UN Officials DEBUNK Israeli Lies - No Weapons Found In UN Facilities

[BlueMTexpat]

96. I have long admired your pithy statements,

Magistrate, and will likely continue to do so for the most part. But there are indeed some principles that are considered absolute in international law and practice, whether you or I believe them to be so or not.

Do you also consider the ICRC to be in error? The ICRC is, among other things, internationally recognized as the "keeper" of International Humanitarian Law (IHL - aka the "Laws of War&quot and takes that position very seriously. It must also remain neutral in a conflict situation in order to be able to provide services during that conflict.

From the ICRC website giving a brief overview of international law on the conduct of hostilities:

...

The general principles are enshrined in the Hague Convention of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977. But there are a series of other treaties covering specific issues, particularly in the field of weapons. In 2005 the ICRC published a major study on the extensive body of customary international humanitarian law, which is binding on all States.

The central principle of distinction runs through all the law relating to the conduct of hostilities. Indiscriminate military action is prohibited. All sides in a conflict must distinguish between legitimate military targets on the one hand and civilians and civilian objects on the other.

Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. All sides must take measures to separate as far as possible military targets from population centres. While it is accepted that civilian casualties may be sustained in situations where military targets are attacked, both sides are required to take whatever measures possible to minimize injury and death among civilians, and damage to civilian objects. If an attack is expected to cause "collateral civilian damages" that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, it must be cancelled or suspended.

More at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/overview-conduct-of-hostilities.htm

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

The ICRC also maintains a database on Customary International Humanitarian Law, i.e., "rules that come from 'a general practice accepted as law' and that exist independent of treaty law."

Customary IHL continues to be relevant in today’s armed conflicts for two main reasons. The first is that, while some States have not ratified important treaty law, they remain nonetheless bound by rules of customary law. The second reason is the relative weakness of treaty law governing non-international armed conflicts – those that involve armed groups and usually take place within the boundaries of one country.

More at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law/overview-customary-law.htm

The Customary IHL index can be found at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law/index.jsp for anyone wishing to know more about the matter.

We are not talking domestic practice, i.e., negligence to a criminal degree as such would be considered in a US court. We are talking about international law and practice, where I seem to be decidedly in the mainstream.

I am taking up much too much space on this board and will not post in re this OP any further.