US Military Violates International Law, Again

[Java Man]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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.

Really? Which war didn't have incidents like this?

> 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.

Put people in an extended war, where they're being fired at day after
day, where their buddies are being killed and wounded, and sooner or
later, someone is going to break the "rules of engagement".

>
> 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.

And they all function like perfect mechanical parts, with no-one ever
breaking ranks? This is highly theoretical and unlikely.
>
> 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.

I don't like the war any more than you do. But things exactly like this
have happened in every war, by every side, for eternity. The difference
this time is that CBS was there.

Rick

 

[Jim Smith]

Weisse Luft <[email protected]> writes:

> Steve Juniper Wrote:
> > ...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.

First, you got the attribution wrong.

Second, neither you nor MH were there either but you guys claim to
know what happened. (notice who does not claim such knowledge.)

Third, where can I go to learn how to drop jargon like "MOUT" into
casual conversation? I have a feeling it would make me feel more
manly.

Fourth, what sort of a "warped mind" routinely carries a pistol while
cycling?

http://tinyurl.com/3wenu

--

 

[Bill K.]

Not to condone this type of action, but didn't Sherman say that "War
is all Hell" ?

I'm sure that the Marine in question will be given the chance to
explain his actions, and be given a quick exit out of the service.

 

[Todd Kuzma]

Java Man wrote:

>>No, it doesn't have to happen in every war.
>
> Really? Which war didn't have incidents like this?

I didn't say that these incidents don't happen. I said that
they don't have to happen.

> Put people in an extended war, where they're being fired at day after
> day, where their buddies are being killed and wounded, and sooner or
> later, someone is going to break the "rules of engagement".

Read it again. The rules of engagement weren't broken. The
rules of engagement were changed by order of military
leadership. These new rules of engagement violate
international law and appear to have resulted in greater
civilian casualties. This is not a matter of what the
soldier in the field decides to do but a matter of what the
US military policy of engagement is.

Let's be clear. International law requires soldiers to
identify a target as hostile before engagement. The new US
rules of engagement no longer require this identification.
Soldiers are free to fire upon ANY target whether identified
as hostile or not. In fact, they are currently under order
to destroy any vehicle that is moving in Fallujah.

Todd Kuzma

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Weisse Luft wrote:
>
>> See Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, PhD for legality.
>
> Sorry, I am accepting Kofi Annan's word on this.

You /should/ be sorry for that!
--
BS (no, really)

 

[Java Man]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Java Man wrote:
>
> >>No, it doesn't have to happen in every war.
> >
> > Really? Which war didn't have incidents like this?
>
> I didn't say that these incidents don't happen. I said that
> they don't have to happen.
>
> > Put people in an extended war, where they're being fired at day after
> > day, where their buddies are being killed and wounded, and sooner or
> > later, someone is going to break the "rules of engagement".
>
> Read it again. The rules of engagement weren't broken. The
> rules of engagement were changed by order of military
> leadership. These new rules of engagement violate
> international law and appear to have resulted in greater
> civilian casualties. This is not a matter of what the
> soldier in the field decides to do but a matter of what the
> US military policy of engagement is.

Here's a newspaper quote about the rules of engagement:

"Lieutentant [sic] Colonel Bob Miller, a US military judge leading an
investigation into the shooting, told NBC in an interview that the rules
of engagement in Iraq “authorize the marines to use force when presented
with a hostile act or hostile intent."

"Miller added: “Any wounded -- even in this case wounded -- insurgent,
who does not pose a threat would not be considered hostile.”"


> Let's be clear. International law requires soldiers to
> identify a target as hostile before engagement. The new US
> rules of engagement no longer require this identification.
> Soldiers are free to fire upon ANY target whether identified
> as hostile or not. In fact, they are currently under order
> to destroy any vehicle that is moving in Fallujah.
>
How is the incident NOT a violation of the rules of engagement quoted
above?

Rick

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

David Damerell wrote:

> Posts about US politics on bicycle newsgroup. STOP IT.

You dreamer you.

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:48:24 GMT, Todd Kuzma <[email protected]>
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>
>
>Todd Kuzma

Anybody who stayed in Fallujah had decided to become a martyr. Why
disappoint them?
Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[Todd Kuzma]

Java Man wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Here's a newspaper quote about the rules of engagement:
>
> "Lieutentant [sic] Colonel Bob Miller, a US military judge leading an
> investigation into the shooting, told NBC in an interview that the rules
> of engagement in Iraq ?authorize the marines to use force when presented
> with a hostile act or hostile intent."
>
> "Miller added: ?Any wounded -- even in this case wounded -- insurgent,
> who does not pose a threat would not be considered hostile.?"
>
>>Let's be clear. International law requires soldiers to
>>identify a target as hostile before engagement. The new US
>>rules of engagement no longer require this identification.
>>Soldiers are free to fire upon ANY target whether identified
>>as hostile or not. In fact, they are currently under order
>>to destroy any vehicle that is moving in Fallujah.
>>
> How is the incident NOT a violation of the rules of engagement quoted
> above?

