Reply #10: A matter of definition is a matter of interpretation

[NV1962]

These are the international instruments dealing with war crimes:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm#wcrimes

The following is the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Then, there's the issue of Milosevic and especially his spouse, who actively pursued the policy of "human shields" purposefully placing civilians in harms way, willigly and knowingly exposing them to the risk of death.

Not to mention that advance warning was given about the TV station, which was duly noted.

There are "a few" other things that come to mind, but I trade them for two observations: one, Milosevic was warned well in advance of the dire consequences of pursuing the operation in Kosovo, and two, the war operations in Kosovo that unfolded during 78 days are among the "cleanest" in terms of civilian casualties - certainly compared to the butchery (with some 10,000 civilian casualties) in Iraq.

To pretend that war operations on a densely urbanized theater can somehow whirl about with civilian casualties is absurd.

And as to the use of DU: I'd like to see where it is outlawed, not in the least seeing as there are quite a number of NATO partners that have DU munitions in their arsenals, and actually have used it in armed conflict over the past twenty years.

And if you're really interested in leveling charges, take a look at where the buck stops first: unless, of course, you want to posit that the USA is beholden to military control.