Quote:
Originally Posted by thatmariolover
Regardless, the video reveals two specific acts that constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions: firing on a wounded or disabled combatant and firing on a provider of aid. The Army claims the van didn't bear a red cross (international sign of aid required to be on ambulances) and that similar vans had been giving aid to the insurgents. So killing the wounded combatant was apparently just collateral damage and not a war crime. If I was an insurgent, I'd start painting red crosses on all my vans - what a terrible way of distinguishing genuine targets.
The US government should have investigated it themselves and made a press release. I'm not saying it wasn't an accident. We just shouldn't be learning about it from a whistleblower.
|
This is why the Geneva Conventions specifically cover uniformed combatants. Once the adversary hides behind civilian clothing and civilians themselves, they drastically increase the chances that innocents will die. Uniforms are meant to help protect non-combatants, not just to be strictly utilitarian.