2 ms·

Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow th

Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.

Alex63 16y ago
I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  My guess is a court would find "suspicion" unwarranted without reason for it. As the military hasn't cited any reason for the killing of the civilians in the van (no daily intel briefing warning of white vans was revealed in defense of the military), it would seem that there isn't one. Obviously civilians can be killed if there is a rational reason for it (i.e. aggression), but it's fairly certain that killing civilians without reason is not legal under international law otherwise death squads would be considerably more popular.
russell_h 16y ago
What interpretation? Your disagreement seems to be with the Geneva Convention itself.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  When a law allows certain activity based on "suspicion" it means reality-based suspicion, not suspicion based on an individuals hunches or psychic prowess.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Given the wider context of the video it seems the suspicion could have been legitimate in good faith Anyway; the point of this aside was that legally the deaths could have been, well, legal. But they were certainly morally/ethically problematic. Which is the point about whistleblowers; they don;t necessarily just air illegal acts but morally wrong ones as well. This is probably not the thread to get back into the whole debate of "were those deaths illegal" :)

Alex63 16y ago

I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.

mcantelon 16y ago
My guess is a court would find "suspicion" unwarranted without reason for it. As the military hasn't cited any reason for the killing of the civilians in the van (no daily intel briefing warning of white vans was revealed in defense of the military), it would seem that there isn't one. Obviously civilians can be killed if there is a rational reason for it (i.e. aggression), but it's fairly certain that killing civilians without reason is not legal under international law otherwise death squads would be considerably more popular.

russell_h 16y ago

What interpretation? Your disagreement seems to be with the Geneva Convention itself.

mcantelon 16y ago
When a law allows certain activity based on "suspicion" it means reality-based suspicion, not suspicion based on an individuals hunches or psychic prowess.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Given the wider context of the video it seems the suspicion could have been legitimate in good faith Anyway; the point of this aside was that legally the deaths could have been, well, legal. But they were certainly morally/ethically problematic. Which is the point about whistleblowers; they don;t necessarily just air illegal acts but morally wrong ones as well. This is probably not the thread to get back into the whole debate of "were those deaths illegal" :)