NationStates Jolt Archive

We have a thread asking if incompetent governmental economic policy making might be considered a crime against humanity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13856561). To me this opens the door for a broader question.

What of general policies?

The example in the thread above was the economic policies of Mugabe.

China's environmental policies causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every year among it's population.

The diplomatic and security policies of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II led to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and others, in the US and abroad.

The medical policies of several African have led to increased deaths due to AIDS.

The list of policies that lead directly to unnecessary deaths could go on and on.

Should all these be crimes against humanity?

I think every public address George W. Bush has ever given should be a crime against humanity. Particularly the States of Union I had to suffer through while at work.

I think every public address George W. Bush has ever given should be a crime against humanity. Particularly the States of Union I had to suffer through while at work.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bush_strategery.jpg

While they should be, unfortunately it seems that 'executive immunity' is one of those cherished traditions of western culture.
It almost makes you miss the days when incompetent leaders were assassinated.

While I think all of those should be crimes under international law, a crime against humanity has specific (well, not specific, but it is a definite type of crime and many of those things would not fall under and the ones that do would not necessarily so) meaning.

It's all to nebulous, including the economic policy idea. I really think you'd have to show that the policies were intended to cause harm &c. and more than general fuckwittedness. Bad stuff happens all the time, often with the best of intentions.

And, the reality is, as long as your name isn't Slobodan Milosevic, you can do all the crime against humanity you want: provided that you do it exclusively on your own territory. So most of this discussion is extremely speculative.

The Iraq war is definitely a crime against humanity. Way too many civilians have died in that country (along with soldiers) for that war to be justified. "Here' we'll give you democracy because we think you should have it, but we just have to kill a bunch of you in the process."

While they should be, unfortunately it seems that 'executive immunity' is one of those cherished traditions of western culture.
It almost makes you miss the days when incompetent leaders were assassinated.

Like when Abraham Lincoln was killed... oh wait, he did suspend habeas corpus just like George Bush has done.

None of them in my opinion, my definition of a crime against humanity is when deliberate action is taken with the sole purpose of causing extreme harm against humans. All of the options listed could cause harm BUT as a side affect rather than the purpose of the actions taken.

And besides incompetence is very different to deliberate harm, if someone for example accidently drops a brick on someone is it the same as someone who does the same deliberately?

And besides incompetence is very different to deliberate harm, if someone for example accidently drops a brick on someone is it the same as someone who does the same deliberately?

Different, yes, however it is still prosecutable. Again, a crime against humanity is just the wrong term, but allowing these things to be prosecutable under international law doesn't seem so bad of an idea.

Different, yes, however it is still prosecutable. Again, a crime against humanity is just the wrong term, but allowing these things to be prosecutable under international law doesn't seem so bad of an idea.

O i have a big problem with the idea of 'international law' anyway but thats an entirely different issue.

A new dimension regarding that Holodomor thing, don't you think?

Are nonsense. Any crime against a human in its' nature is against humanity. Nazis acts were titled such by Allies but not Stalin's, Wilson's, etc. Are Jews then the only representation of humanity and other humans something else?

The way I see it, governments have enormous power because they have to do certain things that can't be done in any other way. But with that comes enormous responsibility.

If governments can be held accountable for what they did in a meaningful way, that might help to make sure they stick to what they're supposed to do and do it well. In Venice back in the days, when the Doge started a war and Venice lost, he and everyone who voted for it in the council could get the death penalty. I'm not a historian and I'm not sure how it worked out for them, but if anything it might have enforced a certain sense that our leaders aren't top dogs, but simply tools that have to perform a certain function and have no value or importance beyond that.

Crimes against humanity require more than incompetence or error; they require a conscious decision to violate the basic ethical treatment of human beings.

Incidentally, the fact that Stalin was not punished for his crimes against humanity is not an argument against the the concept; it is an argument against current models of enforcement.

I would rather these things be viewed on a case by case basis myself

If governments can be held accountable for what they did in a meaningful way, that might help to make sure they stick to what they're supposed to do and do it well.

and what about the folks that vote for them? : P

We have a thread asking if incompetent governmental economic policy making might be considered a crime against humanity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13856561). To me this opens the door for a broader question.

