• pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 days ago

    Apparently the USA considers this legally acceptable “Proportionality” according to the wording of the Geneva Conventions, and therefore not a war crime. It is a highly bullshit interpretation according to many lawyers, but they have not been dragged to the Hague over it yet and probably never will be for many reasons. For one because nobody ever takes a swing at the USA in the ICC over anything due to political fallout, 2 because most other countriea are guilty of similar crimes and 3 because it is just too gosh darned convenient for the world power nations to be able to bomb apartments to hopefully kill one guy who they’re pretty sure is a terrorist to keep their shipping lanes open for business. I actually wonder if there is any real legal line of Proportionality that could be crossed, one terrorist in a fully-booked children’s hospital: still OK?

    https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality

    Personally I think any extrajudicial executions are unacceptable. If the guy is a terrorist then arrest, try and convict him. If that’s “too hard” then the answer is not to send a drone strike at an apartment building, or a wedding, or a hospital.

      • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        But the USA did the same in Afghanistan, when Afghanistan was a member state. So the ICC could have issued arrest warants for George W. Bush and B. Obama. But there is that thing that the USA has a law that says it will bomb Belgium if they really do this, so…

      • azi@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        ICC is still arguably able to set precedent in interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, both of which the US is subject to

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Video games have given me the false hope that we can just send an elite team of ghost assassins to erase the target from existence, but apparently that’s way too costly :( All that training on Ghost Recon wasted…

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      kill one guy who they’re pretty sure is a terrorist to keep their shipping lanes open for business.

      How does killing a terrorist keep shipping lanes open?

      • Crankley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Like for real? Or is a sort of retorical question of how could killing one individual possibly lead to a substantive enough change in the political landscape?

          • Crankley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Well as far as understand it’s to do with the strait by Yeman, Bab al-mandab. My very limited “knowledge” is from a very “in the background while doing chores” series of YouTube videos.

            Rockets have been fired from Yeman at ships passing through the strait. Countermeasure missile things exsist to stop ships from being exploded but they cost a literal million dollars a go. A large % of oil going to Europe passes through there or has to go south around the Horn of Africa. Either way is beacoup bucks so the texts were about killing the guy that was getting folks together to fire the rockets.

            I didn’t gleam much relevent beyond that.