Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.
I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.
We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.
I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.
First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.
Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.
Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.
I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.
It’s very hard to prove their intent.
It’s very easy to prove their negligence.
We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.
We can also certainly say that they are not sorry about it. Because the government’s spokesperson refused to apologize for it.
In my book that’s enough not to require certainty about the original intent.
I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.
Which law?
Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.
From the ICC’s web page:
Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.
Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.