think I may have misintepreted your statement "But surely morality and ethics do?". I was thinking that perhaps you meant morals and ehtics are absolutes and should therefore apply for all.
I fail to see the relevence of some of your specific cases.. the exact cases and outcomes of them bare little relevence imo, but that mebbe just me :):p The Geneva convention was made to protect human rights and those of vicitms of war and POWs, countries get around it and fail to remember it at times im not denying that either. It just happens to be all that war is about is natural resources and their accumilation (well, to use, in this day and age it seems).
The questions I pose have every relevance since they all deal with violations to human beings. The query is continued with the concern on whether these acts are moral or not? Note that laws have been imposed on some of those acts in some countries. They are stimuli to illustrate that morals & ethics are not the primary reason for the enactment of laws/rules.
Re-read my paragraph on Geneva Convention but this time know that when I say resources, it meant human labour/talents as well. In these "clean" times, everyone(especially politicians) likes to let people know that their lives are valued. The Convention only enshrines our human vanity.
Anyway, our world bears no resemblance to theirs cause a) we dont know about their government (or at least i cant remember it being mentioned) b) they have only 1 country c) no international law overseeing everything d) no media to answer to!
I agree with point a) (although I see that it is close to a junta). There is more than 1 country (mentioned in the manga). Isshavaru can be considered another country actually. Also there is an oriental empire as well (just popped up in manga chp 33). There is no need to answer to the media.
Mustag broke no rules, ok, but to me, imo, with what i consider moral/ethical (screw other cases and other people) i wouldnt shoot people who have no means or will to shoot back at me. Its the same is someone surrenders. They should be taken prisoner unless there are exceptional circumstances preventing this. He was ordered to - he broke no rules, otherwise he probably would have been shot or courtmarshalled himself for insobordinance (sp?). His superior who gave the order, imo, is in the wrong.
Im curious to ask - if we had no rules and you were in war, would you shoot anyone who you considered opposition?
Fair enough? ;) :uhoh:
The whole point is not whether Mustang's action was immoral or not. It is whether his actions then were criminal or not. The fact that he broke no rules/laws meant he committed no criminal act.
:D Glad you asked that final question. In a war as a soldier, do what is necessary to protect your nation. As an officer, perform your orders while minimising loss of our own resources. As the high level coordinator/planner, all's fair for what I considered to achieve the objective of the war.
Yeah, we are getting too serious but I feel that the topic is serious (even though the context and environment is fictional).
Rheinhard
2004-02-27, 01:43
Hmmm... seems someone added a "Maybe" option to the poll. A popular selection, but you're aware that a jury cannot return a verdict of "maybe"? It must be either "guilty" or "not guilty".
The whole point is not whether Mustang's action was immoral or not. It is whether his actions then were criminal or not. The fact that he broke no rules/laws meant he committed no criminal act.
There are rules of war, for civilized societies. And they did not come into existence with the advent of technological weapons as a means of pure self-preservation either (though techology did force such rules to expand). Example: in Shakespeare's "Henry V", the French murder the page boys behind the lines of the English troops when it becomes clear their forces are going to lose the main battle. The king's aide-de-camp Fluellen says "'Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your conscience, now, is it not?" So the idea that even in war there are some things you just don't do has been around at least since Shakespeare's day, and much earlier than that.
Soldiers can't be blamed by people like us for taking revenge on civilians for example - we never were in such an extreme situation under such circumstances.
Sorry, I disagree 100%. We absolutely can hold soldiers accountable for extreme actions against civilians. Our troops cannot go about shooting up hospitals in a captured territory in Iraq to blow off steam. They would be arrested and court martialed, and justifiably so.
Likewise, we look at the revenge taken by the Nazis against the citizens of Prague for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich as a war crime. But by your argument, it is something that can be overlooked because a few partisans pulled off a poor assassination attempt on a very cruel and genocidal butcher.
Yeah, we are getting too serious but I feel that the topic is serious (even though the context and environment is fictional).
Hey, that's OK, philosophical and legal arguments are very often framed in the context of fictional circumstances. It's a very poor thinker who can't examine a "what if" situation, and by its nature a "what if" must always be in some kind of fictional environment.
