US Military Violates International Law, Again

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Todd Kuzma, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Java Man

    Java Man Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    >
    >
    > Java Man wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > > says...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Java Man wrote:
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Dead is dead, and it doesn't much
    > > > > matter how it happens.
    > > >
    > > > Actually it does matter... a lot. For example, manslaughter is a much
    > > > different way of getting dead than murder and the law recognizes this.

    > >
    > > Tell it to the dead.

    >
    > You want to smear everything to the same shade of grey, simply to
    > further your political agenda.


    Really? Please do tell me what my political agenda is, oh wise one.

    But since you've responded, I'd like to return to the original context
    of my post.

    I said:

    "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?"

    Your comeback was that "it does matter", and you used the difference
    between manslaughter and murder as an example.

    I was discussing international conventions meant to cover behaviour in
    war zones, civil laws governing behaviour during peace time. To
    reiterate my position, I find the distinctions created by "rules" in a
    war to be absurd because they create the illusion that killing is fine
    if it's done "by the rules". Which commandment was that -- "Thou shalt
    not kill except when sanctioned by the Geneva convention"? Oh, yes, I
    must have forgotten that one.

    > That's not very nuanced for a political
    > group who claims to be the kings of nuance.


    Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not royalty,
    don't give a shit about nuance, and don't belong to any political group.
    >
    > > > You live in a fantasy land of equivalence. There is isn't any -- there
    > > > never has been and never will be. This inability to discriminate is
    > > > typical more of the "left wing" than the "right wing," as things go.
    > > > The "left" is more highly associated with "equivalence of result" than
    > > > the "right," which is more concerned with "equivalence of opportunity."
    > > > Of course, to have such an equivalence of result destroys the very
    > > > notion of diversity. The "left" hates diversity by action if not by
    > > > words. This is one of the key, if not the most key, aspect of the
    > > > current bankruptcy of the "left."
    > > >

    > > Whatever.

    >
    > Not "whatever." The "left" is replete with back-door bigots.


    On the contrary, when someone goes off on a tangential rant, I think
    "whatever" is a perfectly appropriate response.

    Rick
     


  2. Java Man

    Java Man Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    >
    >
    > Java Man wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > > says...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Java Man wrote:
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Dead is dead, and it doesn't much
    > > > > matter how it happens.
    > > >
    > > > Actually it does matter... a lot. For example, manslaughter is a much
    > > > different way of getting dead than murder and the law recognizes this.

    > >
    > > Tell it to the dead.

    >
    > You want to smear everything to the same shade of grey, simply to
    > further your political agenda. That's not very nuanced for a political
    > group who claims to be the kings of nuance.
    >

    Really? Please do tell me what my political agenda is, oh wise one.

    But since you've responded, I'd like to return to the original context
    of my post.

    I said:

    "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?"

    Your comeback was that "it does matter", and you used the difference
    between manslaughter and murder as an example.

    I was discussing international conventions meant to cover behaviour in
    war zones, NOT civil laws governing behaviour during peace time. To
    reiterate my position, I find the distinctions created by "rules" in a
    war to be absurd because they create the illusion that killing is fine
    if it's done "by the rules". Which commandment was that -- "Thou shalt
    not kill except when sanctioned by the Geneva convention"? Oh, yes, I
    must have forgotten that one.

    > That's not very nuanced for a political
    > group who claims to be the kings of nuance.


    Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not royalty,
    don't give a shit about nuance, and don't belong to any political group.
    >
    > > > You live in a fantasy land of equivalence. There is isn't any -- there
    > > > never has been and never will be. This inability to discriminate is
    > > > typical more of the "left wing" than the "right wing," as things go.
    > > > The "left" is more highly associated with "equivalence of result" than
    > > > the "right," which is more concerned with "equivalence of opportunity."
    > > > Of course, to have such an equivalence of result destroys the very
    > > > notion of diversity. The "left" hates diversity by action if not by
    > > > words. This is one of the key, if not the most key, aspect of the
    > > > current bankruptcy of the "left."
    > > >

    > > Whatever.

    >
    > Not "whatever." The "left" is replete with back-door bigots.


    On the contrary, when someone goes off on a tangential rant, I think
    "whatever" is a perfectly appropriate response.

    Rick
     
  3. Jim Smith

    Jim Smith Guest

    [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) writes:

    > I answered. "your gripe is with the civilaian leadership and this war, fine and
    > dandy, on that we agree. BUT before you critisize the guy on the ground, you
    > had better thank your lucky stars there are people willingly doing the
    > 'toughest job' there is...so civilians can sit on their collective fat asses
    > and say any stupid thing they want and not fear..."


    That "fat ass" comment makes you sound like a bit of an elitist. I
    obviously don't have any military experience myself (Parole officer
    strongly discouraged it) but I don't have anything against the
    military. They seem far more organized and disciplined than the
    police, for example. As far as this "thanking lucky stars" bit goes,
    well, I am glad there is someone willing to pick up the garbage and
    wipe the ass of folks who can't do it for themselves and other such
    distasteful jobs that I want nothing to do with too.

    I know quite a few folks in the military and all of them joined up
    voluntarily, of course, but for most, if not all, of them serving
    their country was only a secondary consideration. For the most part
    they signed up to receive specialized training only available in the
    military, or to have their six-figure student loans written off.

    I don't think there is any particular reason to disparage the average
    soldier, but I don't think there is any reason to put them on a
    pedestal either.

