Plus terrorists do not fight conventional battles, mike. On Jan 21, 4:06 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> wrote: > very true which is why the people of the world got together and wrote > the Geneva convention so that things like what the Jews are doing in > Gaza don't happen . > > On Jan 21, 5:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Like Americans killed off the buffalo to starve the Indians? Civilians > > caught in a war zone are sitting ducks. > > > On Jan 21, 1:57 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > are you trying to say the UN has been attacking the Israelis ? > > > the jews attacked a UN hospital and shelter killing many of the > > > already wounded civilians . and Gaza is an ocupied teritory under > > > control of the jews . they have been stopping food and water as well > > > as medical supplys to the people who live there which is also a war > > > crime . > > > On Jan 20, 10:56 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Care to cite where it's stated in the Geneva Conventions? > > > > > For example, consider the following; > > > > > Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time > > > > of War. > > > > Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall > > > > not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian > > > > duties, acts harmful to the enemy. > > > > > Maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly but it sure seems like Article > > > > 19 is indicating that civilian hospitals are protected UNLESS they are > > > > used by the enemy to promote the fight, in which case you can then > > > > return fire. And clearly, if it's OK to fire on a hospital if the > > > > enemy is using it to promote the war, then firing on homes, schools or > > > > whatever else must also be OK when these same conditions exist. > > > > > I readily admit I am no scholar of the Geneva Conventions so am open > > > > to other interpretations. > > > > > On Jan 20, 1:15 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using civilian shields is NOT a > > > > > war crime." > > > > > that is indeed a war crime as stated in the Geneva convention > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:58 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Wow, so now you’ve stooped to taking people out of context! > > > > > > > What jgg said was; > > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using civilian shields is NOT > > > > > > a > > > > > > war crime." > > > > > > > There’s no disagreement that using civilian shields is a war crime. > > > > > > But that’s not what jgg was talking about and you know it. What jgg > > > > > > was referring to was returning fire on an enemy who is using > > > > > > civilian > > > > > > shields, and that is not a war crime. > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:21 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > " using civilian shields is NOT a war crime... " like fucking > > > > > > > hell > > > > > > > it isn't ! > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You seek to apply the Geneva Accords. Fine then you are bound > > > > > > > > by the > > > > > > > > standards they use -- that is returning fire to an armed > > > > > > > > opponent > > > > > > > > using civilian shields is NOT a war crime... It also includes > > > > > > > > storing weapons or ammunition or bases in civilian > > > > > > > > neighborhoods.. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:23 am, "liberal mike532 !" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming > > > > > > > > > majorities by > > > > > > > > > the United States Congress and signed into law by President > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Clinton. > > > > > > > > > > The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the > > > > > > > > > Geneva > > > > > > > > > Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should > > > > > > > > > have the > > > > > > > > > meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of > > > > > > > > > war) to > > > > > > > > > which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" > > > > > > > > > in some of > > > > > > > > > the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional > > > > > > > > > protections, > > > > > > > > > but all the Conventions share the following text in common: > > > > > > > > > "... > > > > > > > > > committed against persons or property protected by the > > > > > > > > > Convention: > > > > > > > > > willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including > > > > > > > > > biological > > > > > > > > > experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious > > > > > > > > > injury to > > > > > > > > > body or health." > > > > > > > > > > The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a > > > > > > > > > national > > > > > > > > > of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. > > > > > > > > > The penalty > > > > > > > > > may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only > > > > > > > > > invoked > > > > > > > > > if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more > > > > > > > > > victims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996 > > > > > > > > > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part II. General Protection of Populations Against > > > > > > > > > Certain > > > > > > > > > Consequences of War > > > > > > > > > Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the > > > > > > > > > populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse > > > > > > > > > distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, > > > > > > > > > religion or > > > > > > > > > political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the > > > > > > > > > sufferings caused > > > > > > > > > by war. > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the > > > > > > > > > parties > > > > > > > > > to the conflict and to occupied territories > > > > > > > > > Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done > > > > > > > > > to them > > > > > > > > > of such a character as to cause physical suffering or > > > > > > > > > extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of > > > > > > > > > protected > > > > > > > > > persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to > > > > > > > > > murder, > > > > > > > > > torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or > > > > > > > > > scientific > > > > > > > > > experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While > > > > > > > > > popular > > > > > > > > > debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of > > > > > > > > > torture (see > > > > > > > > > discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal > > > > > > > > > punishment > > > > > > > > > simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse > > > > > > > > > is thereby > > > > > > > > > forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate > > > > > > > > > definitions > > > > > > > > > of torture. > > > > > > > > > > The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during > > > > > > > > > World > > > > > > > > > War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous. > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Collective punishments > > > > > > > > > Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an > > > > > > > > > offense he or > > > > > > > > > she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and > > > > > > > > > likewise > > > > > > > > > all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. > > > > > > > > > Pillage is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > Reprisals against protected persons and their property are > > > > > > > > > prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are > > > > > > > > > a war > > > > > > > > > crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva > > > > > > > > > Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I > > > > > > > > > and II. > > > > > > > > > In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in > > > > > > > > > mass > > > > > > > > > retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis > > > > > > > > > carried > > > > > > > > > out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. > > > > > > > > > Entire > > > > > > > > > villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any > > > > > > > > > resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, > > > > > > > > > to counter > > > > > > > > > this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > conventions states that parties to a conflict often would > > > > > > > > > resort to > > > > > > > > > "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on > > > > > > > > > humanity > > > > > > > > > and justice." > > > > > > > > > > Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective > > > > > > > > > punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol > > > > > > > > > than GCIV, > > > > > > > > > GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted. > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Right of return > > > > > > > > > Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that > > > > > > > > > persons > > > > > > > > > displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have > > > > > > > > > ceased. This > > > > > > > > > right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > return" and has been reaffirmed in later international > > > > > > > > > treaties and > > > > > > > > > conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a > > > > > > > > > norm of > > > > > > > > > customary international law, according to the International > > > > > > > > > Committee > > > > > > > > > of the Red Cross. > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part IV. Execution of the Convention > > > > > > > > > This part contains "the formal or diplomatic provisions which > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > customary to place at the end of an international Convention > > > > > > > > > to settle > > > > > > > > > the procedure for bringing it into effect are grouped > > > > > > > > > together under > > > > > > > > > this heading (1). They are similar in all four Geneva > > > > > > > > > Conventions of > > > > > > > > > 1949."[1] > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Annexes > > > > > > > > > The ICRC commentary on the Forth Geneva convention states > > > > > > > > > that when > > > > > > > > > the establishment of hospital and safety zones in occupied > > > > > > > > > territories > > > > > > > > > were discussed reference was made to a draft agreement and it > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > agreed to append it > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
