Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7871104" data-attributes="member: 6895991">The first issue is probably that they would use raison d'etat if necessary. and cover it up as an issue of security which is not so easily done in my home country, depending on context and circumstances the deciders and forces in my country might also take the juristically illegal but seemingly rationale approach, and there are also other ways e.g. you can hamper the possinbilities of an airline to steer well enough to carry out destructive maneuvers so nothing is cast in iron i guess.A juristic debriefing of the situation might conclude that although laws were broken a retirement would be sufficient as a reaction, i think i read that in my country no elected politician can be held accountable juristically for actions he carried out during his mandate, e.g. he could not be charged because he voted yes or no for any matter in parliament.The real dilemma is how you interpret the worst case scenario: As a relative of casualties on the ground you would like to hold the officials accountable for not preventing it, as a relative of a victim in a plane downed to prevent an attack you would ask whether there was no other solution.The second topic is not so well comparable, it was a declared war between two nations, plus it is estimated that at least 50000 more GIs would have fallen,  as well as maybe many of the civilians who were drafted and issued with bamboo spears but would have fought to the dead if the war had continued. It could have been that the total number of casualities would be even higher as you wrote.</blockquote>

Verification