We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.
I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.
First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.
It’s very hard to prove their intent.
It’s very easy to prove their negligence.
We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.
We can also certainly say that they are not sorry about it. Because the government’s spokesperson refused to apologize for it.
In my book that’s enough not to require certainty about the original intent.
I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.
Which law?
Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.
From the ICC’s web page:
Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.