Bombing of Afghan hospital wasn’t a ‘war crime’ -WaPo

[uhnope]

There are few organizations I admire more than Doctors Without Borders. It goes to the world’s hellholes — wars, epidemics, floods, earthquakes, etc. — to provide medical aid to those who need it most and can afford it least. Its volunteers — yes, volunteers — work under horrendous and dangerous conditions when, to be just a touch vulgar, they could be making lots of money spiffing up the faces of the wrinkled rich. Still, I recoil from a statement made by the organization’s president, Joanne Liu. She has suggested that the bombing of the organization’s hospital in northern Afghanistan was a “war crime.”
...
This is deeply disturbing stuff — disturbing as well as offensive. One would think that Liu would first think the strike was an accident — the sort of thing that happens in war. But to think the United States purposely bombed a hospital is evidence of a mindset that suggest such deep hostility toward America that Liu ought to go work somewhere else.

I don’t for a minute think that the United States was involved in “war crime” here — unless the definition of a crime is so stretched as to encompass a horrible accident. Besides, I can’t imagine what purpose such a crime could serve. How does the bombing of a hospital advance U.S. interests in Afghanistan? You would think it would be counterproductive.

The horror of what happened to her staff and their patients may have caused Liu to say something she will someday regret. That day is now. She ought to clarify. Her organization has suffered enough already.

Read more:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/07/bombing-of-afghan-hospital-wasnt-a-war-crime/

[upaloopa]

1. In Vietnam we had everything that wasn't supposed to

be hit with bombs or artillery on maps. We knew the coordinates. Even when the VC were launching mortars out of the roof of a shrine it wouldn't be hit. At least not in 1967 68 when I was there.
They sure as hell knew the target was a hospital!

[cwydro]

2. Of course they did.

Besides the fact that the staff was frantically contacting the military to let them know they were being bombed.

[Scootaloo]

3. ...According to Richard Cohen, based on his feelings.

And looking at his other editorial pieces, I don't think mr. Cohen's feelings on things count for an awful lot.

[uhnope]

7. and you're not motivated by feelings in this whole thing?

really looks like it

[Scootaloo]

10. I know a hospital was bombed in Afghanistan, and that an investigation has been opened

I also know that Richard Cohen is not involved in this investigation. I can read his piece and see that his "conclusion" is based completely on what he wants to happen. I can read his other pieces, and see that Richard Cohen's opinions on just about everything seem overwhelmingly worthless.

[uhnope]

14. that's not true. He makes points. You could respond to the points.

or you could just keep riding the emotions

[Scootaloo]

15. "THEY HATE MURRKA!" isn't really a point, it's invective.

[uhnope]

16. wow. I'm just going to let you be now

Because that's not what he's saying

[Scootaloo]

17. It's not a direct quote, no, but it is what he is presenting.

This editorial is just a weak effort at saying that MSF is "just anti-American," and nothing else.

[uhnope]

19. just like I could unfairly summarize your posts about this all, but I won't. nt

[Scootaloo]

21. It's not unfair at all.

It's exactly what he says. Liu is "deeply hostile" to the United States. She ought to "work elsewhere." It's "offensive" - everything he has is running off the logic that America is great and flawless, and that Liu hates america and has no credibility as an America-hater.

That's his "proof" for his thesis.

Sort of like the fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie was "proof" for Cohen's thesis that Zimmerman was right to kill the boy.

[Rex]

4. So they bombed the wrong building for an hour?

Sadly, I can believe that post 9/11.

[demmiblue]

5. Yes it was. And, Richard Cohen... good lawd!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It was a regrettable (they always say regrettable) Whoopsie!!

It's like saying that the drunk driver who ran over and killed 3 people is innocent because he "didn't mean to kill people".

[LittleBlue]

8. WaPo sides with government authority. In more surprising news

Pope confirms he is indeed Catholic.

[pampango]

9. ICRC: International case-law has indicated that war crimes are violations that are committed

willfully, i.e., either intentionally (dolus directus) or recklessly (dolus eventualis). The exact mental element varies depending on the crime concerned.

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156

To be a war crime the attack would have either intentionally targeted what they knew was a hospital or that the target selection process is so 'reckless' as to constitute a war crime.

If Assad dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods is to be considered a war crime because it either intentionally targets civilians or kills them through 'reckless' targeting, the same standard has to apply to the US, Russia and everyone else who is a combatant there.

[geek tragedy]

11. First thought upon reading this post: who writes this dreck?

Second thought, upon clicking the link and seeing Richard Cohen wrote it: ah, that makes sense.

[uhnope]

18. since you're usually reasonable let me ask you

why do you want so bad for this to be an intentional bombing war crime?

How do you respond to post #9 in this thread?

[geek tragedy]

20. there is certainly a prima facie case of at least recklessness here.

This wasn't an obscure building in the middle of a crowded area.

it was a very prominent complex, with the building that was bombed locatedin the middle of one of the only green spaces in Kunduz.



Very precise coordinates of this known civilian medical center were okayed for bombing by the US chain of command.

I'm willing to believe that the crew of the AC-130 didn't know it was a hospital.

The chain of command people who okay'd it? Not buying it.

Note that this was the building they were asked to bomb by their Afghan allies. So, they were hitting exactly the building they intended to hit.

[uhnope]

22. okay so you say the US chain of command intentionally bombed this hospital

How do you respond to this from the article:

Besides, I can’t imagine what purpose such a crime could serve. How does the bombing of a hospital advance U.S. interests in Afghanistan? You would think it would be counterproductive.

[geek tragedy]

23. reckless is different than intentional nt

[uhnope]

24. wait a minute. you seem to be making contradictory statements.

Before you said this:

I'm willing to believe that the crew of the AC-130 didn't know it was a hospital. The chain of command people who okay'd it? Not buying it.

= You think the chain of command knew it was a hospital and okay'd it anyway, so it was intentional.

But now you say it was not intentional, but reckless.

Please explain.

[malaise]

12. WaPo defended Bush and Cheney

They are fucking clueless

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It is never a war crime if we do it.

[yeoman6987]

27. Because we are not part of the international criminal court

Clinton bush and Obama said no thanks.

[840high]

28. Of course.

[Octafish]

25. Richard Cohen who defended Scooter Libby in print.

Cohen: Why Scooter Shouldn't Do Time

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/19/DI2007061901259.html

Guy's best friends with War Inc. He has to say it wasn't a war crime. Even if he's doing blogs now, defending the indefensible is for Cohen a natural thing, uhnope.

[GeorgeGist]

26. Mr. Cohen is an arrogant ass.