Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?

[Senior]

And it was not a war crime for the allies to attack bridges and rail hubs / marshaling yards all across western France in the months leading up to the invasion in Normandy; these attacks were perfectly legit.

Most of the codices regarding the conduct of modern warfare were not created until after WWII.

Thus, doing so today is not a war crime.

The ICC has prosecuted numerous charged war criminals. International war crimes warrants exist today for both Vladimir Putin (March 17, 2023) and Benjamin Netanyahu (November 21, 2024). Neither Russia nor Israel signed and ratified the Rome Statute. However, this does not relieve these individuals of responsibility and they can be tried in absentia.

if all you can do is scream "war crime!!" and have no capacity to enforce it, your screams don't mean anything. The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

The ICC does not have jurisdiction in all territories of the world. Countries such as Bahamas, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Suriname, and the United States signed the agreement in the first instance, but did not ratify their adherence to the final treaty. China, India, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, and Russia, are among 60 other countries that openly reject the interference of the ICC in their territories.

The US is not party to the treaties which created the ICC and thus is not under its jurisdiction.

As I noted in Post #99.

The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of the codices regarding the conduct of modern warfare were not created until after WWII.

And none of them describe what we did in western France as a war crime.
Why? All of the targets were legitimate military targets.

The ICC has prosecuted numerous charged war criminals. International war crimes...

The ICC will not prosecute Americans.
The fact the ICC has not prosecuted Putin or Netanyahu demonstrate its absence of any real power to enforce 'the law'.
Thus:
if all you can do is scream "war crime!!" and have no capacity to enforce it, your screams don't mean anything. The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

 

[Concerned American]

Past examples are precedent. Nothing has changed which makes what the allied sis before the Normandy invasion a crime under the rules of war, because no no nation would agree to any such rules.

The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

Hmmm, Might makes Right. I've heard that before. Bottom line is, rules of war is a stupid concept. For crying out loud, one group is killing another group. There are no rules in war. That is exemplified by war crimes tribunals. They are always held by the victors with the same result. The loser is convicted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmm, Might makes Right. I've heard that before.

Where international law is concerned, that is exactly correct.
If someone breaks a treaty they have with you, and you do not have the physical power to enforce the provision of said treaty, the offending party suffers no consequence.

Bottom line is, rules of war is a stupid concept. For crying out loud, one group is killing another group. There are no rules in war.

There are.
You get caught killing prisoners of war, you get put against the wall.

 

[ColonelAngus]

All those tank traps on Omaha beach phucked up some good surfing waves.

WAR CRIME FOR SURE.

 

[Concerned American]

Where international law is concerned, that is exactly correct.
If someone breaks a treaty they have with you, and you do not have the physical power to enforce the provision of said treaty, the offending party suffers no consequence.

There are.
You get caught killing prisoners of war, you get put against the wall.

Has anyone ever caught the victor? SMH. Every country that has ever gone to war has killed POWs. The idea is silly. If a combatant is killed on a battlefield, all is well and good. But if that same combatant is wounded on the battlefield -- he is protected from being killed. Rules of war are a democrat construct that they don't even follow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has anyone ever caught the victor?

Funny thing about war crimes - the winner never has to answer for them.

Rules of war are a democrat construct that they don't even follow.

Close - they are a means to criticize Republican Presidents when they order military action, because they know they can prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.