The US Military thinks it’s been ‘clever’ with this verdict but actually shows how lost they have become.
If it’s ‘acceptable’ to target people without evidence they are dangerous, it means their ROE must allow for indiscriminate killing. For ‘show’.
I’ll explain..
If it’s ‘acceptable’ to target people without evidence they are dangerous, it means their ROE must allow for indiscriminate killing. For ‘show’.
I’ll explain..
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1455969128280469510
The one ‘out’ the US had is this disgraceful incident would be if the weapon system misfired, or operator failed to hit the target he was aiming for.
But by admitting they hit the ‘correct’ target, it shows that their ID standards are not based on the necessary high standards..
But by admitting they hit the ‘correct’ target, it shows that their ID standards are not based on the necessary high standards..
Missile strikes are justified only in either ‘self-defence’ or if the target as positively identified as a Member of an Organised Armed Group.
Otherwise it’s murder under both US and Afghan law…
Otherwise it’s murder under both US and Afghan law…
The test for self defence is that there is evidence that suggests life will imminently be taken unless the cation is stopped.
This report admits that wasn’t the case..
This report admits that wasn’t the case..
In the case of MOAG, the evidentiary standards are high, as it allows killing in cold blood.
They necessarily require irrefutable proof that 1. The person is MOAG and 2. The person is the person the missile will hit.
Cold blooded killings don’t allow children to be killed.
They necessarily require irrefutable proof that 1. The person is MOAG and 2. The person is the person the missile will hit.
Cold blooded killings don’t allow children to be killed.
There was no evidence to suggest this was a ‘car bomb’ waiting to explode. If it was simply a ‘terrorist’ inside there was no reason not to wait to the right moment.
But this can’t have been the case, as no ‘Objective’ name has been offered.
But this can’t have been the case, as no ‘Objective’ name has been offered.
This whitewashing of murder, particularly of ‘Top Brass’ (as collateral damage needs a ‘General’ to approve) is typical of both US and Aust.
I saw the same in Afghanistan, and Aust in 2011 ‘whitewashing’ of the murder of five children (12 Feb 2009)
I saw the same in Afghanistan, and Aust in 2011 ‘whitewashing’ of the murder of five children (12 Feb 2009)
This case has similarities to the #CollateralMurder case that #WikiLeaks and #Assange exposed: the Govt covering for troops that were ‘out of control’ and on a killing spree.
The truth is, this targeting was driven by ‘Public Relations’, in that the US pride had been ‘hurt’ by the airport bomb and Biden needed a ‘bad guy’ to kill to win approval from the electorate’. It didn’t need to be ‘real’.
This incident and it’s aftermath are a microcosm of the whole war:
The US is embarrassed and outraged (by conduct that flowed from its own mistakes and double dealing) and subsequent needs to make a show to declare a ‘victory’.
The truth is not an issue for PR people.
The US is embarrassed and outraged (by conduct that flowed from its own mistakes and double dealing) and subsequent needs to make a show to declare a ‘victory’.
The truth is not an issue for PR people.
If this matter is properly investigated and there is finally some accountability, it will go a long way to solving the problem of the US saying: ‘we need to get a quick kill, don’t worry who it is, just get us some ‘vision’ for a press release.
The US think they are being clever. But by failing to hold anyone accountable for this murder, they show the world their true colours.
And they also risk a lot more than a single trial might have done.
#warcrimes
#Afghanistan
#Biden
#AUKUS
And they also risk a lot more than a single trial might have done.
#warcrimes
#Afghanistan
#Biden
#AUKUS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