Hmmm... seems someone added a "Maybe" option to the poll. A popular selection, but you're aware that a jury cannot return a verdict of "maybe"? It must be either "guilty" or "not guilty".
Well try answering my previous questions and explaining your answers and maybe we might be able understand why there is a maybe... as for a verdict of maybe, ever heard of a "hung jury"?
There are rules of war, for civilized societies. And they did not come into existence with the advent of technological weapons as a means of pure self-preservation either (though techology did force such rules to expand). Example: in Shakespeare's "Henry V", the French murder the page boys behind the lines of the English troops when it becomes clear their forces are going to lose the main battle. The king's aide-de-camp Fluellen says "'Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your conscience, now, is it not?" So the idea that even in war there are some things you just don't do has been around at least since Shakespeare's day, and much earlier than that.
Nope. I had replied to this much earlier. Sense of "honor" & "prestige" remember? The code of chivalry is just that. Some set of rules/laws to elevate a bunch of trained fighters to a created social rank above peasants. In effect, they are saying these knights are better than the common you and I, that they the superiors would not stoop so low as to draw a bow or hurt an unarmed man (but to kick a peasant with an armored boot is ok). It is an attempt to create a social hierarchy.
Civilized societies are not compulsed to dictate rules for the wars they participate in. What you are quoting from is literature. That piece of literature is specifically designed to stir hearts and encourage loyalty to the British Crown. That is not history. Allow me.
Source: The Military Campaigns of The Wars of the Roses by Philip A. Haigh
The Battle of Wakefield 30 Dec 1460
"Edmund, Earl of Rutland and Sir Robert Aspall were captured by Lord Clifford at Wakefield Bridge, and with the words 'By God's blood thy father slew mine and so will I do thee and all thy kin', Clifford drew his sword and slew them both. This murderous act, in conjunction with Salisbury's execution, set a precedent of summary killings that would follow after every battle, no matter who the victor, for the rest of the war."
Slaying prisoners of war in cold blood and these acts are further repeated in the years that follow (how many years would you ask? 1455-1487). Prisoners are only spared if they agreed to switch loyalties or are highly valued in political points or ransom value. In fact, prisoners are mostly noblemen. The rest of the army are often killed just simply for fighting for the other side or left to run away because they have no value or threat (in other words, the effort to run them down is not worth it to the tired combatants).
The Battle of Barnet 14 April 1471
"When the rout began, Edward became aware of Warwick's plight and actually ordered some of his retainers to ride to the earl's assistance in order to save his life. But when they finally caught up with him, it was too late - Warwick, his visor prised open, had been killed by a knife thrust through the eye, his corpse robbed and stripped of its rich armor."
Here is a wonder. The opposing leader actually wants to rescue a valued opponent. Be realistic. Warwick is the kingmaker then. To have Warwick swear fealty to him, Edward would have an easier time becoming king. But what happened to Warwick? Warwick was retreating from the battle when Edward's men-at-arms unhorsed him and instead of capturing him, killed him and robbed his cooling corpse.
The Battle of Tewkesbury 4th May 1471
"At the same time, no doubt in moment of exultation, he pardoned all there who had fought against him. But the abbey did not hold legal status as sanctuary, and shortly afterwards the Yorkist king retracted the pardon and the Lancastrians were taken by force and placed in custody to await trial."
Powerful was the church then but not as powerful as the man who becomes king for his word is law. Thus he could decide as he wish. The outcome? 12 found guilty of treason and beheaded at the local marketplace. 3 spared because they swore fealty.
So in the medieval ages, the European fields of war are only dictated by the words of the lords and sovereigns. Most of their concerns are for their positions. Concerns for others are generally reserved only for the powerful influential lords on both sides (they can give him power). Hence any orders to spare someone would be these lords. The common peasant cares nothing for these lords and would gladly kill and rob them. If you were a peasant in those ages, you either die or hope you survive with all limbs intact because all wounded and incapacitated on the fields are "scavenged" by the victors. If you were a nobleman, hope that the ones that found you are your close friends or another nobleman who recognises your value.
"To the victor goes the spoils" and so does the decision of who is to be spared or sent to his/her maker.
