[orionsbelt]

I think it’s hard for an obituary to definitely call someone a war criminal when he was never tried, much less convicted, of a war crime. That’s not to say he shouldn’t have been or his actions don’t qualify, but an obituary is supposed to be somewhat neutral and not an opinion piece, and the facts are that he’s been labeled (perhaps fairly) a war criminal by many, but never actually convicted.

[dmurray]

Agreed. For a comparison, the BBC obituary on Bin Laden, whom a lot of people would happily condemn without reservation as a terrorist, shows the same kind of detached neutrality. The second mention is "Saudi-born dissident".

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-10741005

[notaustinpowers]

We can thank the United States non-participation in the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court for that. Since they can't convict us of war crimes, by default no American can be a war criminal.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck but refuses to accept that it's a duck...it's still a duck.

[camgunz]

The US isn't a part of the war crimes part of the ICC, therefore no US citizen will ever be tried there. Thus, by your logic, there can be no US war criminals.

I think the actual nuance here is that, in the words of the West Wing, all war is a crime. Sometimes the term "war criminal" is used fairly, other times it's trotted out to try and tar people/movements. The US knows this and does it, which is why it doesn't submit to the circus. I'm not excusing the horrible stuff the US has done, but I think I agree that humanity hasn't gotten to the point where we can really fairly avoid or judge war crimes.