No Mike, you continue to get this wrong. The UN structure was being used by Hamas to wage war. THAT is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And, as previously posted, article 19 clearly states that the protections afforded such locations as hospitals ceases when it is used by the enemy to promote the war.
Sooo.. to simplify things for you; - It IS a war crime to use civilian shields. This is precisely what Hamas has been doing by waging war from civilian neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. - It is NOT a war crime to fire on civilian locations WHEN those locations are being used to promote the war (again, refer to article 19 posted above). Israel has been very specific in their targeting, firing only on sites that fired on them first. Blame Hamas for firing on Israel from the UN location. Israel had designated times and routes when humanitarian supplies could flow into Gaza, but they required those supplies must first be thoroughly inspected because, as we have seen, Hamas was trying to smuggle illegal war supplies in with the humanitarian supplies. Apparently Hamas is puts far more importance on fighting Israel than they are on the well being of the people of Gaza. On Jan 21, 2:57 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 as an annex I to the Fourth Geneva > > > > > > > Convention.[2] > > > > > > > > The ICRC states that "the Draft Agreement has only been put > > > > > > > forward to > > > > > > > States as a model, but the fact that it as carefully drafted at > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Diplomatic Conference, which finally adopted it, gives it a very > > > > > > > real > > > > > > > value. It could usefully be taken as a working basis, therefore, > > > > > > > whenever a hospital zone is to be established."[2] > > > > > > > > The ICRC states that Annex II is a "...draft which, according to > > > > > > > Article 109 (paragraph 1) of the Convention, will be applied in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > absence of special agreements between the Parties, deals with the > > > > > > > conditions for the receipt and distribution of collective relief > > > > > > > shipments. It is based on the traditions of the International > > > > > > > Committee of the Red Cross which submitted it, and on the > > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > the Committee gained during > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
