Quote:
The basis of international humanitarian law is the principle of distinction, which applies in all armed conflicts. This principle obliges “Parties to a conflict” (i.e. the warring parties, whether states or non-state armed groups) to target only military objectives and not the civilian population or individual civilians or civilian objects (e.g. homes, schools, and hospitals). Failing to make this distinction in military operations represents an indiscriminate attack and is a war crime.
Similarly, although it is understood that it is not possible for parties to a conflict always to avoid civilian casualties when engaged in military operations, international humanitarian law also requires that parties to a conflict take precautions in any attack to minimise civilian deaths and injuries. Attacks likely to cause deaths or injuries among the civilian population or damage to civilian objects which would be "excessive" compared to the expected military advantage must be cancelled or suspended.
These rules are generally considered to be customary international law, which binds every party to a conflict – government or non-state armed group – whether or not the state on whose territory a conflict occurs has ratified the relevant treaty.
|
International humanitarian law
i don't see folk saying that this necessarily *was* a war crime, but it sure as hell is actionable.
and it would seem to me that insisting on the requirement of rules of war, and by extension some notion of the rule of law, in a war situation acknowledges a whole lot more "flawedness" about people than its inverse. it does not assume competence or self-control. it does not assume any particular commitment to being in a theater of operations or not. it makes some strictures. you don't kill little kids. you don't kill civilians. you don't rationalize away killing a little kid by blaming the parents for bringing the kid into a situation.
no fine discrimination is required here. you just don't do that. it is not acceptable.
alot of conservative arguments against rules of war come more from political opposition to international law and/or international tribunals--conservatives are obviously tied to nationalism and without the nation-state as central, they've neither anything to say or any tactics. so they've every interest in opposing this, but the fact is that they, too, in the main operate without thinking through the meta-argument, so without thinking out the consequences. alot of the bush period "thinking" about their favorite novel the "war on terror" demonstrates just how wrong this rejection of thinking out consequences can go.