Who was it that said every man of substance should be able to kill one lawyer a year without retribution?

Bullshit. War crimes are defined as violations of international humanitarian law, which consists not just of codified law but also the notion of universal human rights and customary law. "There's nothing in or books prohibiting that" or "they were not a treaty party" are probably the second most popular defense strategy after "just following orders" (aka the Nuremberg Defense) and just as useless.

And speaking of bovine excrement, do yourself a favor and scrub that hydrostatic shock thingie from your brain

So so why hasn't G.W.B. been dragged before the Hague yet?

Why don't US soldiers ever get accused there? Right, because they face prosecution in their home country? Well... maybe, when and if a convenient fall guy can be found.

Hydrostatic shock is a disputed theory, and there is evidence for and against it. I think it's most probable if you hit a big artery, because tissue alone has to dissipate most of the energy but those are just my uniformed thoughts. So, the lesson I learn from this: Don't get shot.

This is sure to be a pair of profitable conversations: US soldiers and Presidents going on trial for war crimes, and the reality of hydrostatic shock. Is it possible that we could avoid this somehow? Pillow fight? Drinking game? Sex? I'm not much to look at, but with the lights off, I feel more-or-less like any other lumpy bag of suet.

Yeah, I fully support letting it go.

In case noone noticed, my earlier posts (before the last one) were trying to be ironic. At least a little. Tone and the internets, yada yada.

A crime is not defined by the conviction of a perpetrator.


Hypothesis, and has been for decades. That should tell you something

Or if you lose the war and the winner decides that you commited war crimes.