It seems that at least one law college in the US recognizes the concept of international law.
Oh, dear lord.
"International law" is a phrase. It means the study of the relations between states. You can get a degree in "international law" if you want.
What "international law" is not, however is law.
If you don't understand the difference, then please take a seat and let the adults talk. I'm tired of you people spouting off on subjects about which you know very little.
1. Osama bin Laden was not known for being reticent. He frequently gave interviews in the Muslim press, wrote editorials for Muslim papers, and released videotaped statements. Since the end of 2001, we haven't seen a single piece of communication from Osama bin Laden. Not one. We've got a couple of audiotapes which were not made by Osama and a video which was shot before 11/01, but nothing at all since.
2. In addition to his public communications, he was very active in private communications. He made cell phone calls all the time. Since the end of 2001, we haven't intercepted a single telephone call from or to Osama bin Laden.
3. Osama bin Laden was also a very hands-on leader. We have video of him teaching young boys to shoot AK-47's, for example. Since 11/01, he has not been seen at any al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked training facility.
4. Finally, there's the money. The bulk of bin Laden's assets were seized after 9/11, but some were left available to him so that his use of them could be traced. We had excellent records of his access to his money leading up to the Tora Bora battle, but since 11/01, neither he nor anybody else has touched his money.
That's conclusive. It's circumstantial, but it's absolutely balls-to-the-wall conclusive. (We'll never have physical evidence of his remains anyway. He was reduced to DNA residue by our bombs.)
1. Osama bin Laden was not known for being reticent. He frequently gave interviews in the Muslim press, wrote editorials for Muslim papers, and released videotaped statements. Since the end of 2001, we haven't seen a single piece of communication from Osama bin Laden. Not one. We've got a couple of audiotapes which were not made by Osama and a video which was shot before 11/01, but nothing at all since.
2. In addition to his public communications, he was very active in private communications. He made cell phone calls all the time. Since the end of 2001, we haven't intercepted a single telephone call from or to Osama bin Laden.
3. Osama bin Laden was also a very hands-on leader. We have video of him teaching young boys to shoot AK-47's, for example. Since 11/01, he has not been seen at any al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked training facility.
4. Finally, there's the money. The bulk of bin Laden's assets were seized after 9/11, but some were left available to him so that his use of them could be traced. We had excellent records of his access to his money leading up to the Tora Bora battle, but since 11/01, neither he nor anybody else has touched his money.
That's conclusive. It's circumstantial, but it's absolutely balls-to-the-wall conclusive. (We'll never have physical evidence of his remains anyway. He was reduced to DNA residue by our bombs.)
OK you seem to have some issues big big issues even rumsfeld doesn't belive this.
Please, as a favor to me, sober up before posting again.
America did exist at this and where a part of the world and would know about this precident in international law
There's no such thing as "international law."
As i explained i have dyslexia hence the grammer etc. it is your ignorance that is unaceptable and your attitude that is incorrect and inability to act like an adult.
You're kidding, right? Dyslexia is a reading disorder. It doesn't have any impact on your ability to construct a sentence or to use punctuation. Please put the crack pipe down.
bizzarley i have above average reading and comperhension
Oh, dear lord. That's either the funniest thing I've read in a long time, or tragically sad. Maybe both.
Wrong. The invasion of Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror.
There are no links between September 11 and Iraq.
Of course there are.
1. September 11 was perpetrated by a group of fanatics who call themselves al-Qaida (the foundation). Al-Qaida isn't a nation, it's not a religion. It's more like a political party, albeit one with guns and bombs.
2. In order to capture or kill the members of al-Qaida, we went to war in Afghanistan in late 2001.
3. In late November or early December of 2001, some refugees from al-Qaida fled Afghanistan and went to northern Iraq. There they joined up with members of an organization called Jund al-Islam (soldiers of Islam) to form a new group, Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam). Ansar al-Islam was very closely tied to al-Qaida. In some ways, it was a splinter group. In some ways, it was an ally. In some ways, Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida were two names for the same group.
4. Jund al-Islam had been strictly a Kurdish group. They'd had loose ties with Baghdad, but nothing formal. After they merged with al-Qaida to form Ansar al-Islam, they established very close ties with Baghdad. A guy named Abu Wa'el, one of the leaders of Ansar al-Islam, was on the payroll of Iraqi Military Intelligence and served as the liaison between Baghdad, Ansar al-Islam, and other al-Qaida remnants in central Asia.
