# Talk:No Gun Ri massacre

The chronology of events is unclear, especially in the lead. I would appreciate if someone who has more understanding of the subject could clean it up. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Compassionate727, the lead confuses by saying the massacre account was found to be correct, and then saying there was an official investigation (which found it to be correct). That first sentence is superfluous, including the mention of undefined "disputed details," secondary matters that emerge in specific form later in the body. I will clarify the lead. Meantime, if you can point to other passages that you believe confuse the timeline, please advise. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am undoing the edits done on 3 November by 139.153.56.179 as gratuitous and unexplained, and for introducing errors. Attributing the casualties in the infobox to “reports” is incorrect, since these were official findings of two governments (“South Korea’’ and “the U.S.”). Also, it’s important to identify the victims as South Korean, making clear these were “friendlies,” citizens of an allied country. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your interest in this subject is welcome, TheUntamedBig, but if you reread the article you’ll see that all of the points covered in your edit were already addressed higher up in the article.  Examples:

The point that “G.I.s had spoken out” in support is made in the Intro, in the “Events of July 25” section and in the “Associated Press story” section.
Soldier “testimonials” are included in the “Events of July 25” section, the “Associated Press story” section and in the “South Korean report” section. Tinkler’s full “annihilated” quote is in that SK report section.
Korean survivor statements are cited extensively in the “Events of July 25” section.
The issue of “gunfire out” from the tunnels is dealt with in the "U.S. report" and “South Korean report” sections, the latter noting that only three of 52 veterans interviewed claimed such, “and then inconsistently.”
Finally, Edward L. Daily, whom you quote in your edit, was later discredited as an eyewitness. His information was second-hand. (A reread will inform you of that, in the “AP story” section.)
Bottom line: The new section is redundant and introduces some serious disjointedness to a certified “Good Article” that has been well organized. I’ll undo the edit unless you’d like to discuss further. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

With only one notable Exception; "Edward L. Daily". Is there any mentions to all other specific quotes i added? Like one veteran recalling his captain saying "hell with these people, we should get rid of them all". Or the specific quote from a survivor according to a reliable source, saying "the soldiers played with us like boys playing with flies". Those historically important quotes are missing. Given this is an encyclopedia, I feel they should be added in as many verified quotes are currently not there at all but important. The reason for the chapter is so people can read the full unadulterated quotes from verified survivors and veterans as it is right to know for historic purposes, the exact words they used in their testimonials.
TheUntamedBig (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens and dozens of published quotes out there from survivors and ex-soldiers describing the NGR event. The article, very long as it is, distills them into a number of essential quotes. As for the “get rid of them” quote, please see the second paragraph of the “Events of July 25” section, in which soldiers recall orders. Footnote 18 there then extensively quotes a soldier to that effect. To accommodate, however, I will incorporate the woman’s “like flies” quote in the “Events” section when I undo (later today). Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the reworking of the lead paragraph of this certified Good Article by Toobigtokale:
The first sentence has been unusually long for some time. It flowed directly and smoothly enough, but it was unnecessarily long because of non-essential elements, namely, the type of weapons fire, the specific U.S. Army unit, the mention of the bridge, the outdated reference to “an undetermined number” of victims (when the very next sentences provide specific numbers).
The latest reworking, on the other hand, relegates the most essential elements – who the victims and perpetrators were – to secondary sentences in the lead, and neglects to say where this village is (i.e., in South Korea).
I’ll rewrite to trim the original first sentence but prioritize essential elements, with the non-essentials covered later in the intro or deeper in the body of the article. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good toobigtokale (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid, XXzoonamiXX, that you deleted highly relevant, highly important material (Clinton’s statement, the survivors’ lawyers’ position, the South Korean government’s position, the West Point expert’s reference to targeting noncombatants as a violation of customary international law, the Army secretary’s statement on prosecutions, etc.), and substituted a much too long treatise-like digression on treaties. This article is already overly long.
I suggest you come to Talk and propose a succinct (50 words or so) paragraph that distills the technical point you’re making. Seems to me it should say that although experts say the deliberate killing of any noncombatants is a violation of customary international law, the relevant (Hague) treaty in 1950 seems not to relate to the killing of an allied nation’s civilians, but in any event the U.S. Army’s extant Articles of War would have deemed the No Gun Ri massacre a war crime (murder).
That succinct paragraph could then be inserted into the context of what has long been there under “Law of War and No Gun Ri”.
Or, if you prefer, I’ll write that summary paragraph.
Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The information currently presented here is old and there's simply no warning it should have some word limiting on the basis the article is long. Hence, why I decided to delete them and add new information in. I'll write the limited paragraph, but there is some old information that should be deleted to keep the new one relevant. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
How's this? Some of the old one I had to delete to keep this paragraph short and to keep the new one relevant.
"In disclaiming U.S. culpability in January 2001, then-President Clinton told reporters, "The evidence was not clear that there was responsibility for wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible." American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that rationale, asserting whether 7th Cavalry troops acted under formal orders or not, "the massacre of civilian refugees, mainly the elderly, women and children, was in and of itself a clear violation of international law for which the United States is liable under the doctrine of command responsibility and must pay compensation". Writing to the Army inspector general's office in May 2001, the lawyers also pointed out that numerous orders were issued at the war front to shoot civilians, and said the U.S. military's self-investigation – "allowing enforcement to be subject to the unbridled discretion of the alleged perpetrator" – was an ultimate violation of victims' rights."
"Legally speaking, however, legal scholar Tae-Ung Baik noticed there was nothing in international humanitarian law (IHL) that prohibited belligerent troops from targeting allied nationals in international armed conflicts. The 1907 Hague Convention IV - Laws and Customs of War on Land was insufficient because it only applies to war between opposing nations, not that of an ally. The U.S. also ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions on August 2, 1955, among which contains the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first IHL treaty to specfically deal with civilians in time of war), whose Article 4 also exempts "nationals of a co-belligerent State" from the list of protected persons. Therefore, such acts would fall under the allied nation's municipal law or the belligerent's own military law."
"Despite this, Baik nevertheless wrote that "the No Gun Ri Massacre overtly violates the basic principles of the law of war and customary international law." In its 2005 report, the South Korean government's inquest panel, the Committee for the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims, concluded, "The United States of America should take responsibility for the No Gun Ri incident." U.S. Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement that survivors later complained may have deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying." XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me study and get back to you in 24 hours or so. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again for yours, XXzoonamiXX. I’ve done some reworking and added new material. The version bellow:
1.	Eliminates any mention of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, since they had not been U.S.-ratified in 1950 and so are irrelevant to No Gun Ri.
2.	As with yours, uses scholar Baik to raise the point re 1907 Hague excluded “allied” civilians from protected status.
3.	Adds new points: the U.S. Army’s Articles of War would have covered NGR with the war crime of murder; the Army distributed a booklet saying Hague forbade targeting noncombatants.


