They’re both crimes, but the first strike has a lot more ambiguity attached to it. The first strike could be argued that it was a legal order. It’s not, but the fact that it could be argued means it is being argued. So discussing the initial strike just leads to bad faith arguments at best.
But with the second strike, there is absolutely no ambiguity. It was blatantly illegal, through and through. The only real defense the entire chain of command has for cold blooded murder is “I was just following orders.” And as World War 2 already proved, that isn’t a valid defense for war crimes.
They’re both crimes, but the first strike has a lot more ambiguity attached to it. The first strike could be argued that it was a legal order. It’s not, but the fact that it could be argued means it is being argued. So discussing the initial strike just leads to bad faith arguments at best.
But with the second strike, there is absolutely no ambiguity. It was blatantly illegal, through and through. The only real defense the entire chain of command has for cold blooded murder is “I was just following orders.” And as World War 2 already proved, that isn’t a valid defense for war crimes.
Who is going to find them guilty? The ICC the US talks about in the American Service-Members’ Protection Act?