5. Among the members of al-Qaida who formed Ansar al-Islam is a real sweet guy named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was a close associate of Osama bin Laden throughout the 1990's and the early 2000's. He fled Afghanistan in late 2001 and set up shop in Iraq along with the other al-Qaida refugees. In the summer of 2002 he underwent surgery in Baghdad, in one of Saddam's hospitals. (It was once thought he had a leg amputated. Records uncovered during the invasion of Iraq show that that's not true. The nature of Zarqawi's surgery remains uncertain, but his presence in a Baghdad hospital in the summer of 2002 is certain.)
6. In late 2002, with war looming, Zarqawi started establishing cells in Baghdad in preparation for what he expected would be extensive urban fighting. He acquired weapons from Saddam's army during this time, including (evidently) chemical artillery shells. Fortunately for us he doesn't have an artillery piece with which to launch them, and setting them as roadside explosives isn't an effective way to use them.
7. But wait, there's more, just for the heck of it. Saddam's ties to terrorism went beyond al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam. He provided safe harbor for Abu Nidal, the terrorist behind numerous attacks on the West during the 80's. (Abu Nidal, incidentally, was found dead in his home in Baghdad in 2002. The official cause of death according to the Iraqi government was four self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head and chest.) Saddam also funded terrorist operations in Israel. His support for terrorism wasn't limited to one group or faction.
Now, let me summarize this. The Taliban provided aid and safe harbor to terrorists calling themselves al-Qaida, so we destroyed that regime. Saddam's regime provided aid and safe harbor to some of the same men calling themselves Ansar al-Islam, so we destroyed that regime.
Tell me again how the invasion of Iraq isn't related to the war on terror?
Where do you draw the prevention line at? How can you judge?
These are details that vary from situation to situation. The point is that you can judge, that killing is not absolutely moral, and that sometimes war is the best of a set of bad options.
As for wars, they are started for selfesh reasons.
I'd say wanting to preserve my life and liberty is a pretty selfish thing, yes. I'd also say that it's entirely moral, given the nature of the things I'm trying to preserve.
The one that starts it wants something the other has or is envious of what the other has and would rather destroy it than let the other have what he worked for in peace.
The Geneva Conventions also cover this. If the classification of a prisoner is in doubt, then a tribunal will be held to determine the status of that prisoner.
Not until the cessation of hostilities. But in either case it's irrelevant, because the status of the prisoners at Gitmo is not in doubt. They're unlawful combatants.
A terrorist would be subject to the US's legal system or the legal system of the country they were captured in or whatever country the US released them to.
If somebody were captured in the United States during the planning or execution of an act against the US, its government, or its people, then that individual would be summarily executed as a spy. Somebody operating under cover behind enemy lines during a war is most certainly not a criminal.
The key factor being that the STATUS of each prisoner is quickly determined to everyone knows EXACTLY what rights that prisoner has.
Again, no. The status of prisoners doesn't matter to anybody until the end of hostilities. Prisoners taken during war, whether civilian or lawful or unlawful combatants, are basically stuck in a big hole until the fighting's over. Only then are they dispensed with through tribunals.
If they're terrorists, then they're criminals. The same as any mobster.
Nope. This is a state of war. They're not criminals. They're combatants. And if they operate behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders) under cover, they're spies, and they have no legal protection at all, criminal or otherwise.
Gee, I'm sorry, I naturally assumed that, you know, we were talking about American law and American history since we're talking about America's war.
What's the point in deliberately taking something out of context when the original is above? it is not clever at all, in fact it makes you look a bit dim.
You don't understand.
Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in the assault on the Tora Bora mountains in November 2001. He's a dead man. What's the point of declaring war against a dead man?
No and again taking something out of context and then slinging mud is childish and immature.
I didn't take anything out of context. From your unacceptable spelling, incorrect grammar, and inability to use punctuation, it was clear that you were typing while drunk.
I'm pretty sure that's the case. What other explanation could you have had for thinking that the United States declared war on Napoleon and that Osama bin Laden is alive?
A law doesn't have to arise from a legitimate authority, it can also arise from an illegitimate authority
No, it can't. A law that springs forth from an illegitimate authority isn't a law at all.
