I do not. You DO. By claiming that Israeli disregard for WHO is present at a location issuing fire on their forces is a war crime you are in fact saying that the use of a human shield is a good tactic. The CRIME is committed by those forcing or using human shields.
The US has a mandate that it does not pay ransom to terrorists. Everybody I know thinks it is a good policy. WHY ??? Whose fault is it if the terrorists then kill the hostage ?? It is a human life being bartered for mere money... The principal outweighs the price in life or money. On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote: > > as i am saddened that you would support killing innocent civilians for > political gain ! > > On Jan 21, 10:13 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is NO legal middle ground. The insertion of emotion into > > legalities is what brought about the Bush policies and ideals. Know > > that your position in wanting to disregard and obvious intolerence for > > the law is what gave you the erosion of your liberties under Bush and > > does support his positions. > > > > When an attacking or defending force must subrogate their duty to the > > others use of civilians as shields and suffer defeat for it; it will > > only see the increased use of this distasteful tactic in the future. > > > > I am sincerely saddened to think that you tacitly approve of this tactic. > > > > On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > you see things your way and i see them my way and there is never going > > > to a middle ground on this issue ! > > > > > On Jan 21, 9:22 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The convention does not include the responders position as incorrect > > > > or illegal nor does US law, distasteful as it may be. > > > > > > On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > partially correct when you include the people killing those innocent > > > > > civilians you will be correct . > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 8:20 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > No. they wrote the Geneva so that people using civilians as shields > > > > > > could be tried. > > > > > > > > On 1/21/09, 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle www.filacoffee.com great stuff from a small, high quality, group of FairTrade producers in rural C.R. interested in excellence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
