When Israel bombed hospitals in Gaza last summer, almost nothing was written
about it at the time. I believe two hospitals and several clinics were
bombed. Aside from those publications specifically concerned with
Israel/Palestine, no one else wrote about the fact that international law
was broken or about proportionality. No one commented on the lameness of the
excuses provided by Israel. I don't think that the Intercept wrote about
the issue. I'm sure that the NYT didn't.
Miriam
Turse writes: "Hospitals enjoy special status protecting them from
deliberate attack, and they are generally filled with protected persons -
medical personnel, civilians, and sick or wounded soldiers, enemy as well as
friendly - none of whom may be willfully wounded or killed."
Fires burn in part of the MSF hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz after it
was hit by a U.S. air strike this weekend. (photo: AFP/MSF)
Why the US Bombing of Kunduz Hospital Was Probably a War Crime
By Nick Turse, The Intercept
08 October 15
Did the U.S. military commit a war crime when it bombed a hospital in the
Afghan city of Kunduz and killed at least 22 people? Its too early for
experts to say for certain, but theres good reason to believe the attack
may have violated international humanitarian law.
Hospitals enjoy special status protecting them from deliberate attack, and
they are generally filled with protected persons medical personnel,
civilians, and sick or wounded soldiers, enemy as well as friendly none of
whom may be willfully wounded or killed.
While hospitals can lose that protection if theyre being used for military
purposes, the standard is very high, says James Ross, the legal and policy
director at Human Rights Watch. What if the unsubstantiated Afghan claims
about Taliban fighters being deployed at the hospital are true? Even if
this were the case it would have not have allowed for the kind of attacks
that struck the hospital, Ross told me.
On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship fired on a Médecins Sans Frontières
hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, for more than 30 minutes, killing 12 staff
members and at least 10 patients while wounding 37 others. There are no
words for how terrible it was, said MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs, who was in
the trauma center during the airstrike. In the Intensive Care Unit six
patients were burning in their beds. The first moments were just chaos.
Enough staff had survived, so we could help all the wounded with treatable
wounds. But there were too many that we couldnt help.
One of the last providers of medical care in Kunduz the first major
enclave to fall to the Taliban since the Afghanistan War began in 2001 MSF
has since withdrawn its personnel from the city.
Initial reports from the U.S. military alleged that U.S. forces were under
attack in the vicinity of the hospital, prompting the airstrike. Gen. John
Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, later said this was
actually not the case and that it was Afghan forces that requested air
support, though he also said, speaking in broad terms about sites like
medical facilities and schools, that we do not strike those kind of
targets, obviously. Afghan officials later claimed the hospital campus was
100 percent used by the Taliban, a charge that MSF strenuously denies.
Even if there was any truth to those allegations and to date, no evidence
has emerged of the Taliban fighting from the hospital grounds the bombing
would likely still be a violation of international law.
These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided
to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff
and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were
present, Christopher Stokes, MSFs general director, said in a statement.
This amounts to an admission of a war crime.
According to Jonathan Horowitz, a legal officer for the Open Society Justice
Initiative who formerly worked as an adviser at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul,
those who plan and decide attacks are required to do everything feasible to
verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilian nor civilian
objects and are not subject to special protections. The planners must also
take all feasible measure to choose the means and methods of attack with the
view of avoiding, or at least minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life
and injury to civilians and civilian objects.
International humanitarian law allows for collateral damage to hospitals if
a strike in the vicinity causes destruction that is not excessive compared
to the direct military advantages gained by the attack. HRWs Ross pointed
me toward the latest draft of the Pentagons Law of War Manual, released in
June, which reinforces the necessity of proportionality. It notes that
forces receiving heavy fire from a hospital may exercise their right of
self-defense and return fire. Such use of force in self-defense against
medical units or facilities must be proportionate. For example, a single
enemy rifleman firing from a hospital window would warrant a response
against the rifleman only, rather than the destruction of the hospital.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al
Hussein, also raised the possibility of criminality in Kunduz.
International and Afghan military planners have an obligation to respect
and protect civilians at all times, and medical facilities and personnel are
the object of a special protection. These obligations apply no matter whose
air force is involved, and irrespective of the location, he said.
In a press conference yesterday, Gen. Campbell stressed that the U.S. takes
extraordinary steps to avoid harm to civilians and blamed the Taliban for
fighting from within a heavily urbanized area, purposely placing civilians
in harms way. He also downplayed the effects of the U.S. airstrike, which
resulted in nearly 60 casualties, stating only that several civilians were
accidentally struck.
Sarah Knuckey, an international lawyer and co-director of the Human Rights
Institute at Columbia Law School, pointed to the key question of
proportionality. It is difficult to try to understand right now what kinds
of mistakes, or negligence, or recklessness could lead to such a
catastrophic outcome, she said. Did officials conduct a proportionality
analysis here and conclude that 22 lives and 37 people injured and the loss
of the only trauma center in the area were proportionate civilian harms to
the military advantage of the strike?
That sentiment is echoed by the Open Societys Horowitz. The significance
of the harm caused to the hospital and to the patients, and the staff, and
the caretakers within raise serious concerns about whether the attack was
proportionate and whether the U.S. took the proper precautionary measures,
he said.
Asked for comment on the Kunduz strike and MSFs contention that the attack
constitutes a war crime, military spokespeople referred The Intercept to
Campbells Monday briefing. At this time the incident is under
investigation, so we are not able to provide additional details, said one
of them. The U.S. investigation has been joined by NATO and Afghan
inquiries, according to Campbell. MSF for its part demands that a full and
transparent investigation into the event be conducted by an independent
international body.
