AgreeableLandscape

Done, thanks!

I made another comment about that.

As for the first part of your comment, no. Being in the official military of a country is not a crime or entering into a criminal conspiracy, so if a soldier goes rogue and decides to do something they shouldn't, that's only on them. However, if a commanding officer orders a war crime, and it's carried out, then yes, everyone in the chain of command below that, and is associated with the war crime, is a war criminal. Like, say, the US pentagon ordering drone strikes on a hospital. Just trace metaphorical lines from the people that ordered it, and their subordinates, and theirs, all the way down to the people who did the actual act. Everyone that touches that tree is a war criminal. In fact, under the laws of war, soldiers have a legal duty to actively refuse any order they know to be a war crime, and it's a separate war crime to punish a soldier for refusing to commit the original war crime. "I was just following orders" is very explicitly not a defense, IIRC this was actually passed internationally after too many Nazis used that line.

Also, an official national military is a special case where most civilian laws don't apply, that's why we have military law and military courts. But the same is not said for a paramilitary organisation like the Azov.

Yes, you need to do the conspiracy, but, overt agreement is part of that. Just like a hitman simply saying "sure, I'll kill her" constitutes entering into the conspiracy, if, say, whatever initiation oath the Azov makes you recite says anything about working toward racial purity or anything like that, that would probably count. Or, if they at any point help in any way with any of the Azov's war efforts.

Remember that conspiracy law punishes all members of that conspiracy of every crime committed under it. If you and your friend rob a store, and your friend decides to shoot the cashier on their way out, even if they did not consult you, you're on the hook for murder. This video has two scenes with very Layman friendly explanations by a real lawyer of how that works in the US, and what constitutes a conspiracy in general

Also, no, collective punishment is not a thing at least in US law. Individuals commit crimes, individuals get punishments. An individual would have to agree to commit a crime for it to be conspiracy.

https://federal-lawyer.com/criminal-law/criminal-conspiracy/

Federal conspiracy charges are broad and can apply to any individual who conspires with another individual to perpetuate a crime against the United States. Federal conspiracies are charged under 18 U.S.C. 371. An individual can be charged with a conspiracy to violate any kind of federal law.

you do not have to have committed the underlying offense to be guilty of conspiracy. Under the conspiracy laws in the United States, if you act in concert with another individual to perpetrate a crime, you can be held liable as well.

If they take any action in furtherance of any of the atrocities of the Azov, they could be on the hook for all the crimes, depending on the exact wording of the law in the DPR.

There's also abetting, which generally refers to calling for or encouraging the commission of a crime with the knowledge that it could result in the crime actually being committed. Given that, one, tons of Azovs are on record publicly calling for "racial purification", and it's common knowledge (certainly to the initiated members) that the Azov Battalion has actually committed acts toward that in the past and intends to continue, I think that would apply. Depending on the jurisdiction, aiding and abetting could well net you the same punishment as if you personally committed the crime, or some percentage of it.

None of this is legal advice BTW, but I think the vast majority of the Azov are on the hook for at least one serious offense.

Would you say being a member of the Nazi SS in Germany is also not a crime?

You might want to read up on the common legislation and legal doctrine about conspiracy and criminal groups, including the case in the West. Namely, if a group enters into an agreement (that's literally the legal term) to commit some crime, every member of the group is each guilty of every crime involved in the conspiracy, regardless if they participated in any part of the crime or not. It's why entire gangs and underground societies are prosecuted for the entire group's actions, and the Azov committed uncountable haneous crimes. Continuing to vocally identify as part of the group after finding out the commisions of crimes or future planned crimes is almost certainly considered entering into or upholding that criminal agreement.

I'm still trying to figure out what they mean lol. Russian invaders not "get" the same? The people being tried are not Russian invaders, they're members of the Azov. And the DPR is trying them, not Russia.

Redditor is a state of mind. You don't necessarily have to use the site to be one.

As much as I dislike the Catholic Church and their general ideology, I'll admit this was a based moment.

"Everyone who disagrees me is a piece of shit and is siding with tyrants, no I'm not going to actually read their arguments beyond the title."

No it isn't. We're not trying to be like Reddit. Because if we were, why not just use Reddit? There's no reason to make an alternative to something if it's going to be the exact same.

Can't have encryption bugs if you don't have encryption!