Slashdot Mirror

taking out a conventional city that ISIS wholly controls in a Dresden like firebombing is now perfectly acceptable

No, it's a war crime and can be prosecuted under international law.

well actually

The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Geneva Conventions

there would be little argument to support ISIS accepting and applying the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

An attack by bombardment by any methods or means that treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives is considered to be an indiscriminate attack and is prohibited.
Launching such an attack in the knowledge that it will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects is considered a grave breach. Bombarding areas containing solely military targets is permitted. Important powers such as the United States, which are not party to Protocol I, accept this principle as binding customary international law. Carpet or Area Bombing

1. the use of the term "excessive" also gives quite a bit of wiggle room as the Protocol I doesn't prohibit any loss of civilian life or property, only excessive loss of civilian life or property.
2. A credible argument could be made that any city that ISIS wholly controls is a single military objective
3. The US while voluntarily adhering to Protocol I, is not a signatory to and doesn't recognise international jurisdiction in this matter.

Fucking illiterate cretin

Please, don't hate.

So if soldiers drink water, so a waterworks is a legitimate target?

Very possibly yes, as a matter of fact. As are or may be: bridges, tunnels, railroads, airports, radio- and TV-antennas, and powerlines. The standard is vague: "no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage". So, one soldier taking a drink may not be enough, but a bigger unit taking advantage of availability of fresh water may be sufficient justification for destroying the supply.

If soldiers fall ill is a hospital a legitimate target?

An armed soldier walking into a hospital makes it a legitimate target, yes, absolutely. This is why US military are trained to leave their weapons at the door, when entering a hospital — even in the field. Likewise, simply storing weapons or military materiel in a hospital, school, or house of worship makes the structure a fair game too.

True, the primary purpose of the raid was not to kill civilians, it was to terrorise them.

My recollection is, the raid was meant to show the enemy's government, that humans can reach them — with impunity. Any terror among civilians was a byproduct.

No, it was not written in 1977. It was adopted in 1977.

Distinction without difference. It does not matter, when the idea was thought up — only when it became a law. The law, which you claim violated.

wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

But there was military necessity! Without this raid, the attacked planet's government would've stayed in the fight on the side of Bugs.

Lastly, you've dodged this question twice already, but I'll try for the third time. Was Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" — a war-criminal (thus automatically making the whole movie "bleak") in your opinion? He is shown kicking the captured prisoner and otherwise abusing him...

Interesting. It seems though those crimes were defined post-facto, by the Allied war-crime tribunals. They did not exist when Germany instigated the war. It seems that Germany had not bound itself to the pre-war, multi-lateral Kellog-Briand treaty, which it seems was the pre-cursor to the UN charter's anti-aggresive-war clause. Even if Germany had, Kellog-Briand did not make it a charge that could be brought against an individual, apparently.

Interesting :)

The world sees the US security establishment using and trusting MS products.
MS must be good right?
Export orders and interoperability requests roll in from friends, allies, neutrals and some of the dumber freedom fighters.
MS profits, the US gov can share with its rendition partners in real time.
Think Condortel (1970's US/Latin American encrypted military network) with clippy.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

Police, federal agencies and utilities around the world rush to upgrade.
The CIA and NSA have just software "back doored" the world- again.
Using MS for security is like handing out free Enigma units after WW2 or Iran using CryptoAG or the Soviets buying computer parts from the west.
The difference is MS software and stays in your country for generations (over decades of hardware and software upgrades).
But then does the US security establishment really eat its own dog food? ;)

I never argued against stem cell research, read before you reply. I wholeheartedly support advancing adult stem cell research as it has produced viable therapeutic results whereas embryonic stem cells are only useful currently as a research tool, as all embryonic therapies have failed in testing and it is monstrous to use the sacrifice of humans to advance science.

Doctors in aggregate gravitate towards where the grants and higher paying careers are. Fertility treatments are usually preformed on women over 40 years of age by a trained GYN/OB and require intensive treatment for months sometimes for years before they are successful in implementation and gestation. An OB/GYN trained in fertility treatment can make a far greater amount of money than an OB/GYN doing preventive care like pelvic exams, pap smears and the like can. This all started because of laws guaranteeing fertility treatment that started passing in the 1980's in Britain and the US.

As the American population has gotten older more and more money is spent on geriatric medicine and less and less on pediatrics. For the first time since the early 20th century the United States is experiencing a dramatic uptick in stillbirths, maternal death and severe birth defects due to the advanced age of the mothers being increased due to the advancement of fertility treatments.

While the law you cite is correct, it is not the whole of the law. The Optional Protocol applies in this case, and the United States pretends to be a signatory.

Of course, enough Americans are liars to have basically destroyed your economy with dishonest lending practises and fraudulent commodification of risk, so it hardly matters that you try to maintain this pretence.

There is a subset of protections that may apply to those not in uniform: Protocol 1 of the Conventions refers to: "(a) the principle of distinction, i.e., that combatants must distinguish between other combatants and civilians, and that combatants must neither deliberately target nor indiscriminately or disproportionately harm civilians." I think it's safe to say that most of those in Gitmo, and those who have been attacking Iraqi civilians and everyone else in Iraq these last few years fall short of that standard as well. The fact is, the report I linked to shows that Gitmo is lawful according to international law.

