Yeah, just to be clear. One of the targets hit was a residential high rise building. Local authorities are reporting over 50 people killed.
The target was one, alleged, terrorist and the building, according to the Houthi PC small group message log, was the building of the target’s girlfriend.
So, the US just killed at least 50 civilians in order to kill a single target. Just to give you a rough idea of the kind of ‘collateral damage’ that is acceptable.
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?
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.
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…
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
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…
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?
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.
The thing is, murdering civilians in Yemen is what creates national security threats! People just think we can bomb and bomb our way through civilizations and we’re the good guys when they get pissed about it.
Legally, terrorism is defined as a non-state person or group wielding violence. So our government can carry out any number of atrocity, rack up the corpses by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions; and still it would not be terrorism.
We get this definition of terrorism from the British legal system. Ironically, George Washington (and anyone else who fought in the revolutionary war) were terrorists. You can find British newspapers from the era describing them as such.
Yeah, just to be clear. One of the targets hit was a residential high rise building. Local authorities are reporting over 50 people killed.
The target was one, alleged, terrorist and the building, according to the Houthi PC small group message log, was the building of the target’s girlfriend.
So, the US just killed at least 50 civilians in order to kill a single target. Just to give you a rough idea of the kind of ‘collateral damage’ that is acceptable.
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.
You forgot to mention the fact that the US is not a member of ICC
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…
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
Removed by mod
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…
How does killing a terrorist keep shipping lanes open?
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?
For real. I don’t see the link to the Suez Canal and the leaked war crime.
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.
Thanks. Now I know what to seach for
The Houthis have launched dozens of missile and drone attacks on commercial ships.
They have sunk two vessels, seized a third and killed four crew members.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67614911.amp
Yeah, lots of violence begets violence. Thanks for the link, I gave it a quick scan, will have a read later on.
Oh, the IDF style of surgical precision bombing. How apt.
I’m trying to emphasize what matters to the American people. Collateral damage of 50 people to kill 1 is not what they care about.
Maybe they will care about national security?
The thing is, murdering civilians in Yemen is what creates national security threats! People just think we can bomb and bomb our way through civilizations and we’re the good guys when they get pissed about it.
Removed by mod
Yet it’s not terrorism
Legally, terrorism is defined as a non-state person or group wielding violence. So our government can carry out any number of atrocity, rack up the corpses by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions; and still it would not be terrorism.
We get this definition of terrorism from the British legal system. Ironically, George Washington (and anyone else who fought in the revolutionary war) were terrorists. You can find British newspapers from the era describing them as such.
Removed by mod
So the people who made the laws defined the so that of they do it it ain’t terrorism, only if others to it.
Curiously, that’s exactly the same as the Nazis did to make sure their actions were legal.