On Wednesday, I attended the Becker-Rose Café regarding international criminal law with Professor Ohlin. The talk focused on a current event: an “accidental” bombing by the United States of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, killing and injuring dozens of innocent civilians. We discussed whether or not this act should be considered a war crime. This is not a simple distinction to make. When there are civilian casualties, typically the act is considered a war crime. However, in this case, why the US bombed the hospital was not clear. We considered the situation where Afghanistan had purposely provided the coordinates of the hospital to the US, telling them the coordinates were something different, in hopes that the US would destroy the hospital for them. In this case, who is the guiltier party? Who should get punished? Who decides what actually happened, and then the appropriate punishment for both parties?

The topic of the bombing in Afghanistan lead to a discussion on the term collateral damage. This term refers to the damage that is “acceptable” in order to take down a high profile target. The concept that one evil life could be worth one hundred good lives if that one life is evil enough is horrible. While it is argued that taking down the bad guy could save hundreds of innocent lives, it still does not seem right to sacrifice innocent lives. And again, this brings up the same questions as before. Who decides how many innocent lives are worth the life of one criminal? Who is in charge of actually carrying out the act? The line between fair and unfair, justifiable and unjustifiable, is very thin and wobbly with regards to punishing war crimes and war criminals. Hopefully, in the future, the need for war decreases and reduces the loss of lives.