Comment by sdeframond
9 hours ago
> So half of the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half.
...without trial. And assuming guilty and sentenced to death.
9 hours ago
> So half of the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half.
...without trial. And assuming guilty and sentenced to death.
Trial by which court?
This is standard rules of war. Soldiers don’t have to convene a court before shooting at enemy combatants.
>This is standard rules of war.
So was most of what was done on October 7th by Hamas...
>Soldiers don’t have to convene a court before shooting at enemy combatants.
Or, a convoy of ambulances running with lights and sirens along a pre-approved route.
The Palestinian government Hamas broadcasting themselves kidnapping a 6 year old girl to the world is standard rules of war (let alone those much worse things they did that day, the kidnapping was just the first to show up on my feeds that day)?
Why try to sanitize their unjustifiable behavior?
1 reply →
> So was most of what was done on October 7th by Hamas...
Yeah, I don't think mass executing partygoers at a music festival has anything to do with "the standard rules of war."
Israel's response was obviously disproportionate but certainly fell within the standard conventions of warfare (e.g. executing enemy commanders being housed/protected by the populace is fairly standard.)
2 replies →
Indeed, conflating execution without trial with ‘justice’ is utterly bizarre.
There are no trials in combat.
These answers are assuming that the individuals killed were also those responsible. With Israel's stranglehold on media access to Gaza (perhaps better: open hostility), we will likely never know who was killed and what were the charges against them.
1 reply →
I think this comment shows how far removed is the modern person living in a sheltered, matcha-sipping western environment from actual human historical reality. Do you seriously suggest that during an active war one side would bring the other to trial rather than just destroy them?
Have you heard about Nuremberg trials?
Those were after Germany's defeat, and those put on trial were no longer active combatants.
I'm pretty sure no military in history has ever delayed taking out an active threat in order to conduct legal proceedings. They don't need to, because enemy combatants don't have to be guilty of any crimes to be valid targets under IHL.
The winning side destroying the losing has historically been the exception, not the rule. So why not?
I agree. Having lived with a civil war and with non-western roots I find the Western attitude to things like this to be hopelessly naive. It is the product of a golden age following the collapse of communism and the subsequent unrealistic "end of history" optimism.
So in the case of Sri Lanka, was the LLRC set up and subsequently criticised as a mechanism to lend legitimacy to the way in which government forces conducted operations against LTTE? If so, would its mere existence not indicate some level of societal buy-in to the idea that actions should take part according to some judicial form of 'justice'?
1 reply →
You're missing the point, "justice sought by the ICC" implies that the ICC just wanted to execute them, which is obviously not true.