[Nettime-bold] Re: How smart was this bomb?

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

The dual-use targets, I think, still need to be more thoroughly 
defined under the international law. The building of RTS in 
Belgrade, unlike the Prishtina transmission anthena, for example 
did not have any military use at all - yet it was hit by the NATO 
missile as well. It is simply an unformulated truth that TV today 
can be used as a tool of war, just like film, radio and posters were 
in WW II. Milosevic relied on the TV that he controlled to maintain 
morale of his military and to rally support of the population. In a 
sense the RTS served his government the same purpose that the 
Psy-Ops serve the US government. But it was done under the 
cover of being a civillian institution. This is why I think the 'dual-use' 
principle needs far more explaining, than it was so far done on the 
issue. I am not sure whether the Al Jazeera outpost in Kabul can 
be judged under any of those two premises, though: unlike the 
mast in Prishtina, it was not used for military communication, and, 
unlike the RTS, it was not the mouth-piece of one side, i.e. it was 
not the Al Qaeda's tool of psychological warfare. It looks to me as 
if the US, obviously intercepting the communication between Al 
Jazeera headquarters in Qatar and the office in Kabul, got under 
impression that Al Jazeera would abandon the Kabul office - and 
decided it would be better to blast it than have it taken over by 
Taliban, Al Qaeda or Northern Alliance, for that matter. I think the 
US made a mistake and needs to apologize and reimburse Al 
Jazeera for the loss of transmitter in Kabul, now that Kabul is 
"under control".
ivo

Date sent:      	Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:47:44 -0500
Send reply to:  	International Justice Watch Discussion List
             	<JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From:           	Andras Riedlmayer <riedlmay@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:        	Re: How smart was this bomb?
To:             	JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

Tim Abbott wrote:
> How, legally, does a building housing a transmission mast which is
> broadcasting anti-one side propaganda differ from a building housing
> journalists doing the same thing?

As I understand, transmission masts are considered legitimate targets
when they serve military communications or are dual-use facilities.
It's questionable whether broadcasting propaganda legally counts as
military use. But transmission of military communications certainly does.
One example of such a facility targeted during the 1999 Kosovo war
was the central PTT building in downtown Prishtina, which served both
military and civilian telecommunications in Kosovo.  It was hit by a
NATO missile and destroyed in April 1999. Although the destruction
of the Prishtina post office is listed as a "NATO war crime" in the
Yugoslav government's white book, I think a case can be made that
as a dual-use facility it was a legitimate target.

Andras

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold