US Military Violates International Law, Again

[Todd Kuzma]

Oops!

Shooting wounded prisoners:

<http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>

Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:

<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>

Todd Kuzma

 

[ritcho]

... still insists hub stands on the spokes!

 

[Mark Hickey]

Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:

>Oops!
>
>Shooting wounded prisoners:
>
><http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>

Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).

I don't know if it was truly a wonded combatant, or if it was a
combatant trying to take an infidel to hell with himself... but when
your side uses ruses like mock injury or surrender to get in position
to launch an attack, you have to accept that you're going to be
dealing with some pretty twitchy soldiers.

>Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
>
><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>

That article basically says the insurgents were very indiscriminate
about who and where they fired their weapons - there wasn't anything
in the article that really pointed out any gross error on the part of
the US or Iraqi soldiers (a couple mentions of misguided RPGs, but no
information on who fired them). So if you're saying the insurgents
are in violation of international humanitarian law, I'd agree. I
think most analysts are impressed with the lack of civilian carnage
considering the circumstances.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Tom Sherman]

Todd Kuzma wrote:

> Oops!
>
> Shooting wounded prisoners:
>
> <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>
> Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
>
> <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>

Since the invasion of Iraq was in itself a violation of international
law, are not all the actions of the US military in Iraq violations?

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Dan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in news:2vt881F2oja9rU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> Todd Kuzma wrote:
>
>> Oops!
>>
>> Shooting wounded prisoners:
>>
>> <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>>
>> Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
>>
>> <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=
6816027>
>
> Since the invasion of Iraq was in itself a violation of international
> law, are not all the actions of the US military in Iraq violations?
>

After 911, we could have turned Iraq into a glass parking lot. Being the
greatest nation on earth, we do whatever we want, when we want. If you
don't like it...guess what?

 

[Todd Kuzma]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Oops!
> >
> >Shooting wounded prisoners:
> >
> ><http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>
> Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
> to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
> it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
> the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
> ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).

Since the Marines are planning a criminal investigation, I think that
it's a bit more than you imply. Besides, if a dead guy *without any
weapons* returns to life, what kind of ambush is that? If the Marines
are so "on edge" that they start firing at unarmed prisoners, dead or
alive, something is wrong. Apparently, the troops on the ground still
haven't gotten much guidance from military command even after the Abu
Ghraib scandal. That's what we need the Arab world to see on TV:
Marines executing prisoners. What do you think the reaction would be if
it was footage of insurgents shooting Marine prisoners?

> >Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
> >
> ><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
>
> That article basically says the insurgents were very indiscriminate
> about who and where they fired their weapons - there wasn't anything
> in the article that really pointed out any gross error on the part of
> the US or Iraqi soldiers (a couple mentions of misguided RPGs, but no
> information on who fired them).

Not sure if you are reading the same article that I am. I didn't see
any mention of misguided RPGs, but it was clear that Amnesty
International included US troops in their statements:

"LONDON (Reuters) - The rules of war protecting civilians and wounded
combatants have been broken by both sides in the week-long assault on
the Iraqi city of Falluja, the human rights group Amnesty International
said on Monday."

plus

"The London-based group, which gave examples of what it said were
breaches of the rules by both U.S. troops and insurgents, demanded that
all violations be investigated and those responsible brought to justice."

plus

" . . . the attacking U.S. and Iraqi troops failed to take the necessary
steps to ensure that non-combatants did not come under fire . . ."

Todd Kuzma

 

[Jim Smith]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Oops!
> >
> >Shooting wounded prisoners:
> >
> ><http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>
> Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
> to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
> it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
> the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
> ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).
>
> I don't know if it was truly a wonded combatant, or if it was a
> combatant trying to take an infidel to hell with himself... but when
> your side uses ruses like mock injury or surrender to get in position
> to launch an attack, you have to accept that you're going to be
> dealing with some pretty twitchy soldiers.
>
> >Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
> >
> ><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
>
> That article basically says the insurgents were very indiscriminate
> about who and where they fired their weapons - there wasn't anything
> in the article that really pointed out any gross error on the part of
> the US or Iraqi soldiers (a couple mentions of misguided RPGs, but no
> information on who fired them). So if you're saying the insurgents
> are in violation of international humanitarian law, I'd agree. I
> think most analysts are impressed with the lack of civilian carnage
> considering the circumstances.
>

Wow. I got to hand it to you, that is one studly job of
rationalization. You really DO believe your own ******** don't you.

