87
submitted 1 month ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think you're splitting hairs.

The intent of the inclusion of boobytraps within that definition is pretty clear. Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome. How does one know if a device they are purchasing or picking up is one that's been modified to explode during normal usage?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Almost like someone would say they booby trapped the devices. The intent was clear as you stated.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

I think you’re splitting hairs.

I think you're looking for excuses. Fuck's sake, splitting hairs? That's quite literally the legal fucking definition.

Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome.

You're right, that's also why maskirovka is illegal. If you disguise a tank as a house, what comes next?

/s

Also why anti-tank landmines are illegal. If you disguise an explosive under a road, what other dastardly things can you do?

/s

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines on military objectives where the risk of civilian injury is low and explosives that are 'remotely sent' where the locations must be accurately recorded to prevent accidental discharge after the conflict has ceased.

I see no way to argue that they can ensure the pagers or radios were placed on such 'military targets', nor can they account or record the locations of any that failed to discharge. For all the Lebanese know, there are pagers or radios still in circulation that did not explode on the day of the attack, or that there are more explosives in other mobile devices that have yet to be activated, or were abandoned for use for whatever reason and may go off unexpectedly in the future. It is exactly that uncertainty and the use of everyday objects that makes this terror attack a war crime - not that it matters to a body that has been completely neutered and is incapable of holding Israel accountable without the consent of the US.

Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines

Landmines are addressed entirely separately, but thanks for confirming you don't have the first clue you're talking about.

Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.

"How dare you quote the law when talking about the law"

Sorry, your feelings on the matter override international law, I know.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure what you're even on about, if the pagers (in your view) don't qualify as 'booby traps', they'd still fit the description of 'other devices' that are in the same restriction:

  1. "Other devices" means manually-emplaced munitions and devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

I personally think their being disguised as civilian objects is of particular note and makes the offence more severe, but even without that classification it's considered a war crime

  1. This Article applies to: (a) mines (b) booby-traps; and ( c) other devices.
  1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct weapons to which this Article applies, either in offence, defence or by way of reprisals, against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians.
  1. The indiscriminate use of weapons to which this Article applies is prohibited. Indiscriminate use is any placement of such weapons:

(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective; or

It would be a tall order to prove that the pagers were actually and exclusively distributed to Hezbollah combatants

(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

As with above, they had no reasonable way of knowing that the pagers would be directed as intended or be on their intended target at the time of discharge

( c) which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Pretty clearly caused incidental loss of civilian life and injury, especially in relation to the concrete military advantage. I haven't even heard stated any material military advantage gained from this other than relating to the fear they intended to evoke

  1. All feasible precautions shall be taken to protect civilians from the effects of weapons to which this Article applies. Feasible precautions are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

No matter how you're slicing it, under Protocol II of the UN the pager attacks would be a violation and subject to war crime charges. It being a literal 'booby trap', 'mine', or 'other device' is immaterial to its criminality.

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
87 points (84.8% liked)

News

23301 readers
3392 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS