• ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    People don’t get a ‘get out of war crimes’ card by not being officially in the military. If they purposefully took hostile action in the conflict they’re combatants, uniformed or not. The use of poison is a war crime.

    • Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      When the Russians use rape as a weapon, I cheer on the locals in occupied areas serving poisoned fruit

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yes they do. This act falls under the purview of civilian enforcement. It is up to the controlling government to prosecute these civilian crimes in civilian criminal court.

      EDIT: Okay, so this particular argument irked me so I investigated. Unfortunately, Ninja is technically correct. According to the ICRC civilians receive an instantaneous removal of their status as non-combatant for the duration of the hostile act, and the ICC’s Rome Statutes clearly list using poison as a warcrime so it is probable the perpetrators could be prosecuted. More likely, however, is that their being subject to civilians laws means they can ALSO be prosecuted in the civilian manner. Double the risk for the reward.

      That said. Russia wants to FAFO that’s their problem.

    • Wilzax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not all war crimes are actually bad when committed against worse war criminals in self-defense.