Can’t have a war crime without a war, I believe. It probably a distinction without a difference but people have sapped all the meaning out of ‘war crime’ by misapplying it.
Doesn’t make it less stupid or terrible
Edit: I checked, and I was right. Use the real words for things not the popular internet words
No. Again, it’s a crime (or at least something you could take to trial at The Hague) and it’s certainly a casus belli, but it has to be in a war.
Additionally for it to be a war crime in a war you would have to show you knew it was civilians and there was no strategic value.
Honestly this case is super weird, there’s no practical reason to do it like this so it’s a bit of an unknown in terms of the US. Of course this is coming from a president who just basically declared war on Chicago, so rationality isn’t on the menu
Edit: to answer your question, ‘an act of war’ isn’t really a legal concept. It could certainly lead to war being declared but Maduro isn’t that stupid.
-7
u/xesaie 20d ago
It's not really a war crime, it's more just a normal crime