The execution of the prisoner may or may not be a violation.
In either case, it violates international law, and if the
tables were turned, we'd be outraged. I'm sure the
insurgents who cut heads off of hostages are just a few "bad
apples" and not indicative of the entire insurgency, right?

Besides, you missed the main point which was Amnesty
International's claim that the US is likely violating
international law by declaring Fallujah a free fire zone.
This is a separate issue from the prisoner execution.

Todd Kuzma

 

[Rick Warner]

Weisse Luft <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> See Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, PhD for legality.

A PhD does not make one the final arbiter of legality. Or even an
authoritative voice, for that matter. Now that W has named the
Perjurer Condi Rice as has choice for Sec'y of State I can assume it
is their plan to continue to act contrary to international law *and*
opinion.

- rick

 

[R15757]

Rick Java Man wrote in part:

>I don't like the war any more than you do. But things exactly like this
>have happened in every war, by every side, for eternity. The difference
>this time is that CBS was there.


Exactly right.

Rules of War--what a joke. War is just what
we saw on the news Monday night. That
kind of thing is happening every few
minutes in a place like Fallujah.
The Geneva Conventions, et cetera are
just a PR exercise so the folks back home
can feel all warm and fuzzy about the
industrialized killing that is going on.
The Geneva Conventions are a sneaky
advertisement for wars past, present,
and future.

Robert

 

[Java Man]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Java Man wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > Here's a newspaper quote about the rules of engagement:
> >
> > "Lieutentant [sic] Colonel Bob Miller, a US military judge leading an
> > investigation into the shooting, told NBC in an interview that the rules
> > of engagement in Iraq ?authorize the marines to use force when presented
> > with a hostile act or hostile intent."
> >
> > "Miller added: ?Any wounded -- even in this case wounded -- insurgent,
> > who does not pose a threat would not be considered hostile.?"
> >
> >>Let's be clear. International law requires soldiers to
> >>identify a target as hostile before engagement. The new US
> >>rules of engagement no longer require this identification.
> >>Soldiers are free to fire upon ANY target whether identified
> >>as hostile or not. In fact, they are currently under order
> >>to destroy any vehicle that is moving in Fallujah.
> >>
> > How is the incident NOT a violation of the rules of engagement quoted
> > above?
>
> The execution of the prisoner may or may not be a violation.
> In either case, it violates international law, and if the
> tables were turned, we'd be outraged. I'm sure the
> insurgents who cut heads off of hostages are just a few "bad
> apples" and not indicative of the entire insurgency, right?
>
> Besides, you missed the main point which was Amnesty
> International's claim that the US is likely violating
> international law by declaring Fallujah a free fire zone.
> This is a separate issue from the prisoner execution.
>
No, I didn't miss the main point.

Your original post said:

"Oops! Shooting wounded prisoners:"

I replied that this was bound to happen in war.

You countered that:

"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."

I replied by quoting an army official on the rules of engagement, which
statement clearly contradicts your post. The shooting of an unarmed,
wounded prisoner would be a violation of the rules of engagement.

Personally, I find international conventions on what constitutes
acceptable killing to be absurd. Dead is dead, and it doesn't much
matter how it happens. Certainly, we all abhor torture, and it is
against international conventions. Yet, those same conventions allow
people to be gutshot, have limbs blown off, etc. And when the victims
are left conscious and without immediate medical attention for extended
periods, which happens frequently, is it really any more humane than
torture?

Fear, anger, and the drive to survive dominate in war. Rules of
engagement mean nothing as long as you're not caught violating them.
Violations will happen again in this war, and in every war in the
future. We just don't often hear about the violations.

Rick

 

[John]

"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

You're right Scott, where's Todd's repugnant attitude regarding these type
of activities on the part of our "Arab friends"? This seems to be all too
common. You won't hear any outrage about this though. Especially from
Clerics and Imams. Maybe a little handwringing, but that'll be drown out by
the story of the Marine....that's the way the left wants to operate.

Try this one on for size Todd:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostage

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Kidnapped aid worker Margaret Hassan was believed to be
dead Tuesday after a video received by Al-Jazeera television showed a hooded
figure shooting a blindfolded woman in the head

The British government and Hassan's family in London said they believed the
longtime director of CARE in Iraq (news - web sites) was the victim. CARE
said it was in mourning for the 59-year-old Briton who worked for decades
providing food, medicine and humanitarian aid to Iraqis

The video shows a militant firing a pistol into the head of a blindfolded
woman wearing an orange jumpsuit, Al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout said.
"She was presumed to be Mrs. Hassan," he told The Associated Press. "

Wow! These guys sure are brave....shooting a blindfolded old lady in the
head. Come on Todd, let's see you get just as upset about this MURDER as
the Marine in the middle of a COMBAT, that's combat Todd, situation!

John

 

[RWM]

"Todd Kuzma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

Why the need to post to RBT?

 

[Weisse Luft]

Second, neither you nor MH were there either but you guys claim to
know what happened. (notice who does not claim such knowledge.)

