Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
The UN does actually, under some circumstances, produce laws...That's a quibble, however
A valid one. However, the UN item acquires the force of law only as it is codified by the ratifying state -- and the US is notorious for not ratifying or placing many exceptions in its ratification process.
More broadly, there are several reasons for playing by the rules of international humanitarian law:...
I agree with all those. As I said, we may or may not be legal; I'll leave that to the Lawyers, not my field -- but we sure weren't smart (and I minored in Stupidity...).
I've noticed a tendency in many milblogs (not here) to treat IHL as an evil concoction by lawyers who are perversely seeking to prevent "us" from winning. Yet (military and civilian) international lawyers, diplomats, and technical experts involved in treaty negotiation are some of the smartest, best-informed people that I've ever known. Their IHL work involves trying to balance the considerations above, national interest, the compromises of diplomatic-legal coalition-building, and (to the extent they can) the "greater good" in a way that leaves us off better off than we were before--which, given the competing interests, complexity, and evil-doers involved, is no easy task.
Nor do I disagree with that -- with the caveat that excessive idealistically derived but legitimate humanitarian concerns sometimes have effects that are not what the originators envisioned. See Steyn, M. and Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Comes under the heading, I believe, of 'be careful what you wish for, you may get it...'
There, having established my credentials as a defender the indefensible (lawyers), I'll next defend the Air Force...
Masochist!