h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The pilot has the backing of the state so unless it loses a war he doesn't face prosecution, assuming both are targeting civilians. Of course the state will doubtless claim that civilians were not the target.

Well, alright, of course there are differences... but my point was that violence is violence and death is death, no matter which side is causing is and under what excuse.

oh, I agree with you
I think its good policy to be suspicous of anything any government tells you

There is legal framework for Military Action . A fighter pilot briefed to attack a target believed to be an armed terrorist would be found not guilty if through poor intelligence , or operational error , only civilian casualties were caused .If told to bomb indiscriminatly to cause terror , he can refuse to obey the order as it is illegal in international law . I'm not a lawyer ,but know this from family members who were in the British Army . In real life nothing is that clear and it is right that Governments are held to account for the use of force . How you live with yourself when things go badly wrong I can't imagine .

In the UK, as in the US, civil liberties are being infringed upon - at first reading, the #1 post in this thread sounded like it was about an American.

If through poor intelligence, poor judgement by the higher echelons, or for whatever reason a member of the US Military is ordered to comit an act that can be seen (even if only in hindsight) to be a warcrime, then it is the Generals who are held accountable, for a member of of the UK's armed forces, it's the individual who pushed the final button that is held ultimately responsible (not so much as still maintaining a sense of individuality and freedom amongst our troops as buck-passing by the government).