 

[Jim Smith]

Dan <[email protected]> writes:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in news:2vt881F2oja9rU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
> > Todd Kuzma wrote:
> >
> >> Oops!
> >>
> >> Shooting wounded prisoners:
> >>
> >> <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
> >>
> >> Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
> >>
> >> <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=
> 6816027>
> >
> > Since the invasion of Iraq was in itself a violation of international
> > law, are not all the actions of the US military in Iraq violations?
> >
>
> After 911, we could have turned Iraq into a glass parking lot. Being the
> greatest nation on earth, we do whatever we want, when we want. If you
> don't like it...guess what?

You are trolling, of course, but there is unfortunately no shortage of
folks immoral, short sighted, and ignorant enough to agree with your
insane statement.

 

[Weisse Luft]

See Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, PhD for legality.

Todd, he could have been concealing ANYTHING like a short fused grenade, an IED or some other kind of device. Go pull a toy gun on a policeman, idiot. You have no combat training, much less experience. And I can tell you are NOT a law enforcement officer. In most all officer shootings, there still is a grand jury convened. Gee, fourth grade that tough on you?

 

[Java Man]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Oops!
>
> Shooting wounded prisoners:
>
> <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>
> Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
>
> <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
>
This is going to happen in any war, anywhere, and by the soldiers of any
country. If you're going to be at war, you have to expect incidents like
this. To expect otherwise is to deny human nature.

Rick

 

[Tom Sherman]

Weisse Luft wrote:

> See Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, PhD for legality.

Sorry, I am accepting Kofi Annan's word on this.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[David Damerell]

Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oops!

Posts about US politics on bicycle newsgroup. STOP IT.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Todd writes-<< Oops!

Shooting wounded prisoners: >><BR><BR>

I answer-" I don't really want to get into this again and I do not support the
war in Iraq but I think you have to try to place yourself into his boots, a guy
that was shot 8 days prior. They are doing the tough job, facing an 'enemy'
that hides in churches, waves white flags and them opens fire, booby traps
bodies, etc. Being in the military is tough enough but these guys are in a
tough, tough place and doing their best. I think it's not correct to start
shouting about 'killing prisoners' quite yet."

Peter-a retired USN Naval Aviator, who flew Navy Fighters for 20 years.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Todd-"<< If the Marines
are so "on edge" that they start firing at unarmed prisoners, dead or
alive, something is wrong >><BR><BR>
<< Apparently, the troops on the ground still
haven't gotten much guidance from military command even after the Abu
Ghraib scandal. >><BR><BR>

I respond-" what you say smacks of you being a civilian and one who has never
been in any situation like these guys are in today. Your statement is bugleoil,
garbage. "

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Mark Hickey]

Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Oops!
>> >
>> >Shooting wounded prisoners:
>> >
>> ><http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>>
>> Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
>> to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
>> it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
>> the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
>> ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).
>
>Since the Marines are planning a criminal investigation, I think that
>it's a bit more than you imply. Besides, if a dead guy *without any
>weapons* returns to life, what kind of ambush is that? If the Marines
>are so "on edge" that they start firing at unarmed prisoners, dead or
>alive, something is wrong. Apparently, the troops on the ground still
>haven't gotten much guidance from military command even after the Abu
>Ghraib scandal. That's what we need the Arab world to see on TV:
>Marines executing prisoners. What do you think the reaction would be if
>it was footage of insurgents shooting Marine prisoners?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the Marine in question didn't
screw up. I'm glad it's going to be investigated. I'm just saying
that the term I saw on some news sources ("executed") is
inappropriate. It was obviously not a premeditated act (obvious from
watching the video).

>> >Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
>> >
>> ><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
>>
>> That article basically says the insurgents were very indiscriminate
>> about who and where they fired their weapons - there wasn't anything
>> in the article that really pointed out any gross error on the part of
>> the US or Iraqi soldiers (a couple mentions of misguided RPGs, but no
>> information on who fired them).
>
>Not sure if you are reading the same article that I am. I didn't see
>any mention of misguided RPGs, but it was clear that Amnesty
>International included US troops in their statements:

You're right - they didn't specify RPGs, but the article also didn't
mention any civilian deaths that were caused directly by US forces -
just some that weren't identified. They may have more information
that didn't make it to the article, but nothing that seemed to back up
the quotes below.

