Reply #70: Intentionally indifferent.

[ellisonz]

I mean, how can you possible defend the use of cluster munitions in urban areas when the evidence is damning that they are indiscriminate weapons. We might as well have burned down Baghdad. Moreover, as the Abu Ghraib scandal (an enormous facility) has demonstrated we are often indiscriminate in who we detain and then torture. Why is it so hard to believe in light of Vietnam that numerous atrocities have occurred that will never see the light of day? At what point is the indifference of command and control to the actions of their soldiers constitute intent? One colonel in Iraq gave a dagger to his troops after their first kill. It is not hard to believe that in Iraq violence against civilians is often ignored or covered up. Furthermore, American civil law and "international law" are two very different things in regards to what constitutes intent (the was just following orders defense often does not apply). Moreover, the USA is not party to the ICC, and frankly, the ICC is wrong its judgment and if that was indeed the decision I think it is better the United States refrain from signing onto another paper tiger international institution. It is no small irony that the standards we would apply today are weaker than those which we applied to the Nazis at Nuremburg.

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

We are clearly guilty on the first 2 counts, the 3rd is very likely, and the 4th is in the eye of the beholder. Methinks you don't give the HRW enough credit because you don't want to believe. The United States ought to stop using cluster bombs in urban areas, period. America, the hypocritical!