|
Even something as relatively simple as an airstrike is still sufficiently complex that proving negligence would be extremely difficult. It's not like a video game where someone lazes the hospital and then it blows up 2 seconds later.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:A quick Google seems to indicate that attacking humanitarian workers is indeed a war crime. However the fly in the ointment here is you have to prove that the people involved knew it was hospital, knew there were civilians, knew what they were aiming at, and still pulled the trigger. If they missed another target, or received bad Intel, or couldn't tell their fire was hitting the facility, that doesn't satisfy the criteria for a war crime. Well yea, that's exactly the point I was making, hell there's even limited circumstances where intentionally blowing up a hospital isn't a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Again, if you can prove that the person in question knew full well that it was a hospital, and you can prove that enemy fire wasn't coming from the facility, and you can prove that knowing all this he gave the order, then you'd have a case. If any part of that chain breaks down though, you have nothing. https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule156 "According to the manual, war crimes can also take place by negligence." you don't get a get out of jail free card because the chain of command is flawed
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's arguably not a war crime if either A) they actually were taking fire from the hospital compound, or B) they did not know and could not reasonably have known that the building was a hospital. MSF has said a poo poo load of times that nothing was being fired from the compound, and I would be inclined to believe them over the US military. The 105mm has a range of several miles so I don't even know if the air crew visually confirmed the target or just fired on a target location, which if it's the latter despite the target being a hospital that's actually really impressive. The air crew not knowing it's a hospital they're targeting would of course absolve them of being charged, but to say that no one that passed along the targeting and fire order knew what that building was a hospital or an Afghani being dumb as gently caress and thinking that they were taking fire from it (when again MSF claims otherwise) means that it was almost definitely a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:A quick Google seems to indicate that attacking humanitarian workers is indeed a war crime. However the fly in the ointment here is you have to prove that the people involved knew it was hospital, knew there were civilians, knew what they were aiming at, and still pulled the trigger. If they missed another target, or received bad Intel, or couldn't tell their fire was hitting the facility, that doesn't satisfy the criteria for a war crime. Keep in mind that even if the situation doesn't fit the criteria for Literally A War Crime, all sorts of people are still on the hook for the heinous military crime of Involved In A PR Disaster, and it's very tricky to get off on a technicality for that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Tennessee county prepping resolution asking God to spare them, smite other town instead This makes God sound like Grand Moff Tarkin. "Another target? A military target?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:war crimes can also take place by negligence. this was a case of extreme negligence. the people guilty of the warcrimes are the negligent officers who allowed the attack, and the negligent officers who did not halt the attack after MSF contacted the US and afghani armies multiple times. Again, you have no proof. You're not factoring in that whoever they radioed was in fact relaying that information back to the air crew in a timely manner, if at all. It's not like they opened a loving hailing frequency with the air craft and were talking to them directly. I get that you want someone punished. Could we wait until we actually know what the gently caress happened before you whip out the pitchforks and torches?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Euphronious is operating under the assumption that officials unaffiliated with the actual event (Pentagon) are receiving and issuing initial reports that are 100% accurate. Follow on reports with more information are attempts to coverup. Post accordingly Boon fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Some dude flying a plane is told to airstrike [x] coordinates in Afghanistan just like he's done tens of times before, to support local forces on the ground. He does this intentionally, but doesn't know he's striking a hospital. Spectres have multiple night vision camera pods. Most hospitals are fairly well marked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule156 Negligence does not mean "resulted in a bad outcome" no matter how bad that outcome is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Even something as relatively simple as an airstrike is still sufficiently complex that proving negligence would be extremely difficult. It's not like a video game where someone lazes the hospital and then it blows up 2 seconds later. hmm, MSF made sure every military in the area knows where this place is and that it's a hospital DO NOT BOMB PLEASE - who didn't check the do not strike list before authorizing the strike? that's negligence it starts getting bombed, they contact the US and afghanis multiple times trying to get the airstrike to stop, they get bombed for one hour - who didn't get the message that innocents were being bombed and killed to the squad bombing and killing? whoever failed there was negligent
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Boon posted:Euphronious is operating under the assumption that officials unaffiliated with the actual event (Pentagon) are receiving and issuing initial reports that are 100% accurate. Follow on reports with more information are attempts to coverup. Hey now be fair, reports that fit his/her narrative will be accepted at face value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Again, you have no proof. You're not factoring in that whoever they radioed was in fact relaying that information back to the air crew in a timely manner, if at all. It's not like they opened a loving hailing frequency with the air craft and were talking to them directly. I get that you want someone punished. Could we wait until we actually know what the gently caress happened before you whip out the pitchforks and torches? yeah why everyone gotta pick on the poor little military all the time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
No consequences for anyone! Hooray! e; except the dead and maimed. lol sucks to be them
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Again, if you can prove that the person in question knew full well that it was a hospital, and you can prove that enemy fire wasn't coming from the facility, and you can prove that knowing all this he gave the order, then you'd have a case. If any part of that chain breaks down though, you have nothing. Not at all. If enemy fire was coming from the hospital and you are aware it is a hospital there are still specific restrictions placed on you in regards to response, namely that you only take action reasonable enough to respond to the threat posed and target the military threat only, only as long as the threat persists. You are also obliged to give a warning with a reasonable time before potentially endangering a medical facility. So basically even if people were firing from the hospital there are still specific tests concerning what is an acceptable response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
So, is there anyone in this thread who isn't saying, "Negligence must have occurred for this hospital to get bombed for an hour, and those negligent people should be put on trial"? Otherwise, I think this thread is guilty of war crimes against strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
If the US military was going to go for a war crime they wouldn't pick a hospital. Intentional my rear end, give them SOME credit
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
At the end of the day the MSF is still pulling out from the country, so mission accomplished everyone 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:MSF has said a poo poo load of times that nothing was being fired from the compound, and I would be inclined to believe them over the US military. First problem, and the biggest problem I have with Condiv. Look at the objective facts first. You don't have to like the military, but if your argument starts with "I believe the other guy more", it undercuts the rest of your post a bit. A Winner is Jew posted:The 105mm has a range of several miles so I don't even know if the air crew visually confirmed the target or just fired on a target location, which if it's the latter despite the target being a hospital that's actually really impressive. The bombing started at 2:08am local time. Nightfall makes targeting over that distance difficult. Weather conditions could have made that worse, but I have no way to prove it disprove that at this time. A Winner is Jew posted:The air crew not knowing it's a hospital they're targeting would of course absolve them of being charged, but to say that no one that passed along the targeting and fire order knew what that building was a hospital or an Afghani being dumb as gently caress and thinking that they were taking fire from it (when again MSF claims otherwise) means that it was almost definitely a war crime. As explained above by more knowledgeable posters on the inner workings of how an air strike comes to be - you're making the blind assumption that the orders even made it high enough up the chain to be compared against the do not target list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
If the proper procedures weren't followed there is an argument this is reckless, not negligent, behaviour. That's considerably more serious
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Also a lot of people are acting like this is a rare occurrence at all and the USA's history with blowing up NGO's doesn't exist. There is a reason why a lot of places we gently caress up STAY hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:So, is there anyone in this thread who isn't saying, "Negligence must have occurred for this hospital to get bombed for an hour, and those negligent people should be put on trial"? Yes, everyone who has the slightest understanding of how these things work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:
ah, so it was too dark, rainy, and far away for the air force to verify what they were shooting at and if they were hitting it, so it can't be negligent
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Also a lot of people are acting like this is a rare occurrence at all and the USA's history with blowing up NGO's doesn't exist. There is a reason why a lot of places we gently caress up STAY hosed up. no that doesn't sound right
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:ah, so it was too dark, rainy, and far away for the air force to verify what they were shooting at and if they were hitting it, so it can't be negligent
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:First problem, and the biggest problem I have with Condiv. Look at the objective facts first. You don't have to like the military, but if your argument starts with "I believe the other guy more", it undercuts the rest of your post a bit. good thing i've never said such a thing?  but i'll go ahead and make clear my stance on things i believe what MSF has said wholly, they have no reason to lie i believe the military could be telling the truth, and this was all one huge accident. problem though, is that it was an extremely negligent accident regardless. and the law punishes such accidents because unless you don't, the organization in question does not change or learn from the accident. so yes, i think there should be "blood" somewhere from the US military for this. if it wasn't the grunts' fault, it was the officers'. and if it wasn't their fault, it continues up the chain of command. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:You can't see things from planes, you know how high up they are? When you're stomping down on an ant hill, do you know if you're hitting worker ants or soldier ants? I bet you don't. this is like something i'd post
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:At the end of the day the MSF is still pulling out from the country, so mission accomplished everyone Except like I said before, they're not, and I'm not sure where people keep getting the idea that they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:So, is there anyone in this thread who isn't saying, "Negligence must have occurred for this hospital to get bombed for an hour, and those negligent people should be put on trial"? Not as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Except like I said before, they're not, and I'm not sure where people keep getting the idea that they are. Uh, from the multiple statements they have made that they can no longer safely operate in the area? The reason they are angry is because not only did we kill a bunch of people but we destroyed one of the few centers they had left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
If the same thing keeps happening over and over again, negligence turns into malice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Uh, from the multiple statements they have made that they can no longer safely operate in the area? The reason they are angry is because not only did we kill a bunch of people but we destroyed one of the few centers they had left. Afghanistan is a big country with several hospitals, you realize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:First problem, and the biggest problem I have with Condiv. Look at the objective facts first. You don't have to like the military, but if your argument starts with "I believe the other guy more", it undercuts the rest of your post a bit. The only problem I have with the military is that they don't prosecute themselves enough and have a history of lying or distorting the facts. MSF doesn't have a history of lying so yeah, I think it's totally legit to believe them over the military. The fog of war is a bitch and I've made it pretty clear that the air crew should only be blamed if they were negligent. Having their lives hosed because officer rear end-clown either didn't verify the target or didn't give a poo poo would be hosed up and I would much rather officer rear end-clown get charged if that was the case. And I really, really doubt that it was as simple as (a) call in an air strike (b) start firing without there being some confirmation of verification of the target first, and it's the head of the person that verified it as a legit target that needs to roll, of if it was that simple than whoever made it so targets aren't verified needs to get court-marshaled for negligence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:afghanistan is a country created by russia and britain agreeing to a buffer no man's land between the chunks of territory they took over from Iran Not talking about the same region, but the same idea...
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Not hospital bombing related, but its good to see that the rewriting of history continues unabated in Texas:quote:The Atlantic slave trade between the 1500s and the 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations From a new Texas-made and used World Geography textbook. The publisher is going to make a small correction after a huge backlash on social media, but yeah. "workers" huh? http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/living/mcgraw-hill-slavery-textbook-mom-complaint-feat/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I mean, they do call it the slave-trade at the beginning of the sentence so not sure there's much at stake, there, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
They could have said farm equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I mean, they do call it the slave-trade at the beginning of the sentence so not sure there's much at stake, there, but whatever. yeah, this doesn't strike me as deliberate whitewashing so much as imprecisely mushy and passive phrasing
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule156 That's the Netherlands LoAC manual, not the international instruments themselves, and the Netherlands also defines being an unlawful combatant as a war crime so that miiiight not be as strong a piece of evidence as you want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Latest trade summit went well
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:13
|
|