FWIW...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

>"LONDON (Reuters) - The rules of war protecting civilians and wounded
>combatants have been broken by both sides in the week-long assault on
>the Iraqi city of Falluja, the human rights group Amnesty International
>said on Monday."
>
>plus
>
>"The London-based group, which gave examples of what it said were
>breaches of the rules by both U.S. troops and insurgents, demanded that
>all violations be investigated and those responsible brought to justice."
>
>plus
>
>" . . . the attacking U.S. and Iraqi troops failed to take the necessary
>steps to ensure that non-combatants did not come under fire . . ."
>
>Todd Kuzma

 

[Todd Kuzma]

In article <[email protected]>,
Java Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Oops!
> >
> > Shooting wounded prisoners:
> >
> > <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
> >
> > Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
> >
> > <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
> >
> This is going to happen in any war, anywhere, and by the soldiers of any
> country. If you're going to be at war, you have to expect incidents like
> this. To expect otherwise is to deny human nature.

No, it doesn't have to happen in every war. It comes down to the rules
of engagement. Standard US rules of engagement and international law
require a soldier to determine that a target is hostile before engaging.
In Fallujah, however, the US command has lifted that requirement. The
entire city is now a "free-fire" zone and US soldiers are authorized to
destroy any target that they like.

This isn't an issue of "human nature." The military has a strict
command structure. In general, soldiers do as they are told, and when
they do not, they are punished for it. What is happening now in
Fallujah is the result of a command decision, and that decision is in
violation of international law.

Sure, go ahead and say "war is hell" or "**** happens," but once you
officially cross that line, you are no longer arguing from the moral
high ground. It's hard to condemn others for violating the law when you
are doing it yourself.

Todd Kuzma

 

[Top Sirloin]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
> to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
> it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
> the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
> ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).
>
> I don't know if it was truly a wonded combatant, or if it was a
> combatant trying to take an infidel to hell with himself... but when
> your side uses ruses like mock injury or surrender to get in position
> to launch an attack, you have to accept that you're going to be
> dealing with some pretty twitchy soldiers.

Evidently they should have made him beg for his
life on camera and then held him down and slowly
sawed his head off, because the repeated
occurences of that situation have drawn no ire in
rec.bicycles.tech.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Weisse Luft]

Weisse Luft wrote:

> See Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, PhD for legality.

Sorry, I am accepting Kofi Annan's word on this.

--
Tom Sherman

Kofi is going down faster than Buddy Holly in a Beechcraft. Over 23 billion reasons found to date...

 

[Steve Juniper]

George Bush (incompetent, liar, bully, coward, draft avoider and
technically, under the UCMJ, a deserter) could kill his entire family with
an axe, live on national TV, and 40% of the stump-broke American public
would still vote for him.
--
Steve Juniper

"The American psychiatrist responsible for the Nuremberg defendants
observed that, 'From our findings we must conclude not only that such
personalities are not uinique or insane, but also that they could be
duplicated in any country of the world today. We must also realize that such
pesonalities exist in this country (USA) and that there are undoubtedly
certain individuals who would willingly climb over the corpses of one half
of the people of the United States, if by doing so, they could thereby be
given control of the other half.'"
-- A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical
Truth, Finkelstein & Birn, p.99 --

"Jim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Oops!
> >
> >Shooting wounded prisoners:
> >
> ><http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86CKLIO0.html>
>
> Wasn't a prisoner - it was an obstensibly dead combatant who decided
> to return (temporarily it seems) from the dead. I saw the video, and
> it was certainly not a premeditated act - the soldiers are on edge,
> the "dead guy" started moving and the soldier in question smelled an
> ambush (the sort of techniques that had been used before).
>
> I don't know if it was truly a wonded combatant, or if it was a
> combatant trying to take an infidel to hell with himself... but when
> your side uses ruses like mock injury or surrender to get in position
> to launch an attack, you have to accept that you're going to be
> dealing with some pretty twitchy soldiers.
>
> >Claims of killing citizens in violation of int'l humanitarian law:
> >
> ><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6816027>
>
> That article basically says the insurgents were very indiscriminate
> about who and where they fired their weapons - there wasn't anything
> in the article that really pointed out any gross error on the part of
> the US or Iraqi soldiers (a couple mentions of misguided RPGs, but no
> information on who fired them). So if you're saying the insurgents
> are in violation of international humanitarian law, I'd agree. I
> think most analysts are impressed with the lack of civilian carnage
> considering the circumstances.
>

Wow. I got to hand it to you, that is one studly job of
rationalization. You really DO believe your own ******** don't you.

 

[Weisse Luft]

...Wow. I got to hand it to you, that is one studly job of
rationalization. You really DO believe your own ******** don't you.

Were you there? Do you have any combat experience, let alone MOUT experience? Now throw in videographed decapitation executions.

Get over it. Gore lost. Then Kerry lost. Seek help for your warped mind.