Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Military Games Idle

Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law 516

Posted by samzenpus
from the waking-up-in-crazy-town dept.
Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law

Comments Filter:
  • Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:37AM (#38301048)

    What's next, virtual animal rights activists?

    • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)

      by pauldmartin (2005952) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:42AM (#38301074) Homepage

      What's next, virtual animal rights activists?

      Actually, yes--check out this little gem from PETAs new anti-mario campaing: http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/ [peta.org] I kid you not.

      • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dexter Herbivore (1322345) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:00AM (#38301192) Journal
        I'm guessing that the PETA and the Red Cross are both just trying to grab headlines with a move that is blatantly stupid. At least, I hope I'm giving their marketing people more credit than their membership.
        • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)

          by xaxa (988988) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:39AM (#38301360)

          It looks like it was a "side event" at a conference. See here [icrc.org].

          I can't find any extra information on the ICRC website, can anyone else? Otherwise, it's most likely that the Daily Mail fabricated the rest of the story. Most of the article is speculation, except for a copy+paste from the website I linked to.

          • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Xest (935314) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:17AM (#38301944)

            The Daily Mail fabricate a story?

            Next you'll be telling me they were involved in phone hacking!

            No, seriously though, if it's by the Daily Mail they're probably actually projecting what they'd like to happen, rather than what actually happened.

            • I've taken Chris Addison's approach to Daily Mail headlines; If you read one, append it with the words "... said Diana through medium." and see if you still think the headline holds any water.

              "Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law" said Diana through medium.
              "Mario kills Tanooki" says Diana through medium.
              "Muslim Fundamentalists Derka Jerbs" says...

              You get the picture.
        • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:44AM (#38301388)

          How to shoot yerself in the foot in 3 steps:
          1. piss off 30% of the world population
          2. watch your donations decline
          3. watch real people die due to shrinking budget
          But at least those virtual soldiers can now rest assured that red cross is thinking about them, which was all worth it.

        • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)

          by SenseiLeNoir (699164) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:24AM (#38301560)

          Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Wail, and they are known for their extreme "angles" on anything. Their "reporting" and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a devil.

          • Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:50AM (#38301712)

            Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Fail,

            FTFY. I've never heard it called the Wail.

          • by rainmouse (1784278) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:56AM (#38301762)
            Ban this game: Its a sick, violent and racist game that cannot be played without a high body count. The whites versus the blacks in this war against race, but the people who make the game decided that whites are superior and must start with an advantage. There is a strong caste social system in the game and players are encouraged to happily send the poor people out to die so that the more wealthy characters are more likely to survive. The sick bastards who play this game never feel remorse with the violence. I tell you, speaking as a mother, this game is making our children into sociopaths. We must ban chess now!
            • by Troyusrex (2446430) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:25AM (#38302014)
              Don't forget the gender bias! The queen is obviously many times more capable than the very limited king but sacrificing her means nothing if the king survives.
            • by operagost (62405) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @11:34AM (#38303312) Homepage Journal
              Not to mention that the pawns can achieve a promotion to any level through hard work and accomplishment, which we know is a lie put forth by bourgeoisie capitalists.
            • Hmm.. Victoria 2? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by wanax (46819) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @03:49PM (#38306776)

              So at the moment I'm playing through a Japan campaign in Victoria 2, which is Paradox's pseudo-realtime complex conquest and development game simulating from 1836-1936. The Brits obviously start the game with a huge advantage (as do the other European powers) and indeed, Japan starts as an uncivilized nation, with major penalties to research and the inability to industrialize among other things. There is however, a path to becoming civilized (which Japan can do through the Meiji restoration decision) and indeed by 1878, I'm in a war with my allies France and (uncivilized) China against Great Britain and the North German federation in an attempt to take Northern India. In this war, about 2.5 million men are fighting on either side, and there will be about 3 million dead (mostly through the British and Chinese armies marching over the Himalayas) by the time the war is over.

              In Victoria 2, each soldier is a member of an individual 'pop' living in a certain province, and having its own needs, incomes and political positions. In this war, there are many conscripted regiments who belong to specific 'poor strata' pops of jobs such as farmers, laborers and craftsmen (which I will note, separate men of working/fighting age from women and other parts of the population). Each death on the battle field decreases the size of the 'pop' by the same number of men. Also, I've enacted policies of minority building restrictions, and a discriminatory schooling system to speed assimilation.

              By this rationale, aren't I doing worse (in both war and peace) in a single playing session than all the Call of Duty players can do in a similar session combined?

          • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by SpooForBrains (771537) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:03AM (#38301834)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc732uzUkw4
            Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Mother Teresa. Not suggesting you take it as God's honest truth without some critical thought, but interesting nonetheless.
      • Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Informative)

        by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:52AM (#38301422) Journal

        Wow. Every time I think Peta can't go any further off the deep end, they top themselves. Anyone remember when they tried to get people to call fish "sea kittens", so that we wouldn't eat them?

        -jcr

    • Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:57AM (#38301772)
      The thing is unlike real people, who are actually more complex people who have families, their own culture, and their own hopes and ambitions to the future. These are mathematical simulations, who are not human or animal they are just logical simulations. What are you going to do now hang everyone who works at the DoD because of their nuclear war simulations? Where they kill billions of simulated people daily to analysis different strategies of warfare, or figure out the worse case. Heck lets hunt down those climate scientist who kill millions of simulated people by applying their climate change models at different rates.
      • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

        You're missing the point.

        In real life, a soldier who commits war crimes might be held accountable for those crimes.

        In order to mimic reality, a game might penalize your character/avatar based on actions you've performed in-game.

        E.g. in the America's Army game, if you kill too many of your virtual teammates, your character will end up in a virtual Leavenworth Prison.

        Nothing happens to you, but it's still a deterrent.

    • Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AgentSmith (69695) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @10:09AM (#38302400)

      We have all been seriously owned. The Daily Mail receives website hits and we banter about on a topic that really has no merit nor a drop of reality in it.

      I post this as a warning to others. Don't waste anymore brain power on it.

      If anyone with influence in the international community takes this seriously it should be struck down and its supporters immediately considered completely out of touch with reality. Then ignored.

    • by durrr (1316311)
      Next up is realizing that diluting human rights by applying it to fictional events is directly counterproductive.
      If they don't then I guess yet another large organization is devoid of intelligence, unwittingly working to undermine common sense and all that is good.
    • Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Blue Stone (582566) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @01:37PM (#38305024) Homepage Journal

      So you don't have to wade through the bullshit in the article or the outraged incredulity of the comments:

      Gamers worried their actions on the virtual battlefield could land them at the Hague war crimes tribunal can relax.

      The International Committee of the Red Cross says media reports that it is investigating whether the Geneva Conventions apply to video games are false.

      The Swiss-based humanitarian group assured gamers Thursday that “serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations.”

      The ICRC says it is nevertheless interested in working with video game makers to promote a better understanding of international humanitarian law because some companies also develop war simulations for armed forces.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

  • by Pubstar (2525396) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:39AM (#38301056)
    I can almost here Jack Thompson weep for not thinking about this first.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe this would be a great selling point for the game? Buy this game, violate international standards of the conduct of war, and make Jack Thompson cry. (Assuming he is capable of such emotions.) Who knows, maybe this is coming up via some vast gaming-wing conspiracy to get the game in the news.
  • what a load of (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:40AM (#38301062)

    What a complete load of shit. Just like the movies. Its not real. Are we going to start arresting actors who pretend to kill in movies ? Its a bunch of pixels changing color and has nothing to do with laws against HUMAN rights.

    • by Stumbles (602007)
      Now you friggin done it!
    • by worip (1463581) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:59AM (#38301180)
      Don't forget the books. Stephen King is a mass murdered and must be stopped.
    • Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Compaqt (1758360) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:28AM (#38301306) Homepage

      It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.

      It's just another element of the game.

      I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.

      Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:52AM (#38301418)

        People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.

        Realistic graphics? Yes. Realism? No. Otherwise military shooters would consist of hours, possibly days, of doing absolutely nothing. Then there might be a 5 minute conflict where you kill a couple guys. Then a few hours later you might end up with a standoff where it takes you 30 minutes just to take out 1 guy. And through it all, if you get shot once in the right place...game over, no continues.

        • by Chatsubo (807023) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:13AM (#38301512)

          Welcome, to EVE online.

        • by blueg3 (192743)

          Have you played America's Army? (Or Final Fantasy 11?)

          Note, also, that "realistic" does not require completeness in the sense of simulating all aspects of daily life equally. It only requires that those events which are simulated are as close to reality as possible. So you can cut actions like walking from one place to another entirely and maintain realism. (On the other hand, if they make you walk from one town to the next but it only takes five minutes, that's not realistic.)

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:06AM (#38301480)

      Its a bunch of pixels changing color,

      That's racist. They should be happy with whatever color they are, and be respected for it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:41AM (#38301064)

    .... the Red Cross had real problems to solve.

  • by jibjibjib (889679) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:42AM (#38301070) Journal

    To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games. I don't think they're saying that gamers are literally violating real-world laws.

    • To me, that's only slightly better.

    • Do they have any comments on the depiction of violence in literature?

    • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:42AM (#38301378) Journal

      The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?

      Sounds like the exact role of the committee : Promoting human rights and international laws of war. I could see real world prosecutions but from an unexpected angle : A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.

      It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies. That could be considered as slander. Imagine that in Deus Ex the evil company you fight would be called Microsoft. Or Mosanto.

      The problem is that it could also be considered as a political opinion, protected by free speech. I think it is an interesting debate. I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.

        You've just described every Mario game, ever.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies.

        No it could not, as that would violate free speech.

        That could be considered as slander
        Fiction cannot be slanderous.

        I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.

        No, it absolutely should be dismissed as silly. There are no worthwhile issues to be discussed here.

    • Exactly. They are saying the gamers are virtually violating, just as they are virtually killing. The Red Cross is correct to suggest that developers should consider allowing virtual surrender, virtual trial for war crimes, or whatever. They are not suggesting any real crime is being committed, but as they have far more experience with the realities of war than developers and gamers, it's fair for them to suggest such things be considered.

      When you look at the much publicised and repeated violations perpetrat

    • Clickbait (Score:5, Informative)

      by bjourne (1034822) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:16AM (#38301530) Homepage Journal
      The whole fucking article is clickbait. Read this one [mashable.com] instead. They are basically debating what influence depicting armed conflicts witout adherence to international law can have on what people think about warfare. It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.
      • Re:Clickbait (Score:5, Informative)

        by N1AK (864906) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:32AM (#38302084) Homepage

        It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.

        Sadly you could level nearly the exact same comment at Slashdot for including this bollocks. Seriously, why the fuck can't Slashdot try and provide news rather than helping flamebait and misinform. The number of people who are likely to see this, think that the Red Cross has gone batshit crazy and never realise that Slashdot is, by fronting for the article, bullshitting them.

    • > To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games.

      And they are making the classic mistake of treating the _symptom_, not the _cause_.

      Fact: [Unenlightened] people love pseudo-power, pseudo-violence, etc. (Not that there is anything wrong with it IN BALANCE.)

      Good luck with changing human nature!

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:43AM (#38301078) Journal

    We have enough reall problems without inventing them. This is wrong headed. Games are just a form of expression like books, movies, other art, etc. I don't think you can accept the premis here without also agreeing that sOmething should be done anytime a film is made or a story is written where someone violates the Geneva convention.

    • by laejoh (648921)
      Second, it would lead us to this [xkcd.com]. Do we really want it to happen? I say the Red Cross must be stopped!
  • by Genda (560240) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:44AM (#38301084) Journal

    In a related scandal, Electronic Arts is being investigated for the use of virtual steroids in its pro sports game line.

  • Two thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0123456789 (467085) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:45AM (#38301092)
    Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda. Secondly, if the Red Cross actually are debating this, perhaps it's in an effort to revise International Humanitarian Law to keep up with the times, inasmuch as International Humanitarian Law actually exists.
    • Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ratbag (65209) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:53AM (#38301134)

      0-9 is right. Please stop putting Daily Mail stories on the front page. They're tantamount to fiction.

    • Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

      by digitig (1056110) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:23AM (#38301286)

      Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda.

      Well, quite. There's a less hysterical account of the story here [kotaku.com]. The concern does appear to be the age-old debate on the effect of violent games on the perception of violence.

      I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation. Still, game makers could make in-game compliance with international human rights law more realistic by mentioning, if the player survives to the end (so it will never happen in unbounded games) that the protagonist might have to answer to the court for their actions a couple of years after game time.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's the best idea I have ever heard! Imagine getting banned from your gaming account because after a while, you end up in in-game court, complete with witnesses and recorded video of you firing down civilians. Excellent. Punishment could range from weeks of suspension to outright ban of account.

        All badges could be stripped etc too. Say good bye to that Purple Cross badge!

      • Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

        by HopefulIntern (1759406) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:56AM (#38301438)

        I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation

        Actually, parts of MW2 had this; I recall the Brazil level particularly which is a frantic run through shanty towns, and it is hard to tell who is a combatant and who is not, as they all rush at you sometimes. If you hit any civilians the game ends, with a warning saying not to shoot civilians.

    • Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

      by retroworks (652802) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:29AM (#38301312) Homepage Journal
      I'm in the USA, and I know to dismiss Daily Mail headlines thanks to years on Slashdot. It would be nice if the Slashdot submitter or moderator could work some kind of a disclaimer into these summaries or headlines. The Onion has funny stories, too. If /. promotes Onion and Mail headlines without warning that they are suspicious, it could harm /. reputation in the long run. With that said, I do know the pressures of "slow news day". Maybe Daily Mail should just be like The Onion and nothing no disclaimer is necessary.
    • Everyone agrees that the headline is sensationalist and basically fiction. And, of course, the /. summary is based on the headline.

