Not actually a war crime. Directly from the Red Cross article he links:
> The purpose of these statements is to emphasize that an attack which affects civilian objects is not unlawful as long as it is directed against a military objective and the incidental damage to civilian objects is not excessive. This consideration is taken into account in the formulation of the current rule by the use of the words “attacks directed against”.
Nobody really has a clear cut definition of "excessive damage". But terrorists in practice do not have any formally recognized military infrastructure. So when fighting terrorism or insurgency groups, all targeted areas are essentially civilian areas.
Anytime someone is trying to quote "war crimes" online, there is like a 95% chance they are talking out of their butts.
You’re right. And they didn’t authorize “bombing a civilian apartment building because a target’s girlfriend lived there,” they bombed a building the target was believed to be in. Like, yes, if we start WWIII over Greenland or Canada or whatever, it should be understood that you might die because you were next to where someone important might have been.
(It is notable that nobody asked about collateral damage.)
“Congress shall have Power … To declare War … .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.
According to James Madison, in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to leave to the Executive Branch the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of the Legislative Branch. SeeThe Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison: August 17, available at The Avalon Project (Yale Law School), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp.
The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, against certain Axis powers. Since then, every President has engaged in offensive hostilities without a declaration.
Query whether such actions (including the one in the linked webpage — Trump’s attack in Yemen, apparently against a civilian building) are legal under United States constitutional law, let alone international law.
The US was fairly steadily at war against the native tribes for the first hundred some years of its existence. Except to the extent that the War of 1812 comprised part of the war with Tecumseh's loose confederacy, none of those wars were declared.
There were multiple interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean during the first half of the 20th Century, all undeclared.
I think that ship has sailed, probably to practice gunboat diplomacy.
Not actually a war crime. Directly from the Red Cross article he links:
> The purpose of these statements is to emphasize that an attack which affects civilian objects is not unlawful as long as it is directed against a military objective and the incidental damage to civilian objects is not excessive. This consideration is taken into account in the formulation of the current rule by the use of the words “attacks directed against”.
Nobody really has a clear cut definition of "excessive damage". But terrorists in practice do not have any formally recognized military infrastructure. So when fighting terrorism or insurgency groups, all targeted areas are essentially civilian areas.
Anytime someone is trying to quote "war crimes" online, there is like a 95% chance they are talking out of their butts.
You’re right. And they didn’t authorize “bombing a civilian apartment building because a target’s girlfriend lived there,” they bombed a building the target was believed to be in. Like, yes, if we start WWIII over Greenland or Canada or whatever, it should be understood that you might die because you were next to where someone important might have been.
(It is notable that nobody asked about collateral damage.)
“Congress shall have Power … To declare War … .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.
According to James Madison, in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to leave to the Executive Branch the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of the Legislative Branch. See The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison: August 17, available at The Avalon Project (Yale Law School), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp.
The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, against certain Axis powers. Since then, every President has engaged in offensive hostilities without a declaration.
Query whether such actions (including the one in the linked webpage — Trump’s attack in Yemen, apparently against a civilian building) are legal under United States constitutional law, let alone international law.
The US was fairly steadily at war against the native tribes for the first hundred some years of its existence. Except to the extent that the War of 1812 comprised part of the war with Tecumseh's loose confederacy, none of those wars were declared.
There were multiple interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean during the first half of the 20th Century, all undeclared.
I think that ship has sailed, probably to practice gunboat diplomacy.
https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2023-02/2002-iraq-aumf-what-it-...
The folly of the War Powers Resolution.