Isn't a war crime deliberate with malicious intent? Shouldn't it be considered instead as blunders and bad decisions?
Specifically, I watched the leaked video of the helicopter /drone gunner shooting the civilians / children that he decided looked like terrorists, which Wikileaks released in 2007/2010. It seems that the Gunner is gung-ho trigger-happy, but not necessarily does he have malicious intent.
Two words, reckless endangerment.
This means deaths that are caused through carelessness or overzealous actions. This covers things such as not properly checking your targets, firing into a crowded area, or using heavier than necessary weapons that risk collateral damage.
For example laying down reactive fire with a .50 caliber against a building containing civilians. Or calling in a drone strike on a fleeing vehicle without determining whether the occupants represent a threat.
There have also been issues with training, such as issuing instructions in the wrong dialect, and then interpreting non compliance as a threat.
War crimes are typically viewed through the lenses of hindsight.
There have also been claims that accident civilian deaths have been covered up.
