We've all seen some variation of this news report today.

Air strikes in the British-controlled Helmand province of Afghanistan may have killed civilians, coalition troops said yesterday as local people claimed that between 50 and 80 people, many of them women and children, had died.

In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants.

It takes a while, however, to get to the reason for this tragedy -- and discern the moral responsibility for the deaths -- as well as where international law places the responsibility.

The bombardment, which witnesses said lasted up to three hours, in the Gereshk district late on Friday followed an attempted ambush by the Taliban on a joint US-Afghan military convoy. According to Mohammad Hussein, the provincial police chief, the militants fled into a nearby village for cover. Planes then targeted the village of Hyderabad. Mohammad Khan, a resident of the village, said seven members of his family, including his brother and five of his brother's children, were killed.

Oh, that is why the bombing tool place -- Taliban cowards hiding themselves among civilians.

What does international law say about such things. Since the terrorists and their supporters wax eloquent about the Geneva Conventions, it is convenient that the answer comes from one of them.

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 28, Fourth Geneva Convention

The Taliban who attacked US and Afghan troops were a legitimate military target. Their hiding amongst civilians did nothing to make such an attack illegitimate -- and did, in fact, render them morally and legally responsible for any civilian casualties by violating this provision.

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. Article 51 (7), Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions

Now, if the Taliban wishes to claim the protections of the Geneva Conventions, then they are also bound by them -- and in violating these provisions, once again prove themselves to be beneath contempt.

But the media is too busy providing aid and comfort to our enemies to tell you such things -- because it does not fit their preconceived template for the news.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, 123beta, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Pursuing Holiness, CatSynth.com "catback" weekend, The Magical Rose Garden, Right Celebrity, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 5 kb.