UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime

[Anomalism]

If found guilty the United States should prepare itself for a strongly worded letter from the UN.

UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime - Al Jazeera English

The suspected US-led air strike on a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz that killed at least 19 people, including 12 members of Doctors Without Borders (MSF), was "inexcusable" and possibly criminal, the UN's human rights chief has said, as the Pentagon ordered an investigation into the deadly raid. Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein called for a full and transparent investigation, noting that, "if established as deliberate in a court of law, an air strike on a hospital may amount to a war crime". "This event is utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal," Zeid said in a statement.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Probably not.

It is no doubt a serious mistake, inexcusable, and the US should receive international condemnation for the act. But it would be a stretch to suggest it was a war crime.

According to the first rule of the Geneva Convention on "Distinction between Civilians and Combatants," a crime would be directing an attack against civilians. If it can be shown that the intention was not to hit a hospital, then the "directing" part is not applicable. Thus not a crime, just an inexcusable accident. Mistakes in warfare occur all the time, but that does not make each one criminal. There is additional war crimes material that covers subjects like Indiscriminate Attacks, or distinguishing between "civilian objects and military objectives" but that the UN would have to show is a pattern of behavior to use those sections of the convention. The problem with the Convention and the enforcement provisions involve some rather weak language on who gave and what exactly was the order, was it a willful act to commit war crimes, and participation in the investigation.

To me it reads that investigators would have to establish that it was an entirely deliberate act, from a willful military leadership order to strike a civilian hospital to the actual execution of the strike on that hospital, on the part of the US for this to be a war crime. I doubt that chain of establishing the willful part will be found.

 

[Thoreau72]

If found guilty the United States should prepare itself for a strongly worded letter from the UN.

UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime - Al Jazeera English

The suspected US-led air strike on a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz that killed at least 19 people, including 12 members of Doctors Without Borders (MSF), was "inexcusable" and possibly criminal, the UN's human rights chief has said, as the Pentagon ordered an investigation into the deadly raid. Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein called for a full and transparent investigation, noting that, "if established as deliberate in a court of law, an air strike on a hospital may amount to a war crime". "This event is utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal," Zeid said in a statement.

As Nixon pointed out, when the President does it, it's not illegal. Elegantly simple, the foundation of the Unitary Executive.

When the US does it, it's not illegal. When the US accuses Russia of doing, it must only be true.

The irony is rich indeed.

 

[PoS]

As Nixon pointed out, when the President does it, it's not illegal. Elegantly simple, the foundation of the Unitary Executive.

When the US does it, it's not illegal. When the US accuses Russia of doing, it must only be true.

The irony is rich indeed.

Yup the irony of war crimes is that the Western powers and their allies could never ever be accused or convicted of such regardless of facts or circumstances. It's victor's justice, not a moral universality.

 

[Bob N]

Probably not.

It is no doubt a serious mistake, inexcusable, and the US should receive international condemnation for the act. But it would be a stretch to suggest it was a war crime.

According to the first rule of the Geneva Convention on "Distinction between Civilians and Combatants," a crime would be directing an attack against civilians. If it can be shown that the intention was not to hit a hospital, then the "directing" part is not applicable. Thus not a crime, just an inexcusable accident. Mistakes in warfare occur all the time, but that does not make each one criminal. There is additional war crimes material that covers subjects like Indiscriminate Attacks, or distinguishing between "civilian objects and military objectives" but that the UN would have to show is a pattern of behavior to use those sections of the convention. The problem with the Convention and the enforcement provisions involve some rather weak language on who gave and what exactly was the order, was it a willful act to commit war crimes, and participation in the investigation.

To me it reads that investigators would have to establish that it was an entirely deliberate act, from a willful military leadership order to strike a civilian hospital to the actual execution of the strike on that hospital, on the part of the US for this to be a war crime. I doubt that chain of establishing the willful part will be found.

Sir: you're correct.

 

[spangledbanner]

I dont care about this at all. I am upset that Russia may be killing civilians in Syria. I fully agree with USA on that. Russia needs to be more careful. The last thing we want to see is that Russians have collateral bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital and killed a heap of aid workers. Russia needs to listen to Obama.

 

[joG]

If found guilty the United States should prepare itself for a strongly worded letter from the UN.

UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime - Al Jazeera English

The suspected US-led air strike on a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz that killed at least 19 people, including 12 members of Doctors Without Borders (MSF), was "inexcusable" and possibly criminal, the UN's human rights chief has said, as the Pentagon ordered an investigation into the deadly raid. Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein called for a full and transparent investigation, noting that, "if established as deliberate in a court of law, an air strike on a hospital may amount to a war crime". "This event is utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal," Zeid said in a statement.

If the UN wants to be responsible for fighting international terrorism, it can avoid collateral damage. As long as it does not believably guaranty general security in robust form, it should shut up.