6 ms·
Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident", regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also implying that t
by cyphar 7y ago
Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident", regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also implying that this is the only case where something like this happened. It's only the only one we know about.
In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.
- staunch 7y agoYour characterization of the incident could simply be wrong, legally speaking. Were those first responders, or merely enemy combatants helping their fellow enemy combatants escape? Are soldiers required to let wounded enemies escape? What if they're not in uniform? What if innocents would die? It's very possible that it was completely legal under the international rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what happened. And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and illegal things happened during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange. Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant there, my mistake.
- dev_dull 7y agoI (the GP) actually agree with you. The point in making my distinction wasn't that I think one is criminal and one is not. I think they're both criminal, however there's clearly a political angle being played in both.