Hi Vladimir,

I think he/his superiors should be investigated. He would have to show that
he thought it was a military convoy. If he wasn't sure/knew it was a
civilian convoy then he should be tried. In this conflict even more than
most, the military must be sure of the identification of its targets or face
appropriate consequences.

As for war crimes after the conflict, there are certain cases that are
clear. It's impossible for example to defend rape as a military action, the
same goes for torture and killing of obvious non-combatants (infanticide.)
Then comes a very unclear category that I'm very glad I don't have to
decide, for example the above circumstance. I'd probably use the above rule
and convict often but go with lighter penalties. For example the pilot in
the above circumstance could be executed or jailed for life, I would be
unlikely to assign either of those to him. The sentence should be severe
enough to make an impact for future generations I wouldn't go beyond that.
Maybe 10 years or so if he's found negligent.

What do you think?

-Jay Schneider

(P.S. Sorry if this letter is disjointed, my advisor has had me on a
research project turning in 20 hour days for the last week.)

>Please give me your opinion on this: American pilot killed 60 civilians
>bombing a refugee convoy. It just happens that those civilians are
>'ethnic Albanians'. Should be he (and possibly his supperiors) tried for
>war crimes after conflict end and, if not, why not (and who should, if
>not him)?
>
>Regards,
>Vladimir
>
>
>