Is it a war crime?
When I heard the news of the United States bombing a civilian restaurant in a portion of Iraqi-controlled Baghdad (April 7, 2003), I wondered if the act would be considered a war crime. There is no universally agreed-upon definition for "war crime." International law experts have argued for years that the world needs to agree on a definition.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as including
"Wilful killing ... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health ... extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." (Quoted at the BBC news website.)
I have no doubt that the U.S. military will say the bombing was justified by military necessity. The purported reason for the attack was that "intelligence" indicated a military meeting taking place in the restaurant, attended by top Iraqi officials and possibly even by Saddam Hussein and/or his sons.
Keep in mind that this is the same military that began this war with a "decapitation" attack, also based on "intelligence," which failed to meet its objective (the death of Saddam Hussein).
The Hague tribunal, currently trying Slobodan Milosovich, considers the following to be a war crime:
- Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings.
"Out of our way". It's my understanding from news reports over the past few weeks that many thousands of special forces troops are deployed in the Baghdad area. Why was it not possible to send a special forces unit to raid the restaurant? Such a method would have minimized civilian deaths in the neighborhood, avoided destruction of the restaurant and homes nearby, and might have captured Iraqi officials who could provide important information.
I expect one of the following answers from the Pentagon.
- There wasn't time to arrange it. If this is the reason, the U.S. military placed civilian lives in the balance scales against an opportunity to kill Saddam. Clearly the certain deaths of civilians mattered less than an uncertain opportunity. Repeatedly since the war began, the U.S. military has said it "goes out of its way" to avoid civilian casualties. This attack would hardly constitute "going out of its way."
- Given that the restaurant was located in a portion of Baghdad still controlled by Iraqi troops, the risk of casualties was considered too great. If this is the reason, in the eyes of the Pentagon, the life of an armed, trained, special forces soldier is more valuable than the life of a child who lives nearby.
So far, estimates of civilian casualties range from 9 to 30. The civilian dead include at least one child.
Note: In June of 2002, a UN investigator charged the Israeli government with war crimes (see the United Nations Foundation site, one of many citing this report).
This page last updated 12/28/05. Contact me