Nope, even by the generous standards of international law, such as it is, those at Gitmo do not have protections provided by the Conventions. And yet the United States respects their mode of worship (even though that right would not be accorded to innocent non-Muslims if the prisoners had their way) and gives them their holy texts, prepares their food in accordance with their dietary laws, and treats them humanely in general. Yes, there have been abuses of prisoners, but these are people who officially have no rights, who would but for the charity of the United States, be marched in front of completely legal firing squads.

"As it stands, regardless of the side you are on, the Hamas bombings are war-crimes -- because of their choice of targets -- whereas the Israeli attacks are not. " 1. Not all of them. In fact, most attacks by Hamas are against soldiers.

2. Let's just take a quick look at the Geneva conventions, shall we?

You are painfully imprecise. All your quotes are from Protocol 1, circa 1977. Israel (among others) did not sign this additions. Sorry, this biggest part of your posting is thus especially useless. See this analysis for more information.

Wrong, the most he [Ariel Sharon] was *convicted* of was failing to stop the militia; he was accused of far worse.

Sorry, you are right. He was, of course, and still is accused of baby raping, and using Muslim blood for not just Passover, but everyday matzos.

[...]

Every Six Months.

This, to you, is justified?

Yes. This is the path Palestinians chose for themselves. Israel's reaction can not be much milder if they want to survive -- their enemy fights them with everything the enemy has, constrains itself with no rules whatsoever, and is criticized for breaking no rules whatsoever.

If anything, Israel's restraint is admireable, to the point of being foolish -- as pointed out recently by some american military experts (that's a disgusting bunch of neocon shitheads for you). The Geneva conventions, which Israel did sign, only require protection of civilians as militarily permissible -- there is no requirement to risk lives of the soldiers. Yet they don't, for example, use artillery against the scumbags firing mortars at Israeli civilians, but send infantry to detain them...

Completely blind to the obvious war crimes committed regularly by various Palestinian factions, peace with who is not even possible according to their very charters, you demand perfect behavior from Israel. You put a homicide bomber boarding a packed bus, with the bomb "enhanced" by chopped nails on equal footing with a delayed ambulance, or with an accidental shooting of a Palestinian civilian, who wonders onto an active battlefield. You are a lost cause...

You're right: what's the point of ridding a country from a vicious dictator who brutalizes his own population, destroys the environment, instigates war and supports terrorism unless you actually get some financial benefit from it?!?

No, you are right, we should do it because it is the right thing to do. So, when does the war against Bush begin?

Joking aside, most of the people who criticize Bush and the war are making just your point, though you seem to have missed it: We belive they started the war for their own financial benifit, not because of the goodness of their hearts. After all, they don't mind vicious dictators anywhere else.

actually its "alleged murderers" (where's the "r"?) :)

No, actually it's "alleged mudders" -- people who like mud. I'm only joshing you of course. Ya got me.

But seriously, folks. You have some good points, but this one is a common misconception:

the fact that this is basically a war and not a domestic problem

It's not a war -- the Occupied Territories, are, well, occupied territories. As such they have a specific legal status under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and other international law. I'm not an authority on international law (although I know a few) but it wasn't too hard to find a brief summarizing the obligations of an occupying power under the law. Quoting from "The Law of Belligerent Occupation" by Michael M. Schmitt:

Pursuant to both humanitarian and human rights law, they may impose punishment only after a regular trial in which the accused has been informed in writing of the charges.

No one, no matter how partisan, would say that Israel has been living up to this obligation.

For those who don't care about international law, here's another way of looking at it. Israel is the de-facto government of the Occupied Territories. (I won't bother arguing why the Palestinian Authority isn't.) Now, consider one well-known democracy, the United States. (I'm an American, if you're not perhaps you'll indulge me here). In this country, if someone commits a heinous act, we don't rocket their cars on a city street. No, we arrest them, put them on trial, and show the evidence to a jury. In fact (modulo recent civil rights abuses) we do this even for foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes on American soil. Some people think this is a pretty good way to do things (I do, though John Ashcroft doesn't).

So from two points of view -- that of international law and that of the "reasonable person" looking at how other (?) democracies behave -- I argue that if Israel wants to be called a "democracy" then it needs to give due process even to its enemies. In fact, especially to them, since we are best judged not by how we treat our friends, but how we treat our enemies.

Am I holding Israel to a high standard? I guess so. But we hear all the time that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East." Well, if they want to use the Democracy (tm) label in their advertising materials, then they're asking to be held to those high standards. If they changed their tag line to "the only Jewish Theocracy in the Middle East" I guess that would take the wind out of my sails.

Aw, but now I got all serious. Whoops.

I'm certainly not a supporter of the Taliban (or Islam, or any religion for that matter), but it's worth looking at how and why they came to power.

Support for the fundamentalist regime of the Taliban largely came from those who were despairing of the constant fighting and corruption of the warlords who ran the country. The Taliban promised an end to the fighting and corruption which they largely achieved through their extreme fundamentalism and strict control of society.

Since the US overthrew the Taliban, the situation has returned almost exactly to what it was prior to their rise to power. Any guesses as to what might happen in the future when the Afghanis again get sick of the corrupt warlords (particularly the Northern Alliance who might not be religious fundamentalists but are just as guilty of horrific acts)?

Repeat after me: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Both sides have been accused of war crimes in the first gulf war. Neither side was innocent. Have a read here.

I remember reading just recently that one or more US soldiers have stepped forward recently claiming that they had participated in igniting oil wells under orders during the first gulf war. I wish I had a link to this story (which may be a total fabrication, who knows). If anyone else has a link to a reliable source on this, it would make interesting reading.