How convenient that it was a "mistake". Reminds me of the time the US "mistakenly" bombed Al Jazeera's offices. [1]
So the US will offer full support of the MSF's calls for a War Crime tribunal investigation?
What really amazes me is that no matter what information comes out, no matter how stark the facts, how brutal the reality, how corrupt the politics, how illegal the tactics, there is always a band of American apologists ready to step up justify cold blooded murder.
Well, that's not so much an American thing, it's very general. I wouldn't even restrict it to nations only, it's a general "tribe" thing. It can even apply to video games and music, sports, and so on.
The worst part to me is that conflicts can very well be driven where people on all sorts of sides "reason" (it really has to be put in quotes I think) this way. With the result that attempts at fairness, any objections to double standards makes a person a perceived traitor to everybody deeply invested on the self-delusion of any of the sides.
From "Notes on Nationalism" by George Orwell: (as most if not all of his writings, it's available on the web and well worth a read)
> The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospi...
Something can be both a “terrible mistake” and also a violation of international law.
At a high level, it seems unlikely that American military leaders would intend to bomb a hospital, considering the horrible human toll and subsequent political and public relations disaster.
Perhaps the investigation will turn up a more complete story about why the hospital was targeted.
If it is true that some of our “allies” on the ground in Afghanistan directed the US military to bomb that location, as was reported somewhere I read, then that is no excuse for such a colossal fuckup – especially considering that the MSF had previously told all sides the hospital’s coordinates – and whoever in the US military took that information at face value should take proper responsibility, and whoever directed them should also be dealt with.
If instead it was, as themgt speculates, a deliberate choice by someone in the American military to target the building with full knowledge that it is a hospital, then that person should be tried for war crimes.
perhaps we didn't create Al-Queda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnLvzV9xAHA [Hillary Clinton]
perhaps we're not involved in training/funding ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxDKmM8npBQ [John McCain]
or maybe there's something seriously wrong with the traditional narrative - http://naplay.it/763/41-47
while I'm not 100% sure about that (it seems unthinkable for a human being, but people's judgement can get pretty out of whack in wrong environment), let's assume for the sake of argument that your military leaders are sane.
even then, all it requires is the bare minimum of military leader people closing their eyes for just long enough.
and if you believe they wouldn't do that intentionally, then we'll disagree about that. you don't get that position without the ability to look the other way with laser-sharp focus. it's part of the job (and it's disgusting).
but they would say "you don't know what it's like". meditate on that for a bit. this world, huh?
Yes, it is. A Congressionally declared war, even.
People tend to get hung up on the mistaken idea that Congress's power to declare war requires the use of magic words in the legislation in which it is exercised (e.g., that it has to use the words "declare" or "war"), but this is not the case. A Congressional "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is a declaration of war (perhaps -- as was the case with both the 2001 open-ended 9/11 AUMF and 2003 Iraq AUMF -- a conditional declaration of war conditioned on a determination to be made by the executive, but a declaration of war nonetheless.)
"IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The wording is vague, however it would be most commonly interpreted as a war against Al-Quaeda. It could possibly but improbably be interpreted as a war against anyone.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
Its all being targeted at people or organizations the President -- whether Bush or Obama -- has determined have the requisite relationship to 9/11. The accuracy of that determination is immaterial to the AUMF, which isn't contingent on the actual relation of the targets to 9/11, but on the President's determination of the relation.
Just giving another indication on how vague this wording is.
At the time they lived in Germany (before the attacks), the officials in the country obviously did not know of their plans.
Given that, any other vagueness is fairly irrelevant; its pretty much a blank check no matter what things like "harbored" mean. Which is why even President Obsma has said it should be repealed.