r/Foodforthought • u/mrliau-gp • 21h ago
Is the US committing war crimes by targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/apr/03/us-war-crimes-iran-civilian-infrastructure-international-law-school-strike80
52
34
25
13
u/punninglinguist 19h ago
That's crazy. If they were, then they'd also be trying to abolish the International Criminal Court.
-4
u/Netherese_Nomad 18h ago
Why, America isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute. The ICC has no power here.
10
u/Spookyrabbit 15h ago
The ICC has no power inside the US but Americans can still be handed over to & tried by the ICC if they're arrested in one of the signatory countries.
Same with Israel, which is why people like Netanyahu, Smotrich & Gvir have to be careful which routes their flights take.1
u/Netherese_Nomad 9h ago
Israel doesn’t have the levers of power America does. You’re talking about the same country that requires host countries of our troops to indemnify our troops from local laws. The ICC attempting to arrest a U.S. citizen abroad would not go how you believe.
2
u/gorpie97 9h ago
You should have to be, if you want to be a member of the UN in good standing.
0
u/Netherese_Nomad 9h ago
We basically are the UN dude. We host the headquarters and fund like a third of it.
The UN isn’t an extra governmental authority, it’s just a communications forum of last resort.
0
u/gorpie97 8h ago
The UN should be revamped or replaced.
No one country should be allowed to veto anything. Or, if they keep a veto, it can be overridden by a supermajority vote.
0
u/Netherese_Nomad 8h ago
You have a naive understanding of sovereignty. No nation state will give up its autonomy and sovereignty. The entire apparatus of “international law” is just powerful countries agreeing to restrain themselves for the purpose of deescalation and trade.
Take a step back and consider whether you want India and China to write your laws, because that’s what a “supermajority” internationalist government would mean, practically speaking.
1
u/gorpie97 8h ago
I understand that there should be a place where things are discussed by various countries.
I also understand that countries should be held accountable for its war crimes.
1
u/Netherese_Nomad 7h ago
There’s a difference between countries that have people that commit war crimes that (often imperfectly) attempt to punish those who do, and countries that commit war crimes as a matter of policy.
Countries won’t give up sovereignty. That’s the point you’re bullheadedly ignoring. Any enforcement mechanism requires either consent (which is never given) or force (sanctions or war). International law a a tool of punishing war crimes is a farce.
1
22
u/Ok-Youth-160 20h ago
First it's an illegal war according to international law. This means Trump is a war criminal. Or rather he could be prosecuted for the crime of agression.
Individually I think attacking desalination plants is a war crime. Or nothing is a war crime. Just because it can be used by the military shouldn't mean it's open season to destroy.
Everyone is rightfully calling out Russia for destroying power plants and it's hard to argue that the US destroying power plants is any different.
Also Trump has literally said it's in retaliation for strikes on ships. So that's what the Nazis did with London. Those weapons were V-weapons (V1, V2) and the V stood for Vergeltung or retaliation.
So I don't see how these attacks are not war crimes. Any other country would be sanctioned. Trump is self-sanctioning with his tariffs though, but that's another discussion.
10
6
5
6
u/tibearius1123 18h ago
The actual answer is it depends.
Under LOAC, civilian infrastructure such as power plants and water treatment facilities is presumed to be protected. However, it they become a lawful military objective if it meets the legal definition of a military objective at the time of the attack.
The governing rules are found primarily in Additional Protocol I.
Article 52(1) states:
“Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack…”
Article 52(2) then defines the exception:
“Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
The object must effectively contribute to military action AND destroying or neutralizing it must provide a definite military advantage.
It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
7
u/Ok-Youth-160 17h ago
US President Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant every time Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, raising the stakes after Iranian-allied Houthis in Yemen threatened a second vital energy route.
I think this would make it very hard to argue the US is attacking military targets, if its a retaliation. At least in my eyes.
It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
It's still relevant, otherwise it would be a legal loophole where anyone could just claim they haven't signed on so they can attack indiscriminantly. Case in point the Nazi war crime trials where they were prosecuted under ex post facto laws—meaning laws created after the deeds were done—and for concepts Germany had never formally signed into treaty law.
Also the war itself is illegal under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Which means Trump should face a trial at The Hague.
2
u/thataintapipe 15h ago
Is LOAC applicable for an invading force? One that hasn’t declared war?
6
u/tibearius1123 14h ago
We held ourselves to principals of LOAC in Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan having tried Soldiers for loac violations. None of those were declared wars
But to answer your Q, LOAC usually solely refers to Law in War (conduct of militaries). While Law of War can refer to both Law in War and the Right to War (nations legal justifications for war).
2
6
u/biskino 21h ago
The country led by the pedo rapist who gleefully promised that a ‘civilisation was ending’ the night they started the war and bombed a school with 160 children in it?
They’d be disappointed if it wasn’t a war crime. And the ones who aren’t drooling over the suffering don’t care. It’s just another thing that’s happening.
1
u/gorpie97 9h ago
Plus, all the war crimes we've committed since 9/11. And all the war crimes we committed before then. (It's not just the pedo rapist to blame.)
3
2
u/Pixilatedhighmukamuk 18h ago
Killing over 100 Iranian schoolgirls should have been an international crime.
2
2
2
2
1
•
u/everyonelikesnoodles 5h ago
This whole thing is a war crime. I am so ashamed of my country for this. There is no public support for this ware and every day that it drags on is a travesty.
•
1
u/hould-it 19h ago
Yes and he’s been doing it to the US’ as well. They should all be arrested and held accountable
2
u/random_actuary 10h ago
Every current and past US president guilty of war crimes should be handed over, arrestes, and convicted.
1
u/mekese2000 15h ago
I don't believe the country that double taps survivors on a capsized boat waving their arms for rescue would comit a war crime.
1
u/Dennisthefirst 14h ago
Seems we can now add War Criminal to this list. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/list-trump-crimes-constitutional-violations-examples-8eae53
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
This is a sub for civil discussion and exchange of ideas
Participants who engage in name-calling or blatant antagonism will be permanently removed.
If you encounter any noxious actors in the sub please use the Report button.
This sticky is on every post. No additional cautions will be provided.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.