Col. Roy Mustang: War Criminal?

[Rheinhard]

Originally Posted by Yebyosh

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.

Originally Posted by Yebyosh

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 :

"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?"

[Yebyosh]

Originally Posted by Rheinhard

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.

Originally Posted by Rheinhard

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.

Originally Posted by Rheinhard

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.

Originally Posted by Rheinhard

I should quote the following :

"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".

[Umbrae]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[Kiro]

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]

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]

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".