Originally Posted by senojekips

Can you quote a credible source for that?

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article
8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian
injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of
proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life
or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated;

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive.

The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage; and
(c) whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).

http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf



Geneva Convention, Part IV, Article 47 - General protection of civilian objects.

“Article 47 -- General protection of civilian objects “

1. Attacks shall be strictly limited to military objectives, namely, to those objectives which are, by their nature, purpose or use, recognized to be of military interest and whose total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a distinct and substantial military advantage.

2. Consequently, objects designed for civilian use, such as houses, dwellings, installations and means of transport, and all objects which are not military objectives, shall not be made the object of attack, except if they are used mainly in support of the military effort."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/5f27276ce1bbb79dc12563cd00434969!OpenDocument

And I will emphasize again, this is not a defense of the act that was committed.
But war is not black or white. And it is permissible to kill civilians under certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by 42RM

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) Nowhere does any of the above excuse deliberate murder, done as an act of retribution, bearing in mind that no enemy combatants were found, anywhere in the area.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

You seem to forget that they appeared in court. And in the 21st century (as in the 20th century) circumstances are taken into account. They can increase or decrease the punishment.

Hah!.... a court? That wasn't a court, it was a whitewash, and would have been judged so anywhere else in the world. They would have been judged innocent had they been caught in the act.

Seno I don't think you are following what people are saying. 42rm was pointing out to Perseus that it is legal to clear a house. From what I am reading He was not commenting on the legality of the incident itself.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........

If you don't recongnise the legal system how can you claim that it has failed?

With rules as stated above you can see how prosecution would be difficult.


Do tell me where does the blame lie?

If all this concrete evidence about the event exists ? howcome things ended up the way they did?

Originally Posted by captiva303

Seno I don't think you are following what people are saying. 42rm was pointing out to Perseus that it is legal to clear a house. From what I am reading He was not commenting on the legality of the incident itself.

If you don't recongnise the legal system how can you claim that it has failed?

Are you thick? I don't recognise the system because of it's clearly corrupt findings. None of what 42RM stated was applicable as it applies when the houses are being used as cover by an enemy, and there was no proof that this was the case here. No combatants found, there was no armed resistance, or any evidence that they had ever been there.

Originally Posted by captiva303

With rules as stated above you can see how prosecution would be difficult.

Not at all as this was a clear act of retribution, not even taking into account the attempts to hide what had happened and the lies told. People had pre judged this before it ever saw the light of day.

Originally Posted by captiva303

Do tell me where does the blame lie?

The blame lies clearly with those who carried out the executions. No one was shooting back at the time and only a legal weapon was found, and there was no evidence that it had been fired. Then there was the coverup, followed by the lies that it was caused by grenades,... one lie after another all shown to be deliberate lies.

Originally Posted by captiva303

If all this concrete evidence about the event exists ? howcome things ended up the way they did?

As if you don't already know? It was a deliberate preplanned miscarriage of justice by people who are used to having their own way. That is exactly what everyone is complaining about.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Are you thick?

Not at all, I just wanted to see what you were actually saying and why.

Originally Posted by senojekips

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) Nowhere does any of the above excuse deliberate murder, done as an act of retribution, [COLOR=Red][COLOR=black]bearing in mind that no enemy combatants were found, anywhere in the area.

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

Oh Bullsh!t,.. At the time when the civilians were executed there was no return fire, and no combatants found or killed, nor any evidence of any combatants ever having been there.

Just because you have been attacked you still can't just take out your frustration by killing anyone who lives nearby.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

Not an intentional attack on civilians?
Ok lets assume that they could not have cleared the house any different to what they did how about the guys in the taxi that they stopped and shot?

My opinion (that is all it is) from what I have read so far is that an IED exploded killing one soldier and in response the remaining ones in the ensuing panic ran amok killing anyone and anything they could find.

Let's try to keep it civil and not devolve into insults and attacks.


Carry on.

Technically, according to the Rules of Engagement of the time, the men from the taxi were legitimately taken under fire.

Prior to the Marines going on that patrol they had recieved intel to be on the look out for a white sedan carrying insurgents within the city. The white sedan taxi filled with men came to a stop immediately after the IED explosion. They then fled the scene. The Rules of Engagement allowed men of military age fleeing the scene of an IED to be taken under fire because they were usually trigger men for the IED. They simply got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.