87 pointsby JumpCrisscross4 hours ago10 comments
  • mugiseyebrows4 hours ago
    It's called war crime only if you lost
    • ryandvm3 hours ago
      “It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald
    • toxicunderGroov2 hours ago
      And it's only called pedophilia if convicted
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
  • misano3 hours ago
    It might sound strange, but the solution to war crimes is arguably total victory over the enemy—something like the situation in Venezuela, which is considered a total victory. The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime have caused the issues referred to in the article as ‘war crimes’ to appear diminished and insignificant in comparison.
    • jst1fthsdysan hour ago
      > The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime

      What about the human rights abuses by the democratic regime of ISUS? Do we deserve some war crimes too?

  • dataflow3 hours ago
    Why in the world is this flagged?
    • nickvec2 hours ago
      Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though.

      “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”

  • OutOfHere3 hours ago
    If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing.

    Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?

    • nickvec2 minutes ago
      Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed.

      > “better than carpet bombing”

      The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.

      > “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”

      Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.

    • wak90an hour ago
      Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure
      • OutOfHere32 minutes ago
        Huh. It is not entirely in Iran's territorial water. It is partially in Oman's water. Iran is attempting to control what does not belong to it.

        Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_strait

  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • spiderfarmer3 hours ago
    This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.

    But people in the USA should realise this:

    An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.

    Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.

    At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.

    That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.

    Buckle up.

    • dana-s3 hours ago
      You were correct, it got flagged. Personally I held the belief that people shat too much on the USA, then the current regime started and I feel a fool.
    • paleotrope3 hours ago
      "An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA."

      Same as it always was.

      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
      • orwin2 hours ago
        I guarantee you it isn't the same. Even anti-atlantists here were more 'we should imitate them' than 'we should fight against their culture'. Nowadays even my very Catholic, very right wing, very pro-Bush/Irak war family is quite cross with the US.
    • cmxchan hour ago
      Rome (US) will always have its critics.

      It’s our job to make sure they don’t have any power.

  • blitzar4 hours ago
    "Now" is doing a metric ton of heavy lifting in that headline.
    • boothby4 hours ago
      There are degrees to these things. A nation's leader repeatedly and explicitly declaring intent to commit genocide is makes that "lift" an extremely light one.
    • newsclues4 hours ago
      Remember when America firebombed civilians during World War Two?
      • pjc503 hours ago
        That was, sadly, very much an "everybody does this" thing, from Guernica to Chongqing to Coventry.

        But yes, there are two possible lessons from those horrors:

        - never again must this happen to anyone: the construction of international peace frameworks, the ICC, and human rights law

        - what is currently happening, which is very different

      • jst1fthsdysan hour ago
        Quick question, who were the aggressors in that war? What had they done previously that might have warranted it?
        • hawkicean hour ago
          The aggressors not being the targets of the firebombing is central to the concerns here. They weren't military targets (largely).
          • jst1fthsdys42 minutes ago
            It was total war though, and they were the aggressors who had slaughtered millions of civilians previously. The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.

            Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.

      • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
        Wasn’t regret for and fear of the scale of that damage partly why we supported the Geneva Convention?
        • blitzar3 hours ago
          Unfortunately that knowledge seems to have been lost with the passage of time.
        • acqq4 hours ago
          Ever heard about Laos?

          "Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."

          "The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."

          https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/laos-the-most-heavily-bo...

          "Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"

          • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
            I’m not remotely claiming we didn’t do war crimes afterwards. Just that the firebombing, if I recall correctly, was explicitly cited as a reason why we needed rules going forward.
      • blitzar4 hours ago
        [flagged]
  • josefritzishere4 hours ago
    The US certainly has a mixed track record here. But the culture of lawlessness in this administration is hard to overstate. Every crime committed by this regime is followed by a "what about" argument from a pundit, citing an example where someone in time, committed a vaguely similar offense. But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often. This is historically corrupt and criminal; everything else is disingenuous false equivalency.
    • avaer4 hours ago
      For anyone who hasn't, I recommend reading up on Watergate and watching the resignation speech.

      It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.

      • rtkwe3 hours ago
        Well initially Nixon was following a similar playbook to what you see Trump et al pull off successfully today. He only resigned when it became clear the he had lost too many votes in the Senate and would lose the impeachment vote. That took a few months from when the story initially broke.
    • soraminazuki2 hours ago
      > But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often.

      Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.

    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
  • Markoff3 hours ago
    Now? There is reason why United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    It's their policy for decades. There is no bigger threat for world peace than US (and maybe Israel).

    • spiderfarmer3 hours ago
      Not maybe. Israel is the whole reason the USA is losing its mind (and its war) in Iran right now.
  • tristanj4 hours ago
    [dead]