Welcome to the United States Department of War...crimes! In recent news, the US has engaged in direct missile strikes destroying Iranian civilian water and energy infrastructure because, you know, war (but Congress hasn't declared war, so it's just 'kinetic diplomacy'—wait, what?). Unless you've been living under a rock or off the grid like the Unabomber, you've heard that the United States is escalating a conflict with Iran for reasons that the American public and everyone else except Israel are still trying to decipher.
All of this warring would be fantastic except for one glaring fact: we're willfully committing blatant war crimes. That's right, we, the land of the free, home of the brave (unless you have bone spurs, because those hurt), are openly committing war crimes as outlined in the Geneva Convention. Many MAGA geniuses will argue that the Geneva Convention is an old, broadly defunct document that no one really adheres to.
Hmm, maybe we should find out if that's true. I mean, if no one follows the Geneva Convention anymore, I certainly would like that Geneva Convention category removed from my military ID! Geez, I don't want to be reminded that we were supposed to be following such a crusty, old, illegitimate document for the entirety of my career up until this past week. And I definitely don't want to be treated in accordance with the GC if I'm ever detained in a foreign country. Come on, who would want humane treatment? I suppose it's time to go back to the ID office.
Before I go further off the deep end, maybe we should at least look at what this GC is...hmm, have I been an idiot for so long that perhaps I just don't have the same level of intelligence as our fearful leaders? Probably.
First, I think it's important to fully realize what alleged war crimes we're committing. You know there's a saying that, "it's not a war crime the first time" meaning that much like the warning messages on pretty much every consumer product, didn't come about until someone performed the action being forbidden. So is this the first time these alleged crimes have been performed? No. According to the very prestigious and never embellished history over at History.com, the targeting of civilian critical infrastructure essentially began when men started fighting other men, thousands of years ago. So...definitely not the first time. But what actually happened this week? According to the news: 'Kuwait reported severe damage and advised civilians to ration power after Iranian attacks, while Iran said the U.S. struck a desalination plant that supplies water to thousands.'
Well, it's definitely not the first time someone has targeted civilian infrastructure, but is this actually a war crime? What does the GC say?
Article 54 - Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.
In summary: don't blow up shit that people need to stay alive, I.E. food and water unless they are exclusively used by the adversary's military.
In conclusion, both Iran and the United States committed war crimes... Does this mean that they cancel each other out? Ya know, since Iran did a war crime too, it MUST be okay for us to war crime them back? I had to bring out the big guns to answer this question, so I, yet again, consulted my digital life partner. The verdict? Non-reciprocity. In international law, it's called a banned reprisal.
I guess two wrongs don't actually cancel each other out. If both countries do a war crime on each other, it just means that they're both at fault for committing war crimes. Booorrring!
So where does that leave us? Who is the enforcing body for the GC? Well, each member country is supposed to enforce and prosecute violations domestically but can also go to an international criminal court or tribunal if there is inaction domestically. Does that mean that Trump could be prosecuted for war crimes since he went on television and stated the exact war crimes he was going to perpetrate and subsequently had the military carry out?
To answer this, I turned to the judicial system, since they supposedly interpret the law. The recent Trump v. United States Supreme Court ruling basically held that former Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their 'core constitutional powers' and presumptive immunity for 'official acts.'
Wait, what? Since commanding the military is a core constitutional power, does that mean the President of the United States can order actions in direct violation of international treaties that were created to prevent atrocities? Yes. According to our completely nonpartisan and totally not corrupt Supreme Court, the President of the United States can effectively order the military to wipe out civilian survival infrastructure and not be held criminally liable here at home. Huh...................................................................
I'm legitimately speechless. FDT.
Dad out.