I don't see why there should be such a large distinction between killing civilians and killing soldiers
Maybe you would like to debate this with "Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal" (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c):
Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions 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.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, at Tokyo, followed the Nuremberg Charter, as did Control Council Law No. 10 of Germany, under which the Allies prosecuted Germans in their respective zones of occupation.
crimesofwar.org
I believe the reasoning is that wars are meant to be fought between armies and hitting defenseless civilian populations is a cowardly act. But that is my own interpretation, of course.
The matter is one that is generally accepted in international law in any case - hitting civilians, even in wartime, is not acceptable. |