      But the article actually makes some sense:

      The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?

      The Red Cross doesn't prosecute war criminals. They see war as an opportunity to do what they are trained to do -- provide medical help, and assist refugees.

      They aren't

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:50AM (#38301110)
    Why are games that let you perform crimes so popular. Because it is fun to be the bad guy with no consequences.
    When you play the evil character it helps the person unwind from a day of balancing things that need to get done and done right. Having mean people being mean but you cannot fight back. So you play a game where you kill as many people you like as a quick release. It is better then start drinking or smoking at the end of the day.
  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:51AM (#38301114) Homepage Journal

    as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?

    i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.

    i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life.

    there is no middle area. its as if either carnage/mayhem or total opposite exists, if you view the world from games' perspective. TOTALLY unrealistic, and tiring.

    so its high time they included humanitarian elements in games. and, humanitarian elements even in carnage/war/destruction games too. REALISM requires that.

  • Lives saved (Score:5, Funny)

    by cheebie (459397) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:51AM (#38301116)

    Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?

    • Re:Lives saved (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:55AM (#38301140)

      Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?

      No, but looking at previous Nobel Peace prizes it looks like you could get the real one.

  • by gjscott332 (1520955) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @06:52AM (#38301128)
    This is the daily mail, pretty pointless reading anything they say about computer without a quick fact check. The wired article make more sense: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/video-games-war-crime/ [wired.com] Playing the game is not a war crime, using a realistic game to train soldiers who then go onto commit the crime in real life could mean the trainer is commiting one as well as the trainee.
  • If virtual killing breaks a law, then there should be a virtual court, and a virtual sentencing (if guilty) and put the person in a virtual prison.

    What they haven't addressed is... What if I kill someone in my imagination? Should I put myself in an imaginary prison?
  • They are not talking about prosecuting the real gamers if they violate laws or international treaties inside of a game.

    They want game developers to include features in their games, that your game character has to face court martial if the gamer breaks laws or rules of engagement. So they want virtual consequenses for virtual crimes. Sounds fair enough for me.

    RedShirt

    • by JBMcB (73720)

      Except it's a FPS game, not a courtroom simulation game.

      This is like saying that Rock Band ignores the hard work of the roadies, and after each game the player should be forced to take the stage apart and pack it up before the next round.

  • It sounds like it is straight out of a South Park episode... More seriously, there is an interesting article about the brain and video games which touches on these issues in the last issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n12/abs/nrn3135.html [nature.com] (subscription needed).
  • by saibot834 (1061528) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:05AM (#38301226) Homepage

    Of course "virtual murder" is nothing like a real murder. But, the depictions in video games do shape our perception of the real world, as do other media (like movies). Most recent high-budget shooters aim to present modern warfare, but tend to show only the positive aspects (adventurous, exciting, etc.), while omitting all the pain and suffering that comes with it. Additionally they show only the very limited viewpoint of one (US) soldier, not the view of the other waring party or civilians.

    In film, we'd call that a "pro-war film" or even "propaganda film", and it's right to criticize those games. (On the other hand, I have no problem with shooters like UnrealTournament or Quake3 – they don't aim to show how the war is, so they don't fail while doing so)

  • by rastos1 (601318) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:35AM (#38301340) Homepage

    While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention,

    Of course they should be prosecuted. Virtually.

  • WARNING - DAILY MAIL (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @07:44AM (#38301390) Homepage

    Please realise that this story is published in a far-right newspaper originally started to publish the antisemitic views of Oswald Moseley. The Daily Mail is anti-government, anti-Europe, against socialised healthcare or indeed any form of social responsibility, and run by people known to be members of right-wing extremist groups.

    If you're not white, English and a good tax-paying servant^Wcitizen, the Daily Mail hate you and want you jailed, deported, or dead.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @08:37AM (#38301616)
    And this, my friends, is why international law is horseshit and we don't abide by it.
  • by MikeyO (99577) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:11AM (#38301880) Homepage

    Next they are going to tell me that online poker is gambling and hentai is pornography, and that "Daily Mail" is real news.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday December 08, 2011 @11:54AM (#38303582) Homepage Journal

    /. please, please, please stop using stories from the daily mail.

    This story is FALSE. Just like almost EVERY OTHER story from the mail. Stop.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday December 08, 2011 @01:59PM (#38305336)

    See here [washingtonpost.com]

    GENEVA—Gamers worried their actions on the virtual battlefield could land them at the Hague war crimes tribunal can relax.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross says media reports that it is investigating whether the Geneva Conventions apply to video games are false.

    The Swiss-based humanitarian group assured gamers Thursday that “serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations.”

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz

Working...