> since these guys are just doing war crime after war crime, it's a good thing if it leaks
Irrelevant. One, we’re no longer in an era of international rules-based order. All the great powers agree on this.
Two, the definition of war crimes has expanded so broadly as to include any collateral damage. This overinclusiveness has rendered the term meaningless, with everyone calling everything they don’t like a war crime.
There will be consequences for this administration. But not because they bombed a terrorist commander.
>Two, the definition of war crimes has expanded so broadly as to include any collateral damage. This overinclusiveness has rendered the term meaningless
Can you provide real examples of actual journalists or governments doing this? Random FB commenters don't know what any words mean, but I haven't seen this to be the case in actual official channels. Asserting that it is meaningless feels like trying to downplay or trivialize real war crimes that are actually happening.
Irrelevant. One, we’re no longer in an era of international rules-based order. All the great powers agree on this.
Two, the definition of war crimes has expanded so broadly as to include any collateral damage. This overinclusiveness has rendered the term meaningless, with everyone calling everything they don’t like a war crime.
There will be consequences for this administration. But not because they bombed a terrorist commander.