Red Cross Investigating Virtual War Crimes

[Darkmantle]

my take on it. The first time i dropped a soldier in MW and realized he wasn't dead, I walked passed him. He then pulled a pistol and shot me. so I shot him back. Obv the wounded in that game just don't give a fuck.

 

[skullduggery]

Wow guys, chill out. Just because the IRC established *one* subcommittee that was probably set up by a younger staff member to take a look at video games (which constantly display the graphic use of more or less indiscriminate violence), and how the medium could educate gamers on how international war conventions work. I think it'd be interesting to put that into effect.

TL;DR: Stop screaming "LEAVE GAMES ALOOOOOOOONE!" every time someone brings up actually relating games to real life.

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

Is teabagging considered a war crime?


Please oh god let it be a warcrime.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Dear Red Cross.

If an enemy soldier surrenders to you in a CoD game, you should always shoot him, 'cos it's a trap.
The law of the universe in Call of Duty states very clearly that dying = respawn within seconds, so empirically surrender benefits no one on either side unless it is a trap.

 

[Notsomuch]

Wow guys, chill out. Just because the IRC established *one* subcommittee that was probably set up by a younger staff member to take a look at video games (which constantly display the graphic use of more or less indiscriminate violence), and how the medium could educate gamers on how international war conventions work. I think it'd be interesting to put that into effect.

TL;DR: Stop screaming "LEAVE GAMES ALOOOOOOOONE!" every time someone brings up actually relating games to real life.

It's up to the creators to decide whether they want to insert that subject matter into their game. It's not their job educate gamers. Also, you don't have to "TL;DR" something that's only 3 sentences long. You could've just added the last bit onto the end and made your post a full paragraph.

 

[Gnarynhar]

Wow, to have eliminated all real-life war crimes so that now in the absence of them, all they have to do with their time is focus on the fictional word of video games. You think such a huge achievement would have been such major news that even I would have heard about it. Yet there hasn't been a peep. Wow, we must deal be dealing with some seriously modest people here!

Please, somebody sit down with these idiots, remind them that war-crimes are happening in the real world that they need to deal with, and in any case, collections of pixels are not alive and are not actually being mistreated in any way. Slap them if you have to. (better yet, sit them down in front of war-crime victims so they can explain why something that's happening in a fictional situation is more important than they are)

 

[conflictofinterests]

It's like this, I think the Red Cross is trying to hold out until the last second on board a sinking ship. While this goes much deeper than the intent of this article reality is like this:

In a REAL war, the biggest bastards win. There are no good guys, or bad guys, only a winner and a loser. If your considering morality in any way, shape, or form, then it's not a real war. If one side is playing by rules of engagement and the other isn't they had best be sure to have them outgunned to a massive degree or they are going to lose... period. It's been so long since powerful nations like the US have been in a real war that we've lost sight of this for a long time, but I think we're starting to regain our understanding of this through both the media (like video games) and observation of world events. Video games showing what a real war is like if your going to win through the brutality involved are basically under criticism for putting reality before political principle.

This was covered in the book "Starship Troopers" and at the very beginning of the movie version to some extent. Personally I prefer to use my own examples in pointing fingers towards Chivalry and Bushido both of which were codes of military conduct and honorable battle. They were great until in the case of Chivalry the side that should have lost decided they didn't want to lose and be conquered and decided to massacre the opposing force with long bows when they took the "field of honor". The Samurai aristocracy got taken down by revolting peasants, in part due to their codes of engagement. A lot of early Japanese martial arts could be summarized as "how to fight dirty against a guy with a sword using modified farm tools".

Right now the world is heading towards one big doozy of a war, indeed if the world ends on 12/21/12 it will probably be due to a war. This was is over economics and trade, not quite the massive battle against an evil empire people like to think of when it comes to war. To put it simply things are coming to a head with China, China has been running a robber economy where it has been violating patents from the first world to produce knockoff goods in sweatshops which it then resells for a fraction of the price. This has lead to China becoming a huge economic power. Rather than increasing the standard of living for it's people however it's been building up it's military and becoming increasingly belligerant. The US cut a deal with China to "borrow" money (to offset what it was losing in taxes) in exchange for not taking direct action hoping that the success in China would have filtered down and changed it's social order. Without going into more details, with the economic state of the US, the issue with it's credit score, and how this affects a lot of nations who have been being similarly screwed (even if a lot of the people there are cheering for the US taking a few lumps, the US isn't the only country losing quadrillions to parent and copyright violations) it's to the point where either China knocks it off and pays repairations, or the rest of the globe eventually collapses and China basically takes over. The thing is though that since China innovates very little (which is not to say nothing at all) that if it DOES knock it off it's going to wind up dropping itself back down into an entirely impoverished hellhole. We're at kind of an impasse, and China has been building up a substantial military to fight with.

I think a lot of people see this coming, some have been talking about the inevitability of an East Vs. West war for decades now as it's creeped closer and closer and the west decided to morally blindfold itself. I think The Red Cross, and various "peace at any price" movements are becoming increasingly freaked out over increasingly trivial things like games as a reaction to it. Especially seeing as anyone with half a brain knows this is going to be about who controls the world, and cultural/societal elimination, as opposed to these glorified police actions we've been calling wars after WW II ended.

Or in short, I think The Red Cross realizes it's moral relevence is slipping and is involved in a bit of QQing as the sad state of reality slips in, and we're seeing that to an extent in media like war games that have beein getting into a "this is how it is" including the brutality, torture, and collateral damage, as opposed to being presented in the antiseptic fashion of a 4-color comic book where the good guys manage to save the day while remaining untouched paragons of left wing virtue.

I don't think the economics of patent violations are what is keeping the economy as bad as it is or that those same economics are what's going to lead into a global war. While it may be true that China is building up a larger military base (I haven't researched it, so I'll go under that assumption for now) it's simply not true that standards of living in China are not rising due to foreign trade. Trade is what's making China what it is today, and if we're going under the assumption, as we normally are in international affairs, that the country is acting, as a whole, in it's own best interests, it's not going to just sever trading ties with practically its entire consumer base. Yeah, patent violations are a problem here, but unless they're a big enough problem to warrant economic sanctions (and I guarantee you, they are not. Whomever is innovating, they don't have enough sway to outvote both the people who don't want to go to war with China AND Walmart.) everyone's going to stay at peace, because they don't want to fuck up a good thing.

If anyone's QQ'ing, it's the people who's copyrights and patents are being violated in China, because tough luck getting any headway.

Also, you might be a very verbose troll, in which case, this secondary wall of text is both unnecessary and hurtful to our lovely threads. For this I apologize, denizens of the Escapist. I note the possibility of you being a troll because of the mention of the 2012 apocalypse. Come on. Every prediction of an apocalypse before has failed, and I'm pretty sure if the world DOES ever end, no one's going to fucking care who predicted it.

 

[conflictofinterests]

So dumb.

How about ensuring that real life armed forces comply with the Geneva Convention before you start looking at how digital characters are treated in a video game.

Well, this subcommittee would be looking into accomplishing the former through the latter. They're essentially saying that "Hey, we see you're studying if videogames increase the likelihood of people violating our spiffy conventions. We'll put money towards that sort of research."

 

[conflictofinterests]

I can cite a few if you'd like

Please do

Sadly, the Times has moved to a freaking payed site, so I can't link the 8+ different articles they had where Israel bombed, shot, or otherwise murdered not only innocent civilians in Gaza but also GODDAMNED UN PEACE WORKERS AND RED CROSS AID WORKERS. They also prevented other workers from entering areas with wounded civilians, causing the death of at least several people. I'll find other sources, but they were my primary. Source for some of those: [link]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/un-israel-kills-driver-on_n_156168.html[/link]

There was an incident where the Israeli army ordered 100 civies into a house and then bombed it less than a day later, killing 24 of them. [link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4206913/Israel-bombed-Gaza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html[/link]

Here's a DIFFERENT story of Israel bombing UN-owned SCHOOLS owned by civies: [link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama[/link]

An incident where the Israeli army forced at gunpoint an 11 year old child to act as a human shield in front of gunfire from Hamas. Here's the follow-up, they were convicted, but an Israeli judge essentially gave them no punishment. Three months probation and a reduced rank from Staff Sargent to Sargent: [link]http://rt.com/news/israeli-soldiers-child-free/[/link]

As stated, incidents involving shooting UN workers.

An incident where a sergeant ordered a sniper to the roof of a building to assassinate an elderly woman walking down the street despite not being even suspicious. (Found this one: [link]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163259/Israeli-troops-admit-killed-innocent-civilians-Gaza-war.html[/link] )

Israel using white phosphorous on civilian targets, a violation of the Geneva convention: [link]http://www.vtjp.org/background/gazaweapons.php[/link]

Here's the search for the Times articles, but the full text can't be read without a login. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=human+rights+gaza&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on

The fact that an entire country can OPENLY slaughter people and get nothing but a "UN condemnation" (despite shooting UN workers) is disgusting enough, and this doesn't include any behind-the-scenes things that Israel and other countries are doing (justified or not, they violate IHL, which is the discussion here).

You forget that the UN is the United Nations, and most of the people there have a "You're either with us or you're against us" mentality concerning the feuding between Israel and Palestine. Plenty of countries are going to back their combatant no matter what atrocities they commit, because they feel a sense of comradeship with the one and/or a sense of antagonism with the other. Israel should be brought into line, but with a combination of their own nukes (They've all but admitted to having) and their patrons on the security council, they aren't likely to get more than a slap on the wrist, as you've noted.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Hey, you have all been trolled by the red cross, just like you were by PETA!

For real though, who cares what they think in regards to things they have no scope of power over. And, I can't really recall a game where you were playing the bad guys and shooting wounded, downed soldiers.

In Skyrim, whenever someone is severely wounded, they'll take a knee and plea for their lives. With one or two exceptions, after they heal enough they'll go right back to killing you, so it behooves the smart adventurer to leave nothing but corpses in his wake.