Third, where can I go to learn how to drop jargon like "MOUT" into
casual conversation? I have a feeling it would make me feel more
manly.

Fourth, what sort of a "warped mind" routinely carries a pistol while
cycling?


--

If you note, I am not making judgment in either direction. Who is claiming this is a clear case of violation of the rules of land warfare?

If you want to learn thst fancy terms, the best bet is to earn a DD214. I have mine.

Carrying the means to defend myself is not warped. Its self preservation, the strongest instinct. If I am riding on public land, I should not be denied access because someone wants to set up camp, guarding said camp with a pack of curs. Or when I am riding my bicycle on a PUBLIC road, I should not be denied access by an unrestrained dog and I should never be run off the road by the cur's owner.

Next time, there will be a dead cur.

 

[Todd Kuzma]

John wrote:

> You're right Scott, where's Todd's repugnant attitude regarding these type
> of activities on the part of our "Arab friends"? This seems to be all too
> common. You won't hear any outrage about this though. Especially from
> Clerics and Imams. Maybe a little handwringing, but that'll be drown out by
> the story of the Marine....that's the way the left wants to operate.
>
> Try this one on for size Todd:
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostage

Sorry, I had assumed that it went without saying that those
atrocities were terrible. They should be condemned, and I
think that most folks are doing that.

After 9/11, I wore a peace button for a while, and some
asked me how I could wear that after such an attack. I
answered that the 9/11 attacks were not peaceful and that I
was opposing them. People died. It was atrocious. I was
signifying my disgust with it with that button.

I don't think that anyone really needs to make the argument
that beheading hostages and other similar atrocities
committed by insurgents are evil acts and should be
condemned. However, it sometimes IS necessary to ensure
that we aren't guilty of our own atrocities. Since we do
live in the greatest country in the world, it's easy to
assume that everything we do is correct, proper, and moral.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, and we
must be strive to stay as true to the right course as we can.

Criticism of the government is NOT unpatriotic. Rather, it
is every citizen's patriotic duty to remain skeptical and
ensure that those we choose to run the government do so in
our best interest.

Todd Kuzma

 

[Jose Rizal]

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 dys 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."

Your logic implies that any and all criminal transgressions by soldiers
can be forgiven because of their "tough job" fighting the "enemy" and
they're "doing their best". That's just nonsense.

The US soldiers are the invaders and occupiers in Iraq. They are the
enemy. If some of these US soldiers go loco and start shooting unarmed
opponents, regardless of whether the latter had been shooting at them
before, call it what it is, a criminal act. What would your view be if
it was a US soldier lying wounded without his weapon, and his Iraqi
opponent shoots him in the head?

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

You mention this as if it legitimizes your leniency in aforementioned
soldier's behavior. Your military record is irrelevant to your opinion,
as is mine.

 

[John McGraw]

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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"

This is a stupid & immoral war, committed by a stupid, immoral, &
criminal US administration. I have to agree w/ Peter about being in
the soldier's shoes, and I agree w/ Todd about the rules of
engagement. Hopefully the Bush administration will commit enough
stupid crimes that they will end up where they belong, in Jail.

Two terms for Bush. One in the Whitehouse. One in jail, John

 

[Top Sirloin]

Todd Kuzma wrote:

> Sorry, I had assumed that it went without saying that those atrocities
> were terrible. They should be condemned, and I think that most folks
> are doing that.
>
> After 9/11, I wore a peace button for a while, and some asked me how I
> could wear that after such an attack. I answered that the 9/11 attacks
> were not peaceful and that I was opposing them. People died. It was
> atrocious. I was signifying my disgust with it with that button.
>
> I don't think that anyone really needs to make the argument that
> beheading hostages and other similar atrocities committed by insurgents
> are evil acts and should be condemned. However, it sometimes IS
> necessary to ensure that we aren't guilty of our own atrocities. Since
> we do live in the greatest country in the world, it's easy to assume
> that everything we do is correct, proper, and moral. Unfortunately, it
> doesn't always work that way, and we must be strive to stay as true to
> the right course as we can.
>
> Criticism of the government is NOT unpatriotic. Rather, it is every
> citizen's patriotic duty to remain skeptical and ensure that those we
> choose to run the government do so in our best interest.

Face it Todd, you hate America. You think your
time is better spent criticising those who defend
your freedom rather than those who would kill you
and your family.

Your political arguments are unwelcome and you're
living under the delusion that the people on this
newsgroup care what you think.

**** off, die, and be warm in my killfile asshole.


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

 

[Kenny Lee]

RWM wrote:

> Why the need to post to RBT?

Have you ever tried to follow news threads at the WashingtonPost.com or
NewYorkTimes.com, CNN.com. They're ill organized and you end up a one
byte voice in a terabyte harddrive. These OT posts are a nice change of
pace to the usual "Campy VS Shimano" narrative. Anyways, if the OT
offends you you can do what I do, just skip over it and read something
else.

Kenny