In practise laws are nothing more than a set of agreements
That's completely wrong according to all modern political theories. Try again.
It is true in practise the powerful (be they countries or individuals) can break international treaties and get away with it but it doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist
There is a difference between a law, an actual law passed by a legitimate governing authority, and a treaty entered into at the ministerial level.
1. If you're in uniform and you're fighting, you're an enemy soldier, and you're protected by the Geneva Conventions.
2. If you're not in uniform and you're not fighting, you're a civilian and you're not to be touched.
3. If you're not in uniform but you're fighting, you're a fucking spy and may be hanged or shot on the spot. Of course, in the interest of being extra-super-duper civilized, we call them "unlawful combatants" now.
The first is that large stashes of military weapons that some people are stockpiling.
Omit the words "large", "military", and "stockpiling" and you're on your way to something useful.
Simpler: If a facility is being used by combatants, either soldiers or spies, then it's a military target. That's why you don't use hospitals or churches for these purposes unless you're an idiot: it gets them bombed.
The second is the proliferation of Humvee for civilian use. This is clearly a military vehicle
Oh, don't be absurd. The Hummer you buy at the dealership around the corner is a truck, nothing more. The ones the Army uses are heavily armored, especially around the fuel tank. They resemble commercially available Hummers in name only. Besides, they're not armed. Even the Army ones pose no threat unless they've got a.50 mounted in the back, or unless they're packed full of soldiers carrying M16's.
How do your statements dismantle the argument that killing is immoral?
You weren't paying attention. You missed the big thing at the beginning: the prevention of an immoral act is, by definition, a moral act. Ergo, killing is not inherently immoral. It is sometimes moral, and sometimes even imperative.
If the Iraq invasion by the US and its military allies is really "war" why won't the White House formally declare it as such?
Because we're not at war with a nation. We're at war with an ideology. The practitioners of that ideology observe no national boundaries, so it's not possible for us to declare war. There's no country or alliance of countries for us to declare war against.
The compromise is that we decide society is better off, if we pretend that ideas are similar to property.
This is bullshit, and I'm fucking tired of hearing it.
Property is property. If you want to arbitrarily decide that some kinds of property aren't really property and therefore can't be privately owned, then you're no better than the fucking collectivists.
We already had property before government existed. But we didn't have "intellectual property."
Ownership of songs and stories is a tradition that goes back 50,000 years or more. The aboriginal people of Australia had taboos against singing another person's song 50,000 years ago. Similar traditions can be found in all known cultures.
Even today, there are primitive peoples living in Papua New Guinea and other remote places who believe that to even say another person's name without permission is theft.
Don't give me that "intellectual property is just a social construct" crap. It's a fucking lie, and you know it.
I'm so fucking sick of you idiots thinking you're so smart then demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of basic human history or philosophy!
General Washington belatedly established a uniform in 1779
Which is hardly damning, considering the first Geneva convention wasn't adopted until 1864, and the one regarding uniformed combatants wasn't adopted until 1929.
It's nonsense to compare a war that was fought in the 1770's to rules of war that were established in the early 20th century.
That video was shot in a completely different town some 250 kilometers away. You haven't been keeping up with the news. It's coming fast and furious in this instance; blink and you'll miss something important.
Sivits offered the government a plea agreement, and based on his overwhelming show of remorse and his willingness to testify against the other defendants, the government accepted.
If you honestly think that a patrol in a foreign city being ambushed from a building pauses to determine whether that building is a hospital, building of religious significance or home of orphans, in order to weigh the political consequences of various courses of actions, before opening fire, then you are severely straining your own grasp of reality.
I certainly do. If you have contradictory information, please share it. What unit did you serve in?
I am suggesting that those decision makers continue to severely discount how overwhelmingly important national and international public opinion is in rendering a positive outcome to a military action.
You have that backwards. Success in fighting this war is necessary for the continued existence of public opinion.
Am I the only one who remembers that we're in a war here? That we're in a clash of civilizations? That the terrorists will not stop until the Ummah (the community of all Muslims) is united under a world government ruled by Shari'a?
That's very cute, but it has nothing to do with the point. You would disagree with the premise that the prevention of an immoral act is a moral act? I'd love to hear you defend that assessment.
"lesser killing" does not have a precise definition, if any.
Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.
All signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to institute local laws to implement the Treaty they signed.
Obligated by what authority?
That's my point. Law is law only to the extent that it arises from legitimate authority. The Geneva Conventions are a set of agreements, nothing more. They are not laws, and they do not obligate anybody to do anything except to the extent that we take that obligation upon ourselves.
Internalizing a commitment by enshrining it in law is not the same as being governed by international law.
There are many errors in your post. Also, your conclusion is wrong.
There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified.
There were four Geneva Conventions, not "a long series." One hundred and ninety countries have signed or ratified (not necessarily both) some part of the Conventions (not necessarily all).
In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution.
There's no such thing as "international law." That's just a figure of speech. What you're talking about is a treaty. Treaties, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, take on the force of federal law. They do not have the same legal standing as the Constitution. Treaties, like all laws, are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. A treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution is not valid.
(That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process, equal protection, and freedom from self-incrimination.)
Now, let's talk about law for a second. Law is legitimate only to the extent that it arises from the collective will of the people. The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people. Therefore the rules of war do not comprise a body of law. They're legally equivalent to a handshake.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that at least one law college in the US recognizes the concept of international law.
Oh, dear lord.
"International law" is a phrase. It means the study of the relations between states. You can get a degree in "international law" if you want.
What "international law" is not, however is law.
If you don't understand the difference, then please take a seat and let the adults talk. I'm tired of you people spouting off on subjects about which you know very little.
Is there any conclusive evidence of this
Yes.
1. Osama bin Laden was not known for being reticent. He frequently gave interviews in the Muslim press, wrote editorials for Muslim papers, and released videotaped statements. Since the end of 2001, we haven't seen a single piece of communication from Osama bin Laden. Not one. We've got a couple of audiotapes which were not made by Osama and a video which was shot before 11/01, but nothing at all since.
2. In addition to his public communications, he was very active in private communications. He made cell phone calls all the time. Since the end of 2001, we haven't intercepted a single telephone call from or to Osama bin Laden.
3. Osama bin Laden was also a very hands-on leader. We have video of him teaching young boys to shoot AK-47's, for example. Since 11/01, he has not been seen at any al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked training facility.
4. Finally, there's the money. The bulk of bin Laden's assets were seized after 9/11, but some were left available to him so that his use of them could be traced. We had excellent records of his access to his money leading up to the Tora Bora battle, but since 11/01, neither he nor anybody else has touched his money.
That's conclusive. It's circumstantial, but it's absolutely balls-to-the-wall conclusive. (We'll never have physical evidence of his remains anyway. He was reduced to DNA residue by our bombs.)
Is there any conclusive evidence of this
Yes.
1. Osama bin Laden was not known for being reticent. He frequently gave interviews in the Muslim press, wrote editorials for Muslim papers, and released videotaped statements. Since the end of 2001, we haven't seen a single piece of communication from Osama bin Laden. Not one. We've got a couple of audiotapes which were not made by Osama and a video which was shot before 11/01, but nothing at all since.
2. In addition to his public communications, he was very active in private communications. He made cell phone calls all the time. Since the end of 2001, we haven't intercepted a single telephone call from or to Osama bin Laden.
3. Osama bin Laden was also a very hands-on leader. We have video of him teaching young boys to shoot AK-47's, for example. Since 11/01, he has not been seen at any al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked training facility.
4. Finally, there's the money. The bulk of bin Laden's assets were seized after 9/11, but some were left available to him so that his use of them could be traced. We had excellent records of his access to his money leading up to the Tora Bora battle, but since 11/01, neither he nor anybody else has touched his money.
That's conclusive. It's circumstantial, but it's absolutely balls-to-the-wall conclusive. (We'll never have physical evidence of his remains anyway. He was reduced to DNA residue by our bombs.)
I would have thought that it would be easier to take an us vs. them approach
;-) In any case, the ROE for all Coalition forces is the same.
We don't do things that way, though.
Despite that I disagree with most of your opining in this thread, I wasn't trying to question your credibility.
I know. No offense intended or taken.
I really just wanted to confirm you were actually talking about what I guess is real-life US military practice, and not, say the UK or the Aussies.
I'm not even going to narrow it down to a country.
OK you seem to have some issues big big issues even rumsfeld doesn't belive this.
