Quote:
Originally posted by Pacifier
there was this incident where a soldier, according to some reporters who were embedded in the unit, didn't shoot warning shots, but started shooting directly at the truck. he was disobeying a direct order which resultet in the death of a couple of civillians.
warcrime is maybe not the correct term, but i thnik those kind of incidents require a closer look.
|
You can be certain that this soldier will be punished by the US army... But still, this is not a war crime perpetrated by the US President, because he did not order it, nor did he know of it and was capable of stopping it; in fact the US military wanted to *prevent* civilian casualties, and the direct orders to soldiers were to act in an appropriate manner. In other words: the ICC has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
the cultural heritage has to be protected, as far as i know it is an article in the GC. and the museum wasn't looted only at the first day. if i remember correctly the looting began a few days after the major fighting.
plus one of an other problem with that is that this shows somehow the US priorities, protect the Oil ministry but "forget" the museum. Again this doesn't look good for the people down there.
|
1) I believe it was in the "The Hague convention", not the Geneva convention.
2) Baghdad is *still* not 100% safe and secure. The fact that the looting started a couple of days after the major fighting does not mean that area was safe enough to send tanks to. At the moment there are some 11,000 troops in a city of 5 million. How do you propose they protect everything?
3) It shows the US priorities if you believe that it was pre-planned. To me the situation does not show any US priorities, other than securing the city center first, and the rest later (when possible).
If I remember correctly, some western leaders were also accused of war crimes in Serbia (Kosovo campaign), and the charges were dismissed eventually. The Iraq campaign is very similar, so I doubt Bush/Blair would ever be convicted.