### Law of war and No Gun Ri
In disclaiming U.S. culpability in January 2001, then-President Clinton told reporters, "The evidence was not clear that there was responsibility for wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible". American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that rationale, asserting that whether 7th Cavalry troops acted under formal orders or not, "the massacre of civilian refugees, mainly the elderly, women and children, was in and of itself a clear violation of international law for which the United States is liable under the doctrine of command responsibility and must pay compensation". Writing to the Army inspector general's office in May 2001, the lawyers also pointed out that numerous orders were issued at the war front to shoot civilians, and said the U.S. military's self-investigation – "allowing enforcement to be subject to the unbridled discretion of the alleged perpetrator" – was an ultimate violation of victims' rights.
The South Korean government's inquest panel, the Committee for the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims, concluded in its 2005 report, "The United States of America should take responsibility for the No Gun Ri incident", citing six South Korean legal studies as saying that No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity.
In one such study, legal scholar Tae-Ung Baik noted that the 1907 Hague Convention, the relevant international treaty in 1950, seemed to exclude civilians victimized by an allied nation’s military, as with the South Koreans at No Gun Ri, from treaty “protected” status, leaving prosecution to local or military law. But Baik also contended any mass killing of noncombatants remained a crime under “customary international law.” American soldiers sent to Korea in 1950 were issued a booklet telling them the Hague treaty forbade targeting civilians. "Hostilities are restricted to the armed forces of belligerents," it said. In addition, the Articles of War, the U.S. military law at the time, listed murder among its war crimes.
American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri was a practical impossibility. Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement that survivors later complained may have deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying.

 - - -

Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not so fast. The Articles of War didn't mention any correlation between "murder" and "war crimes", it was just simply "murder", nothing else. That can happen to anyone, including allied or enemy nationals, so violating military law isn't really enough. We should also add a statement from the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, which stated the laws and customs of war do not apply to allied nationals themselves. [1] XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. The Articles of War was certainly part of the laws of war in 1950. Under the successor Uniform Code of Military Justice, William Calley was convicted of multiple counts of murder in the My Lai massacre, and he is universally considered a war criminal – after killing citizens of an allied nation.
The rewrite now already mentions the ambiguity in Hague 1907 over the question of allied citizens. I think it would harm, not help, this very long certified “Good Article” to go into further tedious detail on the matter. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
No, the Articles of War itself is not the law of war, it's a military law that regulates the conduct of soldiers in both peace and wartime, like desertion, mutiny, saluting before the officer, drunk driving, and all that kind of stuff. The law of war would be the 1907 Hague Convention or the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Also, the reason why My Lai Massacre was considered a war crime rather than simply mass murder under the UCMJ because a few people knew about Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which does not protect allied nationals from depredations by another. This 1971 paper even addressed this.[2] XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
But it would not harm things if I removed the reference to the Articles of War listing murder among "war crimes." I'll do that, pointing to the regnant Articles of War in some other way. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
So, I’ll eliminate the sentence, “In addition, the Articles of War…” and substitute this for the sentence that follows: “American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri, under the relevant U.S. military law from 1950, the Articles of War, was a practical impossibility.”
And then I'll post the entire revised Law of War section. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)