It is critical that there be a detailed investigation to assess the
legality of this strike. But the legal lens should not be the limit of
analysis, Knuckey said, emphasizing the need to look at the bigger picture
something beyond legal strictures and international codes of conduct
that might otherwise get lost amid the claims and counter claims about the
attack.
In this case, regardless of legality, what are the health, rights,
humanitarian, and security implications for the people of Kunduz? she
asked.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Fires burn in part of the MSF hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz after it
was hit by a U.S. air strike this weekend. (photo: AFP/MSF)
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospital-was-probably
-a-war-crime/https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospital
-was-probably-a-war-crime/
Why the US Bombing of Kunduz Hospital Was Probably a War Crime
By Nick Turse, The Intercept
08 October 15
id the U.S. military commit a war crime when it bombed a hospital in the
Afghan city of Kunduz and killed at least 22 people? Its too early for
experts to say for certain, but theres good reason to believe the attack
may have violated international humanitarian law.
Hospitals enjoy special status protecting them from deliberate attack, and
they are generally filled with protected persons medical personnel,
civilians, and sick or wounded soldiers, enemy as well as friendly none of
whom may be willfully wounded or killed.
While hospitals can lose that protection if theyre being used for military
purposes, the standard is very high, says James Ross, the legal and policy
director at Human Rights Watch. What if the unsubstantiated Afghan claims
about Taliban fighters being deployed at the hospital are true? Even if
this were the case it would have not have allowed for the kind of attacks
that struck the hospital, Ross told me.
On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship fired on a Médecins Sans Frontières
hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, for more than 30 minutes, killing 12 staff
members and at least 10 patients while wounding 37 others. There are no
words for how terrible it was, said MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs, who was in
the trauma center during the airstrike. In the Intensive Care Unit six
patients were burning in their beds. The first moments were just chaos.
Enough staff had survived, so we could help all the wounded with treatable
wounds. But there were too many that we couldnt help.
One of the last providers of medical care in Kunduz the first major
enclave to fall to the Taliban since the Afghanistan War began in 2001 MSF
has since withdrawn its personnel from the city.
Initial reports from the U.S. military alleged that U.S. forces were under
attack in the vicinity of the hospital, prompting the airstrike. Gen. John
Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, later said this was
actually not the case and that it was Afghan forces that requested air
support, though he also said, speaking in broad terms about sites like
medical facilities and schools, that we do not strike those kind of
targets, obviously. Afghan officials later claimed the hospital campus was
100 percent used by the Taliban, a charge that MSF strenuously denies.
Even if there was any truth to those allegations and to date, no evidence
has emerged of the Taliban fighting from the hospital grounds the bombing
would likely still be a violation of international law.
These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided
to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff
and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were
present, Christopher Stokes, MSFs general director, said in a statement.
This amounts to an admission of a war crime.
According to Jonathan Horowitz, a legal officer for the Open Society Justice
Initiative who formerly worked as an adviser at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul,
those who plan and decide attacks are required to do everything feasible to
verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilian nor civilian
objects and are not subject to special protections. The planners must also
take all feasible measure to choose the means and methods of attack with the
view of avoiding, or at least minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life
and injury to civilians and civilian objects.
International humanitarian law allows for collateral damage to hospitals if
a strike in the vicinity causes destruction that is not excessive compared
to the direct military advantages gained by the attack. HRWs Ross pointed
me toward the latest draft of the Pentagons Law of War Manual, released in
June, which reinforces the necessity of proportionality. It notes that
forces receiving heavy fire from a hospital may exercise their right of
self-defense and return fire. Such use of force in self-defense against
medical units or facilities must be proportionate. For example, a single
enemy rifleman firing from a hospital window would warrant a response
against the rifleman only, rather than the destruction of the hospital.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al
Hussein, also raised the possibility of criminality in Kunduz.
International and Afghan military planners have an obligation to respect
and protect civilians at all times, and medical facilities and personnel are
the object of a special protection. These obligations apply no matter whose
air force is involved, and irrespective of the location, he said.
In a press conference yesterday, Gen. Campbell stressed that the U.S. takes
extraordinary steps to avoid harm to civilians and blamed the Taliban for
fighting from within a heavily urbanized area, purposely placing civilians
in harms way. He also downplayed the effects of the U.S. airstrike, which
resulted in nearly 60 casualties, stating only that several civilians were
accidentally struck.
Sarah Knuckey, an international lawyer and co-director of the Human Rights
Institute at Columbia Law School, pointed to the key question of
proportionality. It is difficult to try to understand right now what kinds
of mistakes, or negligence, or recklessness could lead to such a
catastrophic outcome, she said. Did officials conduct a proportionality
analysis here and conclude that 22 lives and 37 people injured and the loss
of the only trauma center in the area were proportionate civilian harms to
the military advantage of the strike?
That sentiment is echoed by the Open Societys Horowitz. The significance
of the harm caused to the hospital and to the patients, and the staff, and
the caretakers within raise serious concerns about whether the attack was
proportionate and whether the U.S. took the proper precautionary measures,
he said.
Asked for comment on the Kunduz strike and MSFs contention that the attack
constitutes a war crime, military spokespeople referred The Intercept to
Campbells Monday briefing. At this time the incident is under
investigation, so we are not able to provide additional details, said one
of them. The U.S. investigation has been joined by NATO and Afghan
inquiries, according to Campbell. MSF for its part demands that a full and
transparent investigation into the event be conducted by an independent
international body.
It is critical that there be a detailed investigation to assess the
legality of this strike. But the legal lens should not be the limit of
analysis, Knuckey said, emphasizing the need to look at the bigger picture
something beyond legal strictures and international codes of conduct
that might otherwise get lost amid the claims and counter claims about the
attack.
In this case, regardless of legality, what are the health, rights,
humanitarian, and security implications for the people of Kunduz? she
asked.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