What of general policies?

The example in the thread above was the economic policies of Mugabe.

China's environmental policies causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every year among it's population.

The diplomatic and security policies of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II led to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and others, in the US and abroad.

The medical policies of several African have led to increased deaths due to AIDS.

The list of policies that lead directly to unnecessary deaths could go on and on.

Should all these be crimes against humanity?

The problem might be that - governments, while culpable - are not necessarily the sole agencies of their 'evils'.

In the case of the US, for example, horrible treatments, lacks of equality, discrimination and political expenditure of one demographic to benefit another... are things that are evil - but they are also quite popular with large groups of voters.

Are nonsense. Any crime against a human in its' nature is against humanity. Nazis acts were titled such by Allies but not Stalin's, Wilson's, etc. Are Jews then the only representation of humanity and other humans something else?

Yes, that's it. It's the Jews' fault. :rolleyes:

What is it with you anti-semites who look to your anti-semitism as the explanation for all things? Are you really so damned scared of Jews?

OOGA BOOGA, GOYIM!

It's pathetic, given how few Jews there are in the world. The trendy thing to do if you're a bigot is switch to hating Muslims; they are a lot more numerous, and hating them doesn't automatically equate to racism. Get with the 21st century, man.

Like when Abraham Lincoln was killed... oh wait, he did suspend habeas corpus just like George Bush has done.

True, but Lincoln wasn't power-hungry, or start a false war.

True, but Lincoln wasn't power-hungry, or start a false war.

We must be talking about different Lincolns.

Tall, baity fellow in a black hat?

At the moment, it is difficult to prosecute people who actually commit those crimes against humanity which currently exist. The world still holds onto an antiquated concept of sovereign immunity, which basically gives carte blanche to leaders to terrorise, torture, murder and otherwise mistreat and oppress their own people.

A related problem is that due to America's refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC and the resulting amendments made to the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court is essentially a paper tiger; what world leader who has committed atrocities against their own people is going to accept the ruling of a court which may sentence them to death or prison if they don't have to?

I don't however, believe that the difficulty in prosecuting current crimes against humanity should prevent us from adding new crimes that fit the general description as we mature as a global community. Where a government has a clear indication that their policies will have a severe and detrimental effect on their people, and leaders are indifferent to the suffering their policies are going to produce, to me this should be classified as a crime against humanity.

I think deliberate intent is a key aspect of crimes against humanity. If you intend to kill innocent people through deliberate economic mismanagement (e.g. the Holodomor in Ukraine) or through military action, or any other means, that constitutes a crime against humanity. Simply making bad policy decisions doesn't constitute that offense; it certainly is neglectful and in serious cases might warrant legal action within a country, but it is not sufficient to merit crime against humanity.

Crimes against humanity are probably the most serious in existence, so I'd say it's something best reserved for only the most deliberate acts of brutality against human beings.

Are nonsense. Any crime against a human in its' nature is against humanity. Nazis acts were titled such by Allies but not Stalin's, Wilson's, etc. Are Jews then the only representation of humanity and other humans something else?

No, the difference is that we couldn't do a damn thing about Stalin without igniting an even bloodier and more destructive conflict, one that would've made WWII look like a harmless wargame.

And besides, nobody during WWII seriously thought that it was only the murder of the Jews during the Holocaust, or even just the victims of the Holocaust alone that warranted crimes against humanity. Terror bombings of civilians in Poland, forced slave labor in German factories, the mass deportations of Slavs to other parts of Europe and the brutal actions of Japan in China more than filled that quota. Now, I know anti-Semites like to play up the emphasis on the Jewish victims of the Holocaust as discrimination (since it's an easy way to attack the Jews and the Holocaust while still retaining a shred of legitimacy), but that's simply not and never has been the case.

Of course, other actions such as the bombings of Dresden are hardly acceptable even if they happened to the "other side"; an innocent person killed is an innocent person killed, even if they happened to speak German instead of English.

economy
enviormanth
diplomacy

Only the intentional ones.

and what about the folks that vote for them? : P
They just get treated like everyone who voted for Bush: with a slightly malevolent "I told you so".