Sorry, I disagree 100%. We absolutely can hold soldiers accountable for extreme actions against civilians. Our troops cannot go about shooting up hospitals in a captured territory in Iraq to blow off steam. They would be arrested and court martialed, and justifiably so.
Or such events can be covered up. Or simply accepted as acceptable actions of war. When your country has achieved overwhelming victory against the vile scum that killed your manfolk, raped your women and ate your children, who is going to care that their men were killed, women raped and children eaten? When you enter the state of unrestricted warfare, all bets are off ladies.
In a city where there are known hostiles, who are the civilians and who are the combatants? Is it up to you to decide the soldier's life when he enters a room and a young boy rushes up to him screaming in a language foreign to him?
Likewise, we look at the revenge taken by the Nazis against the citizens of Prague for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich as a war crime. But by your argument, it is something that can be overlooked because a few partisans pulled off a poor assassination attempt on a very cruel and genocidal butcher.
The Nazis lost. If they had won, guess who would be the war criminals?
Asakura_Y0h
2004-02-27, 21:37
I don't feel that Mustang is in the wrong cause at that time he was a soldier receiving orders. That's all..... furthermore, everyone who joins the army initially has their own dreams and aspirations to serve the country that they love..... you can call this a self created dellusion that most will wake up from one day and have nightmares about over and over again later in life like most war veterans have...
but this is my my opinion ... humans are in a way a, just a higher form of animals... the only thing that seperates us from the fauna is that we have the ability to control our instincts more than they do.... however we still fight for survival and competition is still high.... war will always be a part of our lives be it a big or small one... we will always be fighting one another to gain over each other.... afterall.. we are human....
sometimes i feel that we are taking a big step ahead with the reduction in the number of wars that have occurred all over the world... but then terrorists come into the picture and then we are back to square one.... although I can't deny that today's conditions are much better than previous years.... still... its a proof that wars will always occur... hack even in the workplace people still fight although they don't kill...
another theory is that this is just nature's way of elimination... maybe population control.... like a pride of lions against another.... ok starting to blabber on.. will let you guys do the talking to comment on this
Rheinhard
2004-03-01, 01:57
Well try answering my previous questions and explaining your answers and maybe we might be able understand why there is a maybe... as for a verdict of maybe, ever heard of a "hung jury"?
Yes, of course. However you should be aware that in cases where there is a hung jury, the case is re-tried.
Also there is a certain strategic component to deciding the charges to present to the jury to decide on. Sometimes, knowing that a jury might be tempted to go with a weak sentence (like a "maybe") a prosecutor may only present the jury with the option of a strong conviction with heavy penalty (e.g., Murder 1) or nothing. Not wanting to let the perp get away scot-free, the jury will then convict on a stronger charge than they might have otherwise. Another reason I initially didn't want to present a Maybe option, figuring a lot of people would choose it rather than think more seriously about the question one way or the other.
The Nazis lost. If they had won, guess who would be the war criminals?
Yes, yes, yes. The point of my original question wasn't really intended to set up a narrow legalistic haggle over who gets to decide what war crimes are. (I am really rather surprised at this turn of things, in truth.) I was more interested in the moral questions. Reducing everything to the simplistic "They can only be prosecuted if they lose" boils the question down to a rather absurd point. Your thesis would imply that it is only the act of prosecution which causes a "crime" to exist, in an almost quantum mechanical sense. Were there no war crimes committed in Rwanda then, where half a million Tutsi tribespeople were hacked to death with machetes by rival Hutus, simply because organized trials haven't been set up en masse?
I should quote the following (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq6.html) :
"People throughout the world obviously care about what is called jus in bello, law governing conduct during war. This is so even if they differ about jus ad bellum, law governing not the conduct of war but rather the resort to force itself. But even while there is agreement on the need for fundamental rules governing the conduct of war, there is profound disagreement over who has authority to declare, interpret and enforce those rules, as well as who -- and what developments in the so-called art of war -- will shape them now and into the future. In short, who ''owns'' the law of war?"
Yes, of course. However you should be aware that in cases where there is a hung jury, the case is re-tried.
