Pacifier... look at your own post!
Certain *incidents* require further investigation. If they're incidents, they are NOT war crimes. They'd need to be pre-planned and on purpose.
- The Palestine hotel: you have to protect civilians if possible. But if the civilians stay in a combat zone, they're putting themselves in danger... The US says there was firing in the general area, which makes it a combat zone. I.e. the journalists there should have moved away.
- The museum: if the US is able to protect certain sites in central baghdad, that does not mean they can protect *every* site in the city. And suppose they set up a tank in front of the site, and have to shoot looters... more war crimes? It's just not that simple, as usual.
You cannot set up *one* tank or humvee - that would isolate these protectors; they'd be open to attack from enemy fighters... there was still a war going on, remember?
(by the way... your take on the ICC is not quite accurate. If the US launches an investigation into war crimes, the ICC is out of the loop. Whether the US punishes the soldier or not does not matter. They have to bring him to court, that's it.)
Last edited by Dragonlich; 04-24-2003 at 01:35 AM..
|