EDIT:
I especially like the people who insult me and then I fail at intimidating, who attack me, whom I quickly beat to an inch of their life, and who then proceed to insult me more, and still not be intimidated by me. There ought to be a patch for that. They're barely escaping with their entrails inside them, yet they're still talking smack and I still can't effectively tell them to watch their tongue.

 

[WolfLord]

I was thinking about this in skyrim the other day. even if i wanted to leave to let some one who i just nearly beat to death surrender when they go down, I can't. They get back up and attack me again. So i would just finish them while they're down. Forcing my guy to be a psycho war criminal,

 

[aashell13]

the key word is humanitarian; there are no humans in games, only blobs of pixels.

besides, the red cross doesn't try to go after people for depicting war crimes in books or movies, why should this be any different?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Your KIDDING me.

Shooting at virtual people with virtual weapondry, which they can get RIGHT BACK UP equals a WAR CRIME?

REALLY?

The Mario Peta thing was stupid.

The Mass Errect scandal was moronic.

This?

THIS?

My mind is having problems COMPRHENDING THE STUPIDITY.

You want to put 600 MILLION (by THEIR own estimates) people on War Crime trials?

...

I don't even...

Ugghhh...

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Hey, you have all been trolled by the red cross, just like you were by PETA!

For real though, who cares what they think in regards to things they have no scope of power over. And, I can't really recall a game where you were playing the bad guys and shooting wounded, downed soldiers.

In Skyrim, whenever someone is severely wounded, they'll take a knee and plea for their lives. With one or two exceptions, after they heal enough they'll go right back to killing you, so it behooves the smart adventurer to leave nothing but corpses in his wake.

Faking surrender is a war crime in it's self (it lessens the chances of REAL surrenders not ending in the surrenderer being shot), so how can I be held respouncable?

 

[Woem]

The Convention agreed that medical personnel are protected and soldiers would not be experimented upon

Bye bye Captain America.

 

[Firia]

The Geneva Conventions have no jurisdiction over our imaginations or creative works, and The Red Cross cannot dictate whether a movie hero tortures a non-combatant or blows up a bus full of nuns on the way to saving the President of the U.N.

What about movies? Or books? I thought the point of a fictional engagement or conflict was that it was FICTIONAL.

What about "virtual world" (their words) do they not get? It's fiction. Fake. Not real. The same can be said about books, and movies. There's some sick shit in sequenced letters and words. Not to mention in arts and crafts. But video games are somehow more real than these mediums?

Disappointed.

C'mon guys, that's some pretty lazy and cheeky criticism. The IFRCs problem isn't that it's fictional, their issue is that it's participatory. The 2007 TRIAL report expressed concern at FPS players becoming "virtually violent", not that the games were nasty make-believe.

Now this news can either be a good thing or bad thing for the gaming industry depending on how we respond and the results may suprise us. If 'Courageous Restraint' was included in a few games we may begin to better understand the stresses and frustrations of real front-line troops. Sure, 'escapism' might take a hit, but taking the source material more seriously might open new avenues and ideas for games to explore. Maybe we should wait till we know more about the initative before painting up the protest banners?

I get what you're trying to say (and after the round of shots I'VE had, that's well done on my part), but I cannot accept censorship whatever its form. I don't have to agree with the content, but I agree that it shouldn't be censored. It's not real, real people are not having their rights or lives violated, therefore Geneva's code does not apply.

I can draw really well. I can write really well too. If I make a book that allows readers to experience disturbing events on a level of participation, would that be worthy of banning/censoring my book on the grounds that the content violates the geneva convention... of fictional people?

As I mentioned, I've had a lot to drink. That's all the debate you'll get from me. I can close by saying; I don't agree with the assertion that something fictional can violate fictional characters rights lives or wellbeing based on the Geneva Convention, regardless of the grounds of it being participatory. I hope the people in that room all thought so too, and gives this topic a pass to focus on real issues.

 

[OniaPL]

Eh, I'm still going to execute wounded enemy soldiers in most hilarious ways in GoW3.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

Trying to regulate acts of cruelty and violence in video games? HA! That may work with cut scenes, but it'll be as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it comes to mechanics. Even if it's simple tea bagging, players will do whatever they can to their enemies during or after combat. I don't think some vague Human Rights committee is going to make anyone stop and think for even a minute before lining up a shot to some thieving elf's crotch.

 

[Voltano]

The impression I got from this is the player should be held responsible for the deaths of virtual objects representing humans in our games. Which is absurd because that is criminalizing the player for initiating the proper function of these objects in the first place.

And how does this stop just at modern warfare games? Should the Geneva convention, or any other laws in reality criminalizing murder, be applied to other fictional games like Skyrim, Saints Row, or Mass Effect? Should every player be held responsible for triggering the "Death()" function in these objects by performing the natural actions to trigger said function?

 

[ExileNZ]

I'm all for it but first, since they have a much larger audience, they need to make similar laws for what the heroes can do in movies, TV series and of course books.

THEN they can get onto video games.