Is this a war crime?

There may be a cover up and if so, let's get at the truth, but I want to agree with Jim; no "war" crime if war is not declared.

Shali has anyone said America should be exempt? Just wondering why your stating it should not be; thanks.
 

Rose, my term "should" referenced the belief that even the "good guys" should be subject to impartial investigation. Because of global politics, that is not always easy to achieve. Perhaps I could have been more specific.
 
RadishRose said:
There may be a cover up and if so, let's get at the truth, but I want to agree with Jim; no "war" crime if war is not declared.

Shali has anyone said America should be exempt? Just wondering why your stating it should not be; thanks.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the key word in Shalimar's post is an 'independent' investigation. The fox should never investigate who stole and ate the chickens right? I think I read that NATO, the US Dept. of Defence and some branch of the Afghan military (?) are investigating. Considering that one of NATO's most influential members is the US.....how independent is this really?

And I came across this statement that seems to indicate that this might be a war crime 'depending on what the investigations come up with'.




US Defense Secretary Ash Carter has promised a full investigation into the airstrike.
Under international law, the bombing would only be a war crime if it was proved that the hospital was attacked intentionally, legal experts told Reuters.


http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151006/1028074883/un-investigate-kunduz-bombing.html


So 'declared' war or not, still a war crime if it was intentional. What do you want to bet a few people are feverishly working to cover their butts?
 

Debby, in my book, intentional bombing of that hospital would be a war crime. It is important for all countries to abide by international law. However, I don't want to go into "j'accuse!" mode until more information is known.
 
That's what an impartial inquiry would try to find out.
If the bombing continued after MSF made contact when it started then how is that accidental?
 
Shalimar said:
Debby, in my book, intentional bombing of that hospital would be a war crime. It is important for all countries to abide by international law. However, I don't want to go into "j'accuse!" mode until more information is known.
Click to expand...

RadishRose: =#333333 said:
Debby, why would we bomb a hospital intentionally?]

Early on, I believe I read an article where it was suggested that 'someone' said there were terrorists inside the building and shooting at the ground troops which was the justification for bombing the place.

And I'm not the one who said it was intentional all though if it turns out that 'someone' said there were terrorists in there and that's why they bombed it, then it would easily be considered 'intentional' wouldn't it? My reference was a repetition of what a legal expert had said on what constitutes a 'war' crime.

The question is, if the hospital advised the military agencies numerous times of their location AND while it was happening, called for them to stop killing people, why didn't they?

I guess the onus is on the military (both sides) to prove that all the notifications of location and what was happening disappeared into the darkness of space and that's why they bombed and kept bombing in which case a begrudging acceptance of the excuse might be in order. Either that or admit that killing terrorists was more important (which would be the Israeli defence when they blow up hospitals).
Click to expand...
 
I guess if it's a crime it should be treated just like a civilian crime including proving a crime "might" have happened, physical evidence, intent, INTENT is the key, were the rules of war purposely or accidentally ignored ie negligence. Mitigating circumstances? Would firing on enemy in or near the facility be considered self defense?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top