From the article:
Even worse, people who served in Trump’s last administration admit the president has deliberated shooting civilians before at the height of Black Lives Matter protests.
“Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?” asked Trump
I’ll just assume with that depth of understanding firearms TFG’s next question would be along the lines of “can’t you just shoot the guns out of people’s hands like the Lone Ranger does?”
Resurrecting this old thread. Looks like we’ll find out on Tuesday whether the military will carry out illegal orders, such as deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran.
In case you missed the latest unhinged post, Trump is threatening to take out bridges and power plants unless Iran opens “the fuckin’ Strait.”
That’s not an inherently illegal order though, regardless of how untasteful you may find it, or how disgusting TFG is. Bridges and powerplants get targeted all the time. Because they are militarily significant targets along with their civilian uses. Desert Storm took out 85% of Iraq’s power grid. 70% of Serbia’s power grid was taken out in 1999. There are bombs specifically designed to do this, Graphite bomb - Wikipedia:
The American version is typically labeled “BLU-114/B”. BLU is a military acronym for “bomb live unit”. The submunition’s explosive charge detonates ejecting the carbon filaments from the metal canister. The filaments unwind and drift down until they settle on high voltage power distribution lines.
The submunition is incorporated into the Blackout Bomb CBU-94. The CBU-94 consists of a SUU-66/B tactical munitions dispenser with 202 BLU-114/B submunitions. The submunitions each have a parachute device to orient and decelerate, and 147 reels of fine conductive fibers.
5.6.8.5 Examples of Military Objectives – Economic Objects Associated With
Military Operations.Economic objects associated with military operations or with warsupporting
or war-sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives.
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a
State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as
usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.
- DOD Law of War Manual (untouched by the Trump Administration(s), by the way.) https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
We’ve been bombing electrical power facilities for over 100 years. The UN had no problem letting NATO do it against Milosevic in the late 90s.
And, bridges?
Anyway, here’s the NY Times take on whether we’re looking to start committing some war crimes:
(That’s a gift link)
Especially bridges. Bridges have always been targeted. It would be difficult to identify a war or major conflict in which no bridge was destroyed.
Perhaps desalination stations?
Written by a reporter, not a lawyer. The only time a power station is off-limits is if it is disconnected from the grid in a way that it only powers civilian facilities–like a back-up generator for a hospital or a power station that only provides to a couple villages, or something. In an interconnected, international grid, all of the power stations are up for destruction.
The Allies destroyed literally hundreds of bridges in WW2. In the summer of 1944 they destroyed 26 bridges over the River Seine alone.
And the Aioi bridge was the bulls-eye at Hiroshima.
I wonder if any war conventions were changed after WW II, possibly originating in Geneva? And then further clarified with some additional protocols in 1979?
This Yale article says that “dual use” objects, which basically the US made up for the Gulf War is a dangerous change in the rules of war.
Here’s another cite that argues that there’s a strong case that Trump following through with his unhinged threats could amount to war crimes.
How much do unindictable, unprosecutable, unpunishable war crime accusations (even objectively correct accusations) change anything?
“War crimes” isn’t strictly “victor’s justice”, but only the vanquished is ever punished for this.
I have no doubt that Trump, Putin, etc., will ever be prosecuted for war crimes, but that’s not what this thread is about.
If Trump and the military chain of command told a soldier to go into a kindergarten and kill all the kids, that would obviously be an illegal order and, I hope, would not be followed. However, we know that soldiers or seamen, or whatever, followed the illegal order to bomb the already-bombed Venezuelan boat (which is listed as an example of an obviously illegal order).
Lots of articles are talking about how targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure is likely a war crime, and the question is, will those orders be followed? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
Of course they will be followed, an order to personally go into a kindergarten and kill al the kids, per your example, is so obviously wrong that it would not be obeyed (I hope).
But bomb buildings from afar? specially power plants and bridges? that has been done in wars since bridges existed and the person ordered to do so will not balk at it.
Desalination plants are different, being something that it’s obviously indispensable for civilian survival, but IMHO not different enough to avoid the reasoning: “In wars, enemy infrastructure is bombed, desalination plants are enemy infrastructure”.
I’m sure you’re right. As I mentioned, they already followed the literal textbook example of an illegal order.
Powerplants and bridges are 100% legit wartime targets.
Your talk of them as war crimes is simply mistaken.
Idjit trump has plenty to answer for. This isn’t one of those things.
I brought cites. Where are yours? Also, next time reply to my post otherwise I won’t know you replied to me.
I thought I did reply to you. Discourse is weird about replies to the immediately previous post. But I agree w your mild peeve at how notifications work or don’t.
As to the substantive issue, IMO the entire “war” is illegal. Idjit trump committed the base crime by attacking a sovereign nation and waging aggressive war. Lots else within that is a lesser included offense.
I was a USAF fighter / attack pilot 40 years ago. There was no doubt within DoD then that powerplants and bridges were/are legit military targets.
As umpteen other posters have stated, that sort of infrastructure has been targeted by air forces all over the world since the invention of aerial bombardment.
They’re also very common targets of special forces infiltraters / raiders.
IMO the folks claiming these things are war crimes are adopting a lot of wishful thinking not found in the letter of the treaties, nor in the historical precedent of warfare.
You are of course welcome to disagree.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic. But Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions specifically state that as long as the destruction of civilian infrastructure offers a “definite military advantage”, it can be targeted. The “presumption” of civilian status is for homes, schools, hospitals and places of worship. It’s not for things like roads and power plants. Further, the Conventions allow for expected, incidental civilian casualties as a result of these attacks provided the attack meets the requirement of proportionality. It can still be legal to target a power plant or bridge even with the knowledge and expectation that the attack will kill civilians. It’s only required that the military advantage outweigh the overall harm done. The greater the military advantage, the larger the acceptable harm to the civilian population can be. War is hell. The Conventions are designed to prevent unnecessary suffering and killing of civilians. But it defines “necessity” in the context of military operations, not civilian comfort or safety.
Trump has not laid out any military reason, it’s just a terrorist threat to blow shit up if Iran doesn’t open the Strait.