war crimes
This is interesting for a couple of reasons: Nato and the United Nations are cautiously considering a Taliban proposal to set up a joint commission to investigate allegations of civilians.
My main interest in this thread is the proposition that the term "war crimes" has a relatively clear legal meaning, and that there's considerable treaty law, case law, and learned.
Later this year, state parties will get together to revisit the Statute for the International Criminal Court. Definitely on the agenda is clarifying the crime of aggression, which was left.
Apparently Al-Majid's execution by gallows was more "civilized" than that of Saddam Hussein three years ago. No one called him any names.
This story, indicating that the Obama administration is bailing on the idea even investigating whether criminal charges ought to be brought against Bush administration officials who committed war crimes such.
In the comments to the Hiroshima thread below, djw asks an excellent question, in response to justifications for dropping the bomb on Japan because doing so arguably saved many more.