Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
What we did to the people of Iraq was criminal. Perhaps one million civilians died from our actions in the war and afterwards, from direct and indirect causes.
Regarding your point about not really meaning to hit civilians with bombs: a brief digression to the law of Murder is informative. To be Murder, it is necessary that the defendant have some Intent to kill the victim. Now, that does not mean that the defendant has to act with the PURPOSE of killing the victim, it is only necessary for guilt that he act in the KNOWLEDGE that death will likely result. For example, say someone blows up a building, knowing that there are people inside. Say his only purpose is because he thinks the building is a complete eyesore, and he can tolerate its existence no longer. He has no desire whatsover to kill any people, only the building. That makes NO DIFFERENCE under the traditional law of Murder, and it shouldn't. It is enough for guilt that he acted in the knowledge that death would result.
When you blow up buildings, or target civilian populated areas, it is a empty, hollow claim indeed that your purpose was not to kill the people inside. The phrase "collateral damage" was a popular american euphemism for hiding our war crimes in the Gulf War.
|
However...the Rules of Engagement in times of War are quite different. Heck. The defenition of murder in the UMJC is different that the civilian law one. You might want to read up on that before you start applying criminal(US) law to a military(International) situation. And peruse the Geneva Accords at the same time.
------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"
"May the Colors of Liberty never run"
