Louise Arbour is at it again:
'Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic." '(Jerusalem Post)
If she really thinks this way, I'm distressed (though not surprised) that she was ever responsible for making the laws of this country.
I can get behind the idea that trying to slaughter civilians (full stop, not part of a specific military op) is "very bad". However, the idea that it's criminally "reckless" to engage legitimate military targets if there happen to be civilians there, and that this is worse than "very bad" is not merely a crock, it's illogical. I don't imagine that I'm alone in feeling that murderous intent is no less "bad" for not being executed very effectively.
To me this suggests that she has lost all touch with reality, and I will refer you back to some previous posts of mine dealing with the Laws of Armed Conflict and with Ms Arbours' fecklessness on this subject.
As a parting shot, I would like ask Louise Arbour one question: if the Islamist scum that you keep enabling ever do take over, what chance is there for another woman to ever rise to a position of (self) importance like yours?
PS: if you can work out the relation of the title to the subject matter of this piece you'll have a bit of a window into the circuitous workings of my mind. If not, rest assured that it makes sense to me. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment