A spokesman for the group, Sarit Michaeli, says that Israeli claims that it is not responsible for such deaths are incorrect, and adds that under international law, “Even if you attack a legitimate military target, the anticipated damage has to be in proportion to the anticipated gain.”

How does such a moral calculus apply to American military policy? The most recent example of US military tactics in this regard came yesterday, when American forces, in clear violation of international law regarding national sovereignty, fired a missile into a house in Somalia (a nation that the US is not at war with), reportedly killing an alleged leader of the Al Qaeda organization in Somalia, Aden Hashi Ayro, but also another nine people—all unidentified. Reports suggest that many of those killed and another seven who were wounded, were innocent civilians who happened to be sleeping in the house in question.

To date, no American human rights group has protested this action as a criminal violati

It's like your next-door neighbor is suspected of drug trafficking, so the Army comes by with a helicopter, blows up his house, with him and his family inside; the impact collapses your house as well, your spouse and oldest child die. Your littlest one is in the yard playing; she's hit by flying debris and loses both arms and her sight.

Collective punishment is outlawed the world around.

Then, you have to start over and run the scenario again, realizing that the hunted individual had no trial; he and all nearby were killed on suspicion alone, never having been convicted. He may have done nothing at all. The world must take the word of Israel that there was a criminal in there somewhere, in their opinion.

Yeah, good analogy, Masbury--this war is so atrocious. I can't help but wonder why we let it go on this long. Oh, right...Big Oil. I reckon they'll seal the deal pretty soon, since the Admin is spinning the war NOW as "we can't leave now, 'cuz Al-Qaeda will et thew oil!~" F****CK!