I attended this lecture last week, where we heard Professor Ohlins speak about war crimes and criminals: what they are and who they are. We started the discussion with the America’s recent “accidental” attack on a hospital to reach their target, in the process killing more than a dozen innocent people, both doctors and patients. Now, the question is whether the US should be held accountable. There are two ways to view this situation. In the first, one could say that it was justified in that the US was acting in the name of war, and that these were just casualties. However, others could say how these were innocent civilians and that the US should be held accountable for such a lack in accuracy in attacking.

I personally, was perplexed. I found myself thinking, aren’t casualties a normal thing in war? What separates this instance from the countless others? Then Professor Ohlins mentioned how there are certain rules by which war must abide. The ratio of civilians killed must be low. That to me got me thinking, when do we have the right to put the legitimacy of taking a life? People make such controversial statements about abortion and murders, yet simply accept casualties and just killing in war as a normal and possibly good thing. Sure, war may be in self defense or in the name of common good, but what about to those innocent mothers and children who suffered at war’s hands? How did they deserve that? How is this different from a typical murder? The bottom line remains the same, they both lost their lives forcefully. The value of life is so fickle, and it is truly interesting how one can value life in some circumstances and not in others. Perhaps the value of lives will always be dependent on circumstance, and perhaps it is the correct way to go about such a sensitive subject. Or perhaps, we are simply experiencing cognitive dissonance and trying to justify our hypocritical views when it comes to life and murder.