Also there is a certain strategic component to deciding the charges to present to the jury to decide on. Sometimes, knowing that a jury might be tempted to go with a weak sentence (like a "maybe") a prosecutor may only present the jury with the option of a strong conviction with heavy penalty (e.g., Murder 1) or nothing. Not wanting to let the perp get away scot-free, the jury will then convict on a stronger charge than they might have otherwise. Another reason I initially didn't want to present a Maybe option, figuring a lot of people would choose it rather than think more seriously about the question one way or the other. Aye it is a weakness I find in the jury system. The general populace do not like the burden of judging someone and later discovering that they could be wrong (guilt). Or they have that fear of retribution from the perp (who can escape or get his homies to hit). Even if there is a majority of concientious citizens, the derelict citizen is in effect a hinderance to the the former in the jury's process. So a criminal could get off with a lesser charge or scott-free under this system.
Regarding the hung jury, the case can be thrown out after repeated sessions or justice can be miscarried (in the worst case). In the end, the fact remains that the end verdict is not because people recognise the right and wrong but rather influenced via time and peer pressure to end the case.
The point of my original question wasn't really intended to set up a narrow legalistic haggle over who gets to decide what war crimes are. (I am really rather surprised at this turn of things, in truth.) I was more interested in the moral questions. Reducing everything to the simplistic "They can only be prosecuted if they lose" boils the question down to a rather absurd point. Well, you should have titled it clearer then. Something like "Is Mustang morally wrong in killing two doctors who were just following the hypocratic oath?" or shorter :P.
But then it would have been followed instead with "What are morals? Are they absolutes? Who decided and agreed that one's morals are everyone's morals?" etc. And it would be better served if someone answers my posed questions and provide a guideline on what morals should be.
Were there no war crimes committed in Rwanda then, where half a million Tutsi tribespeople were hacked to death with machetes by rival Hutus, simply because organized trials haven't been set up en masse? Well... let's get legalistic again :lol:. Did the Tutsis' sit down with the Hutus and argued over the finer details of what should be done with each other's forces? Did someone tell the Tutsis' & Hutus "Here old chaps. You shall advance forth and chop each other with this lil knife now. Nothing below the belt or throwing sand in each other's eyes now alright?"
If there were no such rules, what crimes are they committing? The only thing that really happened was a massacre. Funny enough, it is no crime when war happens, the victors are the ones that did the killings and they have cordial relationship with everyone else. Frankly it seems, no one cares...
If you wish to debate the morals on this, do not use the words "war crimes", talk about whether there should be mass slaughter, should the common citizen of another country take a stance against this act, etc.
I should quote the following (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq6.html) :
"People throughout the world obviously care about what is called jus in bello, law governing conduct during war. This is so even if they differ about jus ad bellum, law governing not the conduct of war but rather the resort to force itself. But even while there is agreement on the need for fundamental rules governing the conduct of war, there is profound disagreement over who has authority to declare, interpret and enforce those rules, as well as who -- and what developments in the so-called art of war -- will shape them now and into the future. In short, who ''owns'' the law of war?" Unfortunately, the site this quote comes from is biased in its associations that morals => laws. It does not even bother to argue for the validity of "victors becoming the judge" and such. In short, this site is pro-"my version of war crimes applies to everyone".
I like the old quote of "war does not determine who is right, war determines who is left."
Well unfortunatly that is true. As the goverment mustang works for won that war, it is nearly impossible that he would be charged with war crimes. since he was following orders it would be absurd for his goverment to even so much as file charges aginst him.
As his goverment is the one that is left, that does not leave alot of options to his becoming a criminal.
As for war crimes, unless you have a set of rules that both parties involved in the war are aware of and agreed to the entier idea of a war crime is absured. I have always viewed it as a copout goverment use to kill influental people that could still possibly pose a threat. As was mentioned people who are of value, yet commited the same or wose acts are saved, and used by the victor.
In a war you do what it takes to win. If given the choice of killing 500 civilians your location will not be found and you and your 500 troops will live. or bypass the 500 civilians and march right into a larger enemy force where defeat is assured. most will kill the 500 civilians, I probably would.
