Legal experts say attacking Iran’s infrastructure would constitute a war crime – but would military officers be held responsible?

Donald Trump’s threats to carry out mass bombing of civilian infrastructure in Iran present US military officers with a dilemma: disobey orders or help commit war crimes.

It is an urgent matter for the US chain of command. In an expletive-laden threat, Trump set a Tuesday 8pm Washington time deadline for the Iranian government to open the strait of Hormuz or face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one”.

There is little debate among legal experts that such an attack on the life-supporting infrastructure for 93 million Iranians would constitute a war crime.

“Such rhetorical statements – if followed through – would amount to the most serious war crimes – and thus the president’s statements place service members in a profoundly challenging situation,” two former judge advocate general (JAG) officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham wrote on the website Just Security on Monday.

“As former uniformed military lawyers who advised targeting operations, we know the president’s words run counter to decades of legal training of military personnel and risk placing our warfighters on a path of no return.”

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    0·
    18 days ago

    The key is that the orders have to be obviously illegal. Can’t be much maybe about it. I didn’t see anything in the article saying what makes it a war crime. And I am pretty sure there isn’t anything very explicit doing so. Bombing/disrupting infrastructure has been a staple of war since forever.

    • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      18 days ago

      Ww2 was where hitting the means of production occurred on an industrial scale. But from russians razing and burning their own land they retreat from to romans it has been standard.

      International law means nothing anyway. We all know it. I’m sick of hearing about it because it means nothing.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        0·
        18 days ago

        Overall, yes. Proving an order illegal is a high bar. Proving it was obviously illegal to the soldier is even harder. International law isn’t US law. But some international law is specifically ratified in US law. But how is a soldier supposed to know which international laws are also US laws. These aren’t lawyers…

    • toad@lemmy.wtf
      0·
      18 days ago

      I didn’t see anything in the article saying what makes it a war crime.

      A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict, known as international humanitarian law (IHL) and the laws of war, which gives rise to criminal responsibility under international law. Examples of actions committed by combatants in the conduct of war that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility include, but are not limited to: intentionally killing civilians, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military, ordering any attempt to commit mass killings (including genocide or ethnic cleansing), and flouting the requirements of distinction, proportionality and military necessity.[1]

      Took me 3 seconds on wikipedia -_- every soldiers who commit war crime is a nazi and belongs to the rope.