Obama Bombs a Hospital: War Crime, or Historic Achievement?

[Obambam]

The story was developing, some may be used to instantaneous news, but in a chaotic situation such as a war-zone, SURPRISE! things are chaotic! It takes a while to get the full story, and the media doesn't like waiting.

The General out and out acknowledged it was US error, there is no obscuring going on.

So they killed innocent civiliians then?

 

[VCheng]

Obama probably had nothing to do with the bombing. He probably gave the go ahead to militarily assist the Afghan National Army with anything that is possible, but it was probably a high ranking military official that gave the nod to conduct the strike (along with the Afghan officer that gave the coordinates) whom is responsible. Presidents don't micromanage wars, they leave that job to their military commanders.

There is an investigation. Let us wait for it to complete.

 

[anon45]

So they killed innocent civiliians then?

That would be the unfortunate end result, yes, I never saw any news source contesting that.

 

[That Guy]

There is an investigation. Let us wait for it to complete.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the investigation.

 

[OTTOMAN]

The US is just trying to remove terrorists. the hospital is just collateral damage.

Of course..
I don't understand, the fuss about this particular collateral damage... like there was non before!
In Afghanistan mass graves are every where, filled by the very same people, who gave US co-ordinates of hospital for bombing.

 

[VCheng]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the investigation.

You are entitled to your views, of course, but the investigation and its results are nonetheless important as due process. President Obama has apologized to the MSF President already, and has assured that the investigation will be open and complete.

 

[Oldman1]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the investigation.

So far I've read that the ANA requested for an airstrike on the hospital.

 

[Aepsilons]

The US is just trying to remove terrorists. the hospital is just collateral damage.

And that is not something to take lightly. Most of those who were killed were Physician volunteers of Medicens Sans Frontiers (Doctors without borders). This is a travesty, actually.

You are entitled to your views, of course, but the investigation and its results are nonetheless important as due process. President Obama has apologized to the MSF President already, and has assured that the investigation will be open and complete.

I think for one the MSF should have relayed their positions to any governmental and allied military forces, perhaps a lack in communication? Then again, we must also consider the unethical practice of bombing a hospital. There should be some areas considered sanctuary zones? Just my two cents.

 

[TaiShang]

Why the Kunduz Hospital Bombing Was Likely a War Crime

Bombing a hospital area - even if there are enemy elements in the area - constitutes a war crime.

This article originally appeared at The Intercept

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? It’s too early for experts to say for certain, but there’s 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 they’re 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 couldn’t 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, MSF’s 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. HRW’s Smith pointed me toward the latest draft of the Pentagon’s 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 Ra’ad 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 harm’s 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 Society’s 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 MSF’s contention that the attack constitutes a war crime, military spokespeople referred The Intercept to Campbell’s 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.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Obama Issues U.S. Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/w...izes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html

 

[TaiShang]

Congrats President Obama on being the first Nobel Prize Winner to bomb another Nobel Prize Winner MSF Kunduz

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

John Campbell: Doctors Without Borders hospital airstrike called in by Afghanistan - Washington Times

 

[Obambam]

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,”

This made so much sense they deserve a triple face palm award, as double is clearly not enough!

Extract from the US Defense Department law of war manual. Photograph: US Department of Defense

They should have refrained from any form of attack on the civilian medical facility. Thorough checks should have been made (had it been put in place in the first place) to determine the best course of action before initiating any form of hostile engagement towards this particular target.

Since it was already reported that there were no gun shots fired from the hospital, then how on earth did they come to the conclusion that the facility was hostile let alone determine the right level of force?

They managed to kill 22 staff and patients and injured 37 more in the process due to hearsay.
Try imagining if there was just one crazy firing from a window? Raze the hospital to the ground?

They have literally, and effectively, ripped that page right out of their USDD law of war manual.

 

[TaiShang]

This made so much sense they deserve a triple face palm award, as double is clearly not enough!

Extract from the US Defense Department law of war manual. Photograph: US Department of Defense

They should have refrained from any form of attack on the civilian medical facility. Thorough checks should have been made (had it been put in place in the first place) to determine the best course of action before initiating any form of hostile engagement towards this particular target.

Since it was already reported that there were no gun shots fired from the hospital, then how on earth did they come to the conclusion that the facility was hostile let alone determine the right level of force?

