That hospital we bombed in Afghanistan in 2015? Not a war crime, Pentagon rules

Opps, my bad. I meant manslaughter.

Really one of the most frightening machines ever built to ever have on your ass:

2 Likes

One of the agreed upon rules in war is that you know what you’re blowing up before you blow it up.

12 Likes

I hate it when I agree with you, but I don’t think it’s possible to accidentally commit a war crime. If civilian casualties were war crimes, every army that ever marched was a criminal enterprise. A pacifist may agree with that sentiment, but I don’t think the tribunal the The Hague is quite as strict.

A separate issue is negligence, and I think the DoD bombing the wrong target might be negligent. Similarly, all those wedding parties that got blown up. Attacking the wrong target is always unacceptable - but that doesn’t make it a war crime.

6 Likes

But if you blow it up because you thought it was a different building, or if you thought the hospital was on another block, that is horrible and negligent, but it is not the same as going out on a mission with the plan of blowing up the hospital, then dropping cluster bombs on the orphanage. That is one reason that it is a custom in war to mark the roofs of hospitals with a giant red cross or crescent. that way, when the guy on the ground gives you coordinates for a building, you sight in on it, and then say " Hey, that place is marked as a hospital, recheck your coordinates".
It seems to me that 90% of the people commenting here and elsewhere have no idea at all what combat is like, and hold unrealistic expectations of the combat troops that their countries send into battle. There is a great deal of emotion involved, and people make mistakes that often have serious consequences. There is a lot of effort put into reducing the number of those incidents to as close to zero as possible, but zero is unlikely to be obtainable anytime soon.

2 Likes

But if I go out to kill someone in violation of the law, and happen to kill the wrong person, the law doesn’t give me a free pass on it because whoops, wrong person! In this case they’re actually saying, “Yes, the rules of engagement weren’t followed. The laws of armed conflict were violated, and as a result, we killed a bunch of civilians. But we were intending to (illegally) kill someone else, so it’s not a crime!”

6 Likes

The US State Deparment did not hesitate to jump the gun when Israel did a real mistake protecting itself from rockets: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/us-appalled-disgraceful-israeli-shelling-gaza-un-school
Americans are shameless hypocrites:(

Makes me think of the Plastic Surgeons Without Borders skit from Wonder Showzen.

http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/52273/plastic-surgeons-without-borders.jhtml

It precisely hit the wrong target. What’s so mystifying?

These are not the war crimes you’re looking for.

The US “won” Afghanistan? This is new.

so like neglicent homicide we need a concept of negligent war crimes.

1 Like

As much as I love the AC-130 (and I love it a LOT, across a number of different axes), it has always seemed like a highly complex and very expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.

I mean, it’s a freaking transport aircraft, flying donuts and loitering directly over the target. If you own the situation so thoroughly that you can do that with very low risk of casualties (five lost in Vietnam plus one during the 1st Gulf War for a total of six in five decades of operations) … you probably don’t really need the AC-130 to begin with.

1 Like

Maybe. Maybe it already exists, I’m no expert.

1 Like

No crime was committed, and anyway we reprimanded punished 16 people for committing it so it’s all square now.

1 Like

The bombing blamed on Assad may have been an accident as well. But at the same time, he has intentionally done some nasty shit in the past. If it was intentional, that would be the big difference.

Do I really need to link any of the hundreds of barbarous, oppressive, inhumane, callous, nasty acts the USA has brought to the world?

If past behaviour were the standard, America may be the international leader in coups, slaughters, tortures, “renditions”, rapes, lawless imprisonment, propping up dictators - definitely top of the class in nuclear strikes!

That’s just internationally, whatever Assad does domestically needs to be compared with slavery, internment, intentional poisoning, genocide, ludicrous incarceration, centuries of crushing racism, and a few other things.

So “Assad is a baddie, and therefore his actions should be held to higher standards” is more than a little inappropriate.

America started this particular fire when it got tired of the dictator it bought in Iraq.

Plain to see there is no justice in that land.

11 Likes

Hmmm… that many errors sounds like incompetence to me. You shouldn’t be allowed to play with such dangerous toys.

1 Like

You might want to research this a little more then. For starters:

http://www.thenation.com/article/whats-the-real-story-behind-the-american-attack-on-doctors-without-borders/

Some bullet points:

  • there were multiple identifying flags on the roof of that building

  • the attack last for hours in multiple phases, and the U.S. Military was radio’d between each attack telling them that they were bombing a fucking hospital

  • it was the only hospital in the area and very well known

At a minimum it warrants a 3rd party investigation, and not the military investigating itself.

15 Likes

I guess you don’t know: bombs and missiles used for urban environments are tuned/loaded with a target specific payload, designed to destroy just that target.
During indiscriminate bombing campaigns as seen in that last invasion of Iraq, splash damage is considered an asset and so the bombs, missiles and bomblets are designed for that.

If that missile was made to destroy a different target, there would either be partial damage, or off center scorching as the oversized weapon system annihilated too much stuff.

My point is that the hospital was either the intended target all along, or the building that was supposed to be destroyed was a very, very close match.

3 Likes

The AC-130’s main armament is a 105mm howitzer. The “target specific” payload consisted of 211 shells, fired over 29 minutes, as the plane flew a circular pattern around the target.
This tactic would reduce most any building to rubble, though I would think that it would also have provided ample opportunities to notice a ICRC emblem.

No outside power, in all recorded history, has ever “won” a war in Afghanistan.

They’re not in a position to enforce terms on us though, and that’s pretty much a prerequisite for actually convicting anyone of war crimes.

3 Likes