Lemartes
2004-03-01, 19:44
Sorry, I disagree 100%. We absolutely can hold soldiers accountable for extreme actions against civilians. Our troops cannot go about shooting up hospitals in a captured territory in Iraq to blow off steam. They would be arrested and court martialed, and justifiably so.
Likewise, we look at the revenge taken by the Nazis against the citizens of Prague for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich as a war crime. But by your argument, it is something that can be overlooked because a few partisans pulled off a poor assassination attempt on a very cruel and genocidal butcher.
I'm not saying, that war crimes are not something to blame.
But _we_ can't blame soldiers commiting war crimes, because we don't know anything about such a situation.
The revengue of russian soldiers in WW2 for example. They followed the german army and saw what the wehrmacht had done to their countrymen and citys/villags. Dead wifes, parents and children.
For sure the revenge of russion soldiers was inexcusable. But can we blame someone who lost his entire family to take revenge?
And for the Praque assassination: this wasn't done by normal soldiers in gernal/most cases, but by SS-"Totenkopf" special forces.
And who didn't follow the order was shot - can you in your position blame someone for following the order to save the own life?
Even though I think it was a crime, I (as someone who was never involved in a war) can't.
144M_HYPERION
2004-03-01, 21:45
"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" Cicero
In the time of war, the law falls silent.
In a very extreme way of saying, anyone who participate in the war + killing other people are war criminals whether their reason is just or not. Killing people is wrong at the first place. So is there really true war criminal ?? Well if there is then every soldier (almost all of them) will be one of them isn't it?
dreamless
2004-03-13, 06:17
well, even if Roy Mustang is a war criminal, I'd say it's not because he killed Rockbells couple. He burned down entire city blocks with his augmented "fire alchemy". There have to be numerous civilians involved.
Let's say if the Ishbar rebellion was successful and gained independence, he would most likely be handed over by the Military to the Ishbars and executed as a war criminal.
i don't think that anyone can say, what mustang did was not wrong. his life was not on the line as he killed the parents of winry (it's not like you can't refuse too shoot someone and as someone said before me, why didn't they just arrest those two?) and it also was really not necessary to blow up the whole town, when it was said that the ishbal people didn't have any military. how could anyone say, that there is nothing wrong with that as long as you win the war? i mean, in the anime itself they call it the "ishbal massacre" and roy mustang was a main part of it!
yeah, he is a cool character, but what he did was inexcusable. if winry found out, who killed her parents and for what reasons, which character would have your sympathy if she would go to law? does scar have you sympathy as one of the main characters allthough he is killig state alchemists? mustang obviously did something wrong in his past and as one can see, he regrets his deeds to some degree allthough he's not thinking too much about as it seems, (the doctor, who created the stone actually thinks that he deserves to die) but i don't think that just regretting it a bit would redeem himself.
SketchyMcChips
2004-03-13, 10:33
War is a really messy business - especially where ethics are concerned. Western society teaches us that War can sometimes be a necessary evil, but if it has to be carried out there are some rules that we should stick to.
In FMA there is nothing to suggest that they have international war crime tribunals like we have - so who is going to judge them?? The military won the 'war' using means that were approved by commanding officers so they're not going to do it. The people seem happy with the outcome of the war, possibly because any media that there is will be under the control of the military - but that means there will be no public outcry.
Now lets move on to the reasons why Mustang did what he did - i can't honestly remember what his rank was at the time, but it was lower than it is now by quite a bit. Now i'm not a military guy, but I can guess that disobeying orders is a courtmarshalling offence - espcially in wartime. We have no idea what kind of punishment awaited those who were courtmarshalled(but we do know that the military carries out capitol punishment - and we've also been able to see what happened to some of the prisoners). In World War I at least, british soldiers who deserted or disobeyed orders would be shot. So theres a possibility that he did what he did to preserve his own life and until you're put in the 'kill or be killed' situation, no matter the morality of the sistuation, you can't know how you would react. The self preservation instinct is very strong in humans.
dreamless
2004-03-13, 11:43
well, although he looked quite reluctant in killing that doctor couple, he did look quite cool when he blew that whole city block up. I guess later he get used to the war unlike earlier when he was still a "newbie".
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.