--- Jorpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Further more the US definition of a war crime ~does not~ fit the
> difinition
> > held in some countries.
>
> Okay, so in what ways would the US definition of a war crime not fit the
> definition that the ICC hopes to adopt? Surely there must be larger areas
> of overlap than of dissent.
>
Yes, but there is no ~appropriate~ way to mitigate the dissent. That is the
point.
The differences have to do with colateral damage, the definition of civiian
and combatant, and the ways that this fuzzy class of enemy can be nutralied
or isolated.
Consider the "civilian" who supplies combatants with supplies while both are
in civilian clothing. The combatant then puts on an armband or uniform,
fights with the supplies, then takes the uniform off and goes to re-supply.
The "supply line" may be a villige or even a family in which all of the
members are participating. They may not be fireing guns, but they are
supplying those who are with munitians or even food.
Most western military doctrin forbids such practice. All involved at this
level must be uniformed, or clearly marked.
Laws then stating that legal kills and captures must only be performed on
uniformed enemy sound valid, and anythign else would seem to be a crime.
However, this does not address the above condition. Such law would allow one
side to use the law as a combat technique. You can't just go and arrest a
civilian for supplying food to another civilian becouse you can't easily
prove that the supplied civilian is not in fact the same as a soldier who is
fighting you. Further more you would have to proove that the suplier knows
that the other is actualy a soldier.
And the way things are, you would have to proove this condition if a soldier
were to iliminate or even isolate these individuals.
This adds another layer, in that the enemy moving from civilian to combatant
at will, then can use the law once agian in their favor.
It is much better (for your side) to simply forget all these inapropriat laws
and deal with the situation.
Basicly we learned in Vietnam that allowing non-military officials with no
knowledge of military science to set ROI is suiside for the soldier, and can
also have a very negative effect on more civilians than is necisary.
We learn from our mistakes and will not be a part of a system that is set up
to make the same mistakes again.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
