Re "wanton"
something is "wanton" only when it is not "justified".
Not according to www.dictionary.com:
dictionary.reference.com
.. where it even gives "wanton destruction" as an example:
(b) Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction.
Nothing to do with justification, you see. Of course you will now say the US was not "capricious" or "malicious". <smile>
Re "of or in occupied territory"
Yes, it does say that. Then again, it also says it is not limited to these situations, as you have noted. Still, I wonder, like you, if this means that something is a "war crime" only on occupied territories. I wish we had a lawyer specialized in international treaties who could give his opinion.
What do you think about the "crime against humanity" part, then? Even if you think nuking civilians is not "murder" (and I am not sure if I agree to that) then it is certainly extermination. And it does not say anything about military necessity:
(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Message 18354902 |