Please, as a favor to me, sober up before posting again.
America did exist at this and where a part of the world and would know about this precident in international law
There's no such thing as "international law."
As i explained i have dyslexia hence the grammer etc. it is your ignorance that is unaceptable and your attitude that is incorrect and inability to act like an adult.
You're kidding, right? Dyslexia is a reading disorder. It doesn't have any impact on your ability to construct a sentence or to use punctuation. Please put the crack pipe down.
bizzarley i have above average reading and comperhension
Oh, dear lord. That's either the funniest thing I've read in a long time, or tragically sad. Maybe both.
'War on Terror' != 'Invasion of Iraq'.
Wrong. The invasion of Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror.
There are no links between September 11 and Iraq.
Of course there are.
1. September 11 was perpetrated by a group of fanatics who call themselves al-Qaida (the foundation). Al-Qaida isn't a nation, it's not a religion. It's more like a political party, albeit one with guns and bombs.
2. In order to capture or kill the members of al-Qaida, we went to war in Afghanistan in late 2001.
3. In late November or early December of 2001, some refugees from al-Qaida fled Afghanistan and went to northern Iraq. There they joined up with members of an organization called Jund al-Islam (soldiers of Islam) to form a new group, Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam). Ansar al-Islam was very closely tied to al-Qaida. In some ways, it was a splinter group. In some ways, it was an ally. In some ways, Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida were two names for the same group.
4. Jund al-Islam had been strictly a Kurdish group. They'd had loose ties with Baghdad, but nothing formal. After they merged with al-Qaida to form Ansar al-Islam, they established very close ties with Baghdad. A guy named Abu Wa'el, one of the leaders of Ansar al-Islam, was on the payroll of Iraqi Military Intelligence and served as the liaison between Baghdad, Ansar al-Islam, and other al-Qaida remnants in central Asia.
5. Among the members of al-Qaida who formed Ansar al-Islam is a real sweet guy named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was a close associate of Osama bin Laden throughout the 1990's and the early 2000's. He fled Afghanistan in late 2001 and set up shop in Iraq along with the other al-Qaida refugees. In the summer of 2002 he underwent surgery in Baghdad, in one of Saddam's hospitals. (It was once thought he had a leg amputated. Records uncovered during the invasion of Iraq show that that's not true. The nature of Zarqawi's surgery remains uncertain, but his presence in a Baghdad hospital in the summer of 2002 is certain.)
6. In late 2002, with war looming, Zarqawi started establishing cells in Baghdad in preparation for what he expected would be extensive urban fighting. He acquired weapons from Saddam's army during this time, including (evidently) chemical artillery shells. Fortunately for us he doesn't have an artillery piece with which to launch them, and setting them as roadside explosives isn't an effective way to use them.
7. But wait, there's more, just for the heck of it. Saddam's ties to terrorism went beyond al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam. He provided safe harbor for Abu Nidal, the terrorist behind numerous attacks on the West during the 80's. (Abu Nidal, incidentally, was found dead in his home in Baghdad in 2002. The official cause of death according to the Iraqi government was four self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head and chest.) Saddam also funded terrorist operations in Israel. His support for terrorism wasn't limited to one group or faction.
Now, let me summarize this. The Taliban provided aid and safe harbor to terrorists calling themselves al-Qaida, so we destroyed that regime. Saddam's regime provided aid and safe harbor to some of the same men calling themselves Ansar al-Islam, so we destroyed that regime.
Tell me again how the invasion of Iraq isn't related to the war on terror?
(Sources: The Christian Science Monitor and ABC News. More sources are readily available. Google 'em up.)
Where do you draw the prevention line at? How can you judge?
These are details that vary from situation to situation. The point is that you can judge, that killing is not absolutely moral, and that sometimes war is the best of a set of bad options.
As for wars, they are started for selfesh reasons.
I'd say wanting to preserve my life and liberty is a pretty selfish thing, yes. I'd also say that it's entirely moral, given the nature of the things I'm trying to preserve.
The one that starts it wants something the other has or is envious of what the other has and would rather destroy it than let the other have what he worked for in peace.
Or, in this case, the one who starts it simply wants to destroy us and everything we stand for.
Wars are also started out of hatred, sometimes.
Most of the time when life is taken it is NOT necessary.
So? This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that sometimes it is necessary.
Murder is wrong in all it's forms.
That's right. But "murder" is not a synonym for "killing." Crack a dictionary on that one and see for yourself.
The Geneva Conventions also cover this. If the classification of a prisoner is in doubt, then a tribunal will be held to determine the status of that prisoner.
Not until the cessation of hostilities. But in either case it's irrelevant, because the status of the prisoners at Gitmo is not in doubt. They're unlawful combatants.
A terrorist would be subject to the US's legal system or the legal system of the country they were captured in or whatever country the US released them to.
If somebody were captured in the United States during the planning or execution of an act against the US, its government, or its people, then that individual would be summarily executed as a spy. Somebody operating under cover behind enemy lines during a war is most certainly not a criminal.
The key factor being that the STATUS of each prisoner is quickly determined to everyone knows EXACTLY what rights that prisoner has.
Again, no. The status of prisoners doesn't matter to anybody until the end of hostilities. Prisoners taken during war, whether civilian or lawful or unlawful combatants, are basically stuck in a big hole until the fighting's over. Only then are they dispensed with through tribunals.
If they're terrorists, then they're criminals. The same as any mobster.
Nope. This is a state of war. They're not criminals. They're combatants. And if they operate behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders) under cover, they're spies, and they have no legal protection at all, criminal or otherwise.
Yes they did
Gee, I'm sorry, I naturally assumed that, you know, we were talking about American law and American history since we're talking about America's war.
What's the point in deliberately taking something out of context when the original is above? it is not clever at all, in fact it makes you look a bit dim.
You don't understand.
Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in the assault on the Tora Bora mountains in November 2001. He's a dead man. What's the point of declaring war against a dead man?
No and again taking something out of context and then slinging mud is childish and immature.
I didn't take anything out of context. From your unacceptable spelling, incorrect grammar, and inability to use punctuation, it was clear that you were typing while drunk.
I'm pretty sure that's the case. What other explanation could you have had for thinking that the United States declared war on Napoleon and that Osama bin Laden is alive?
It's been done before war was declered against Napoloeon and supporters of nopoleon
No, it wasn't.
Why don't they declear war against Him?
What's the point of declaring war against a dead man?
(Also... were you drunk when you posted this?)
A law doesn't have to arise from a legitimate authority, it can also arise from an illegitimate authority
No, it can't. A law that springs forth from an illegitimate authority isn't a law at all.
In practise laws are nothing more than a set of agreements
That's completely wrong according to all modern political theories. Try again.
It is true in practise the powerful (be they countries or individuals) can break international treaties and get away with it but it doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist
There is a difference between a law, an actual law passed by a legitimate governing authority, and a treaty entered into at the ministerial level.
Is the above really SOP for the US military?
Yes, in essence.
It's well known that I don't talk about my personal history, because I value my privacy. Suffice it to say that I didn't just make it up.
this civilian thing gets confusing.
.50 mounted in the back, or unless they're packed full of soldiers carrying M16's.
Not at all. It's simple.
1. If you're in uniform and you're fighting, you're an enemy soldier, and you're protected by the Geneva Conventions.
2. If you're not in uniform and you're not fighting, you're a civilian and you're not to be touched.
3. If you're not in uniform but you're fighting, you're a fucking spy and may be hanged or shot on the spot. Of course, in the interest of being extra-super-duper civilized, we call them "unlawful combatants" now.
The first is that large stashes of military weapons that some people are stockpiling.
Omit the words "large", "military", and "stockpiling" and you're on your way to something useful.
Simpler: If a facility is being used by combatants, either soldiers or spies, then it's a military target. That's why you don't use hospitals or churches for these purposes unless you're an idiot: it gets them bombed.
The second is the proliferation of Humvee for civilian use. This is clearly a military vehicle
Oh, don't be absurd. The Hummer you buy at the dealership around the corner is a truck, nothing more. The ones the Army uses are heavily armored, especially around the fuel tank. They resemble commercially available Hummers in name only. Besides, they're not armed. Even the Army ones pose no threat unless they've got a
How do your statements dismantle the argument that killing is immoral?
You weren't paying attention. You missed the big thing at the beginning: the prevention of an immoral act is, by definition, a moral act. Ergo, killing is not inherently immoral. It is sometimes moral, and sometimes even imperative.