They managed to kill 22 staff and patients and injured 37 more in the process due to hearsay.
Try imagining if there was just one crazy firing from a window? Raze the hospital to the ground?

They have literally, and effectively, ripped that page right out of their USDD law of war manual.

Looks like they are following the steps point by point:

***

How would the Pentagon normally respond to a “regrettable boo-boo” such as this? Let us consult the best-selling U.S. Army field manual, So You Committed a War Crime. Now What?

1. Plausible deniability. For example: “It could have been the Taliban Air Force”. If this doesn't work, then:

2. Blame the brown-people government of the brown-people country that you are currently occupying. If this doesn't work, then:

3. Weapons were actually being stashed at the hospital, so it was a legitimate target. If this doesn't work, then:

4. Hey, look. Another school shooting.

***

US Deliberately Took out Afghan Hospital, UN: 'Probable War Crime'

Bombing continued for an hour after NATO officials were notified the planes war striking a civilian target.

Mon, Oct 5

US-claimed “collateral damage” when explaining civilian targets struck reflects willful coverup and denial.

America has precision munitions, able to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy. Its forces knew the coordinates of the Kunduz, Afghanistan hospital.

The only plausible explanation for what happened was cold, calculated, deliberate murder. US warplanes bombed the hospital for over an hour – the first strike at 2:10AM.

Hospital staff notified NATO officials in Kabul minutes later. Bombing continued until 3:13AM. It bears repeating. Let’s not mince words.

Multiple US air strikes were willful acts of murder, likely targeting nearby Taliban fighters, maybe injured ones inside, or perhaps another reason yet to be revealed.

At least 19 were killed – 12 MSF staff and 7 patients, including three children. NATO spokesman Col. Brian Tribus lied claiming the “incident is under investigation.”

All conducted are routinely whitewashed. US military and civilian officials are never held accountable for cold-blooded murder – why these type incidents are commonplace, regular occurrences. Empires don’t apologize. Statements issued ring hollow.

A Médecins Sans Frontières, or Doctors Without Borders (MSF) statement expressed outrage, “condemn(ation) in the strongest possible terms” – calling the attack “a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” demanding a full independently conducted investigation, assuring “maximum transparency and accountability.”

MSF president Meinie Nicolai said “(w)e cannot accept that this horrific loss of life will simply be dismissed as ‘collateral damage.’ “ A same day article discussing the incident briefly called so-called collateral damage Orwellian code language for willful US mass murder.

It explained Russian aircraft strike ISIS targets in Syria with pinpoint accuracy, avoiding civilian casualties – polar opposite how America operates.

The main hospital building was engulfed in flames. Patients unable to escape were immolated in their beds. US commanders ordered the hospital attacked. They had precise coordinates to avoid striking it. Its standard MSF practice in conflict theaters to provide them.

The facility was the area’s only hospital. Much of it lies in ruins. Thirty-seven people were injured, including 19 MSF staff, another 30 still unaccounted for.

In 2014, the facility treated over 22,000 patients pro bono, including over 5,900 requiring surgery, many to repair their war-shattered bodies, numerous others to save their lives. No one needing care was turned away, regardless of “ethnicity, religious beliefs or political affiliation,” said MSF.

It’s been working in Afghanistan since 1980 – opening the Kunduz Trauma Center in August 2011.

Surviving doctors and staff desperately tried saving as many lives as possible after America’s attack – using a makeshift operating room in an undamaged area. Other critically injured patients were sent to a Puli Khumri hospital, a two-hour drive away.

MSF said “besides resulting in the deaths of our colleagues and patients, this attack has cut off access to urgent trauma care for the population in Kunduz at a time when its services are most needed.”

US imperial ruthlessness bears full responsibility. Afghans and MSF will long remember this vicious attack – how America operates worldwide, dismissive of human life and welfare.

 

[VCheng]

I think for one the MSF should have relayed their positions to any governmental and allied military forces, perhaps a lack in communication? Then again, we must also consider the unethical practice of bombing a hospital. There should be some areas considered sanctuary zones? Just my two cents.

The hospital location was known, but its co-ordinates were passed on as the source of fire on friendlies. There is no "practice" of bombing hospitals, this was a mistake in not recognizing the co-ordinates given as being a known hospital somewhere along the chain of command. The exact sequence of events, including the error, and decisions, will be looked at by the investigation.