I know that murder requires intent by definition of the word, but are war crimes committed by soldiers considered as such when you count atrocities from the battlefield? This is where responses get mixed between world views (from news) depending from one’s perspective (first hand encounters).

One can defend or justify soldiers actions by saying “they’re fighting to defend our country from terrorists” influenced via government propaganda while another person condemns the military’s actions by considering it a war crime since civilians who aren’t the enemy are murdered but framed as insurgents on media.

The clear distinction is: from knowing whether the individual is armed while another is unarmed during a military confrontation in the battlefield on whether it could be justified as self defense by the army or a war crime by the victim’s family since they killed an unarmed civilian who is not a combatant at all.

Soldiers are made to follow orders from superiors, so they are technically accomplices while the real perpetrators are the ones in command as they endorsed the actions enlisted personnel execute. The issue is summoning them to a normal court since they are military personnel (not civilians).

It’s also a case to case basis, as the prosecution will have to prove between:

• The victim was unarmed when the combatants killed them
• The victim was bearing arms when the combatants killed them

That alone outlines between whether:

• The military justifies their actions as self defense since the victim had the intent to open fire at soldiers as they were armed with a weapon, so they argue that their job is eliminating the threat since that’s their duty.
• Eyewitnesses spotted the victim not bearing arms when the soldiers killed them, so they testify by saying the victim didn’t pose a threat as they didn’t harm the soldiers but they still intended to murder that person.

If you look at it from the military’s perspective, they will assert that shooting anyone who is armed or concealing a weapon even though they didn’t open fire (their duty is to eliminate the threat regardless if they are a combatant or civilian, as that doesn’t concern them from a kid holding an AK-47 to a real enemy).

The line between hero or villain becomes blurred from the context on: families of servicemen consider them brave warriors while the victim’s family grieving over the loss of their loved ones deem them as monsters as they assert “my son did nothing to you!” referring to the fact he was not carrying a weapon when he died.

Accessing intel regarding the case becomes complicated when the mission in question remains classified (basically government’s eyes only as special forces were deployed) but remains straightforward when the mission is transparent (the soldiers are part of a regular unit) meaning there’s information that can be found.

Even though, do lawyers have access to those files? That depends on if the lawyer is an expert in civilian criminal law or military justice with clearance. In rare cases: specialized lawyers who can mediate between civilian court and the military judiciary may work if it involves civilian victims and a military perpetrator.

Both trials from a civilian courtroom versus a court martial are independent from each other. Since:

• Court martial dwells on military personnel (meaning both the judge and jury are within rank & file)
• From Civilian trials, the judge is a normal person and the jury are citizens fulfilling their civic duty.