If the Iraq invasion by the US and its military allies is really "war" why won't the White House formally declare it as such?
Because we're not at war with a nation. We're at war with an ideology. The practitioners of that ideology observe no national boundaries, so it's not possible for us to declare war. There's no country or alliance of countries for us to declare war against.
The compromise is that we decide society is better off, if we pretend that ideas are similar to property.
This is bullshit, and I'm fucking tired of hearing it.
Property is property. If you want to arbitrarily decide that some kinds of property aren't really property and therefore can't be privately owned, then you're no better than the fucking collectivists.
We already had property before government existed. But we didn't have "intellectual property."
Ownership of songs and stories is a tradition that goes back 50,000 years or more. The aboriginal people of Australia had taboos against singing another person's song 50,000 years ago. Similar traditions can be found in all known cultures.
Even today, there are primitive peoples living in Papua New Guinea and other remote places who believe that to even say another person's name without permission is theft.
Don't give me that "intellectual property is just a social construct" crap. It's a fucking lie, and you know it.
I'm so fucking sick of you idiots thinking you're so smart then demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of basic human history or philosophy!
Ansar having ties to al qaeda and to Iraq does NOT logically imply that iraq/hussein has ties with al qaeda.
You would have been better served by spending less time on "logic" and more time reading.
Among other known Ansar leaders, Mohamed says Abu Wa'el was the most influential, was on the Iraqi intelligence payroll, and served as a liaison between Baghdad and Al Qaeda.
General Washington belatedly established a uniform in 1779
Which is hardly damning, considering the first Geneva convention wasn't adopted until 1864, and the one regarding uniformed combatants wasn't adopted until 1929.
It's nonsense to compare a war that was fought in the 1770's to rules of war that were established in the early 20th century.
That video was shot in a completely different town some 250 kilometers away. You haven't been keeping up with the news. It's coming fast and furious in this instance; blink and you'll miss something important.
Excellent post. However, you left out the best article about Saddam's ties to al-Qaida.
Sivits offered the government a plea agreement, and based on his overwhelming show of remorse and his willingness to testify against the other defendants, the government accepted.
If you honestly think that a patrol in a foreign city being ambushed from a building pauses to determine whether that building is a hospital, building of religious significance or home of orphans, in order to weigh the political consequences of various courses of actions, before opening fire, then you are severely straining your own grasp of reality.
I certainly do. If you have contradictory information, please share it. What unit did you serve in?
I am suggesting that those decision makers continue to severely discount how overwhelmingly important national and international public opinion is in rendering a positive outcome to a military action.
You have that backwards. Success in fighting this war is necessary for the continued existence of public opinion.
Am I the only one who remembers that we're in a war here? That we're in a clash of civilizations? That the terrorists will not stop until the Ummah (the community of all Muslims) is united under a world government ruled by Shari'a?
Don't believe me? Go read Osama bin Laden's declaration of war.
A=B does not mean !A=!B
That's very cute, but it has nothing to do with the point. You would disagree with the premise that the prevention of an immoral act is a moral act? I'd love to hear you defend that assessment.
"lesser killing" does not have a precise definition, if any.
Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.
All signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to institute local laws to implement the Treaty they signed.
Obligated by what authority?
That's my point. Law is law only to the extent that it arises from legitimate authority. The Geneva Conventions are a set of agreements, nothing more. They are not laws, and they do not obligate anybody to do anything except to the extent that we take that obligation upon ourselves.
Internalizing a commitment by enshrining it in law is not the same as being governed by international law.
There are many errors in your post. Also, your conclusion is wrong.
There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified.
There were four Geneva Conventions, not "a long series." One hundred and ninety countries have signed or ratified (not necessarily both) some part of the Conventions (not necessarily all).
In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution.
There's no such thing as "international law." That's just a figure of speech. What you're talking about is a treaty. Treaties, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, take on the force of federal law. They do not have the same legal standing as the Constitution. Treaties, like all laws, are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. A treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution is not valid.
(That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process, equal protection, and freedom from self-incrimination.)
Now, let's talk about law for a second. Law is legitimate only to the extent that it arises from the collective will of the people. The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people. Therefore the rules of war do not comprise a body of law. They're legally equivalent to a handshake.
(So, incidentally, is the UN Charter.)