Like, America has committed many war crimes they will never admit to or be prosecuted for *cough*bombing Japan*cough*, but they're not making up a definition. They're using the one they would be prosecuted under, which requires intentionality (not just intentionality honestly, but an actual policy really).
Questioning that intentionality makes sense. Questioning the definition doesn't.
Yeah, and this reason was because criminalizing the unintentional harm of civilians would effectively mean the normal engagement in war was a war crime, making the whole term pretty useless. Killing with some type of precision was not exactly like expected from anyone but snipers in the early 20th century.
But I def think the Geneva Protocols should be updated with grossly reckless behavior, which seems to be what happened here.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Questioning that intentionality makes sense. Questioning the definition doesn't.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But I def think the Geneva Protocols should be updated with grossly reckless behavior, which seems to be what happened here.
Reply
Leave a comment