04-07-2017, 02:04 PM
(04-07-2017, 01:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Not disagreeing, but just a clarification. The military can attack a hospital if it is being misused by the enemy for military purposes or if you're receiving fire from it. Even then you should limit the damage if possible.
Under the Rome statute this particular case does not pass muster as it was clearly excessive to the military gain we achieved. The U.S. lied about it to start claiming it was an accident, but eventually conceded it was intentional. They lied because they knew that the gains were not enough to justify the collateral damage. Small arms fire does not require a flattening of a civilian hospital. We ended up paying off the families of all the casualties because we weren't justified in killing them.
