Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Perndog
For some reason I fail to see the relevance of US military law in a situation involving Israeli pilots.
EDIT: It doesn't really matter, since the article says they were ordered to attack "militants," not "innocent civilians," and I'm sure it's lawful in war to attack anyone who is a perceived or possible threat. The case may be made that the militants in question WERE innocent civilians, but that wouldn't hold up in a legal dispute.
|
Many european countries share a similiar style of military law to ours as does, I think, Israel's. Anyway, I was just using it as a point of comparison to show what the language in their regulations might be like ... mostly because I couldn't find their reg's using Google. Anyway, the main thing, as "Only" pointed out, was the use of the term "lawful" which I'm fairly certain applies to most military reg's in reference to official orders. Were this not the case, it would raise the possibility of having a bunch of self-styled "Colonel Kurtz" in armies throughout the world running things on a whim. True, in some countries that may be the case but I would hope Israel is of better stock than that. Meanwhile, I'll try again to see if I can find their military reg's.