It's not a war crime of the people poisoning the fruit are not combatants. They could probably be tried for manslaughter, and I doubt Russia would be very lenient.

[+] ninja@lemmy.world -22 points 4 months ago (5 children)

People don't get a 'get out of war crimes' card by not being officially in the military. If they purposefully took hostile action in the conflict they're combatants, uniformed or not. The use of poison is a war crime.

[–] Munkisquisher 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When the Russians use rape as a weapon, I cheer on the locals in occupied areas serving poisoned fruit

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

KYLR

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

~~Yes they do. This act falls under the purview of civilian enforcement. It is up to the controlling government to prosecute these civilian crimes in civilian criminal court.~~

EDIT: Okay, so this particular argument irked me so I investigated. Unfortunately, Ninja is technically correct. According to the ICRC civilians receive an instantaneous removal of their status as non-combatant for the duration of the hostile act, and the ICC's Rome Statutes clearly list using poison as a warcrime so it is probable the perpetrators could be prosecuted. More likely, however, is that their being subject to civilians laws means they can ALSO be prosecuted in the civilian manner. Double the risk for the reward.

That said. Russia wants to FAFO that's their problem.

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

It's not a frequent event when a person on the internet recognizes their mistakes. I'm glad I saw it today.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 12 points 4 months ago

So if someone occupies your house, you'll serve cookies & cream?

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Not all war crimes are actually bad when committed against worse war criminals in self-defense.