It is. The Geneva Conventions acknowledge that if your enemy is breaking them you are allowed to respond in kind.
It’s what allowed America to argue it can torture prisoners, because they either belong to non-signatories or broke them as well/first. The Conventions offer protection to civilian populations of even non-signatories but there are ways around it.
For example, America would declare any male over 12 in the area a terrorist which is obviously not a problem and is definitely very cool.
It gets fairly complicated in the weeds, as demonstrated, but this example is a clear violation and they have no grounds for complaint.
Alright, that’s it. This person needs war crimes done to them.
If they break the Geneva Conventions first it’s technically no longer a war crime
I don’t think that’s accurate
It is. The Geneva Conventions acknowledge that if your enemy is breaking them you are allowed to respond in kind.
It’s what allowed America to argue it can torture prisoners, because they either belong to non-signatories or broke them as well/first. The Conventions offer protection to civilian populations of even non-signatories but there are ways around it.
For example, America would declare any male over 12 in the area a terrorist which is obviously not a problem and is definitely very cool.
It gets fairly complicated in the weeds, as demonstrated, but this example is a clear violation and they have no grounds for complaint.