[Rick]

The US civil war remains the most deadly war in that country's history, having caused the death of over 600,000 soldiers on both sides. Only one person was clearly guilty of a war crime during this war and executed for it. He was a european, Henry Wirz, who was born in Zurich and enlisted in the confederate army. He was put in charge of the notorious Andersonville prison, where thousands of union prisoners died as a result of disease, exposure, and starvation.

After the war, he was tried by a military commission, and sentenced to hang. He argued that he was only following orders.

Wirz's history and actions seems to have presaged similar but worse events in the next century.

[Far-Right Sage]

In my opinion, the trial was completely unneccessary and the execution even moreso.

However, it is an interesting historical footnote.

[Rick]

In my opinion, the trial was completely unneccessary and the execution even moreso.

War criminals should go unpunished, huh?

HEAR THAT, OSAMA??? HEAT'S OFF.

[Far-Right Sage]

War criminals should go unpunished, huh?

Soldiers should be excused for all conduct, certainly.

HEAR THAT, OSAMA??? HEAT'S OFF.

Osama Bin Laden isn't a war criminal.

[MB.]

Soldiers should be excused for all conduct, certainly.

Agreed. If the state trains murders, it should not be surprised when they, infact, murder people.

[Far-Right Sage]

Agreed. If the state trains murders, it should not be surprised when they, infact, murder people

Killing in the context of a war is not murder, but I agree with your general sentiment.

[smashthestate]

Killing in the context of a war is not murder, but I agree with your general sentiment.

Murder in the context of a war is, however, still murder.

[MB.]

Murder ≠ the illegal slaying of human beings.

Murder = the slaying or human beings, period.

[Far-Right Sage]

Murder in the context of a war is, however, still murder.

Yes, murders which should be covered up by the nation of which the soldiers involved are fighting for. War is war and death is death. Let's not preach further about the mythical pantheon of "war crimes".

Murder = the slaying or human beings, period.

Using your definition, I do not see murder as at all a negative thing.

[ThirdWorldSoldier]

Murder = unlawful killing of a human being by a human being

[Potemkin]

Murder ≠ the illegal slaying of human beings.

Murder = the slaying or human beings, period.

False. If any killing of a human being was 'murder', then why would we have a separate word for it? Why not just say 'killing', and we would always understand by that word what we now understand by the word 'murder'?

No, there are legitimate and legal forms of killing - the execution of criminals by the properly appointed authorities, the killing of enemy combatants in war, and so on. And as a Marxist, I have to say that I regard the killing of class enemies in a revolution as a legitimate form of killing. No revolutionary can be a pacifist.

[Far-Right Sage]

And as a Marxist, I have to say that I regard the killing of class enemies in a revolution as a legitimate form of killing. No revolutionary can be a pacifist.

Potemkin, just stop it.

If you keep talking common sense, you're likely to be labeled a fascist by Abood's anarchist brigade.

[MB.]

No, there are legitimate and legal forms of killing

All killing is murder, whether legal or not.

[Far-Right Sage]

All killing is murder, whether legal or not.

No, actually it isn't. You're making up your own definitions of words based upon your personal moral classifications. And it looks ridiculous.

[Piano Red]

Soldiers should be excused for all conduct, certainly.

Command Responsibility > Nuremberg Defense.

All killing is murder, whether legal or not.

Incorrect. Killing is killing, it is only appropriate to label it as murder as applied under the artificial constructs of civilization (rule of law, civil rights, etc.).

Getting back on topic however, the primary reason why more Confederates weren't tried for war crimes following the civil war was because Lincoln and his predecessors had the wisdom to know that the country needed time to heal. Putting leaders such as Jefferson Davis & Co on trial would've inevitably led to a guerilla insurgency that would've lasted for decades.

[MB.]

Killing is killing, it is only appropriate to label it as murder as applied under the artificial constructs of civilization (rule of law, civil rights, etc.).

I'm aware of this. But I don't care. Slaying is killing is murder.

Giving it specific legal terminology is tantamount to justifying it.

[PBVBROOK]

Giving it specific legal terminology is tantamount to justifying it.

Of course. There are lots of justified killings. All are sad in one way or another but. But the old Texas defense of "he just needed klling" sometimes applies.

Soldiers rarely murder. They do sometime needlessly kill. They are entirely different things.

[InterestedInPolitics]

The US civil war remains the most deadly war in that country's history, having caused the death of over 600,000 soldiers on both sides. Only one person was clearly guilty of a war crime during this war and executed for it. He was a european, Henry Wirz, who was born in Zurich and enlisted in the confederate army. He was put in charge of the notorious Andersonville prison, where thousands of union prisoners died as a result of disease, exposure, and starvation.

After the war, he was tried by a military commission, and sentenced to hang. He argued that he was only following orders.

Wirz's history and actions seems to have presaged similar but worse events in the next century.

I have visited this Andersonville Prison many times, learned about the gang that was put on trial (I believe they were called "The Raiders") in the prison and how terrible the conditions were at this prison. Their lawyer argued that the gang was only doing what was necessary for self preservation, but the court martial, conducted by the Union soldier prisoners decided that they should hang. The Confederacy provided them with the wood and hanging ropes.

In my view, the execution and trial of the warden of this military prison was completely un-necessary. The person who ran this prison was made into a scapegoat for things he had no control over, so they hung him to appease the family of union soldiers who died there and those who survived. The hanging was all about appeasing political pressure and little to do with truth or justice.

Killing in the context of a war is not murder, but I agree with your general sentiment.

Murder is murder and killing in the context of war doesn't take away this fact. But I also agree with the general sentiment. What was it, Timothy McVeigh who said, that government teaches be example.

No, there are legitimate and legal forms of killing - the execution of criminals by the properly appointed authorities, the killing of enemy combatants in war, and so on. And as a Marxist, I have to say that I regard the killing of class enemies in a revolution as a legitimate form of killing. No revolutionary can be a pacifist.

But in the end, Lenin and Stalin lost and Gandhi won.

[Rick]

Perhaps we could build a memorial to Ribbentrop, Streicher, Frank, Seyss-Inquart, etc in DC for their unjust executions ... scuse me now - I'm getting emotional - (sob! sniff!))

[PBVBROOK]

But in the end, Lenin and Stalin lost and Gandhi won.

What?

Ghandi is dead and India is a nuclear power in a cold war with its neighbor. It maintains the second largest standing army in the world.

Bad analogy.