    I don't know anything about you, but I imagine you had a lot of fun
    flying planes in the Navy. That's the sort of job folks dream about,
    isn't it?

    In retrospect, do you view your service as more of a sacrifice or as
    more of an opportunity?
     
  4. jebus-"<< I don't think there is any particular reason to disparage the average
    soldier, but I don't think there is any reason to put them on a
    pedestal either. >><BR><BR>

    I don't either until the civilian leadership calls upon them to exercise
    foreign policy by 'another means', which means putting their lives on the line
    to do their job.

    jebus-<< I don't know anything about you, but I imagine you had a lot of fun
    flying planes in the Navy. That's the sort of job folks dream about,
    isn't it? >><BR><BR>

    I write-" don't believe everything you see in Topgun and Flight of the
    Intruder. It was 'interesting and challenging but I would never call it 'fun'.
    But contrary to what Jose thinks, when we were told to bomb Libya or lebanon,
    politics aside, we did the best we could."

    It was an opportunity to serve, it was many times scary, and it invloved a lot
    of sacrifice. 17 addresses in 20 years, dark nights and pitching decks...about
    100 months at sea in 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"
     
  5. Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    <snip>
    > It was an opportunity to serve, it was many times scary, and it
    > invloved a lot of sacrifice. 17 addresses in 20 years, dark nights
    > and pitching decks...about 100 months at sea in 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"


    To which I whole-heartedly say, thank you for your service to our country!
     
  6. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    OK, someone explain this to me. There are 2 different sets of happenings:

    1. US military performing repugnant acts (Abu Gharib, this current
    inceident that was caught on film)

    2. Islamic extremists taking hostages, assassinating them and
    distributing gory videos afterward.

    Why is it that seemingly every human being on this planet finds exactly
    one of the above set of occurences abhorrent and the other easily
    rationalized?


    --

    --------------------

    Remove CLOTHES to reply
     
  7. In the remote chance your question is honest...

    Well, maybeYOU find "one of the above set of occurences abhorrent and the
    other easily
    rationalized", but I am sure that, like me, most other civilized people
    find both abhorrent.

    The images of the very small number of people beheaded or summarily shot
    (murdered) are broadcast, at least in part, to impede what the Iraqi
    'freedom fighters' see as collaboration, by terror. By the same token, the
    US government attempts to prevent images of the very large number of
    Iraqis - women and children as well as insurgents - killed or maimed from
    public awareness, especially in this country, and try to put a smiley face
    on our invasion and efforts to blast them into submission.

    Neither is "easily rationalized" except by the very simple-minded, and both
    need to be seen for what they are to make possible a remotely rational
    resolution of the mess we have (by all honest accounts) made there.

    My apologies for another off-topic. I won't repeat.

    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 --

    "Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]_s52...
    OK, someone explain this to me. There are 2 different sets of happenings:

    1. US military performing repugnant acts (Abu Gharib, this current
    inceident that was caught on film)

    2. Islamic extremists taking hostages, assassinating them and
    distributing gory videos afterward.

    Why is it that seemingly every human being on this planet finds exactly
    one of the above set of occurences abhorrent and the other easily
    rationalized?


    --

    --------------------

    Remove CLOTHES to reply
     
  8. g-spot

    g-spot Guest

    Java Man wrote:
    >


    > On the contrary, when someone goes off on a tangential rant,...


    LOL. This is rbt.
     
  9. TBGibb

    TBGibb Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Todd Kuzma
    <[email protected]> writes:

    >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>


    Where is the outrage over taking of hostages? And the decapitation of those
    hostanges? And the shooting of a female hostage in the head (not to mention
    one that had spent her life trying to bring outside help to the Iraqi people)?


    We are accountable. Maybe the outcome won't be what the Radical Islamic
    Fascist would like to see, but I really don't think we need to satisfy them
    anyway. Is the Radical Islamic Fascist accountable to anyone?

    Tom Gibb <[email protected]>
     
  10. arke38

    arke38 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is the outrage over taking of hostages? And the decapitation of those
    hostanges? And the shooting of a female hostage in the head (not to mention
    one that had spent her life trying to bring outside help to the Iraqi people)?


    We are accountable. Maybe the outcome won't be what the Radical Islamic
    Fascist would like to see, but I really don't think we need to satisfy them
    anyway. Is the Radical Islamic Fascist accountable to anyone?

    Tom Gibb <[email protected]>[/QUOTE]


    Who says there's no outrage over taking of hostages ? and the atrocities that are done to them ? go and read Google News and see. The murder of Margaret Hassan was a spectacularly vile act (DNA testing underway); I am not sure why there's this belief that there is no outrage over hostage taking, there must be some sort of voluntary oversight here.
     
  11. Todd Kuzma

    Todd Kuzma Guest

    TBGibb wrote:

    > Where is the outrage over taking of hostages? And the decapitation of those
    > hostanges? And the shooting of a female hostage in the head (not to mention
    > one that had spent her life trying to bring outside help to the Iraqi people)?


    The outrage over these acts has been significant. I don't
    think that you can argue that there has been no outrage over
    these atrocities.

    However, expressing outrage over these acts does not
    preclude us from recognizing mistakes that are made by
    Americans. I'm surprised that there has been little outrage
    expressd over the shooting of an unarmed, wounded insurgent.
    Most of the talking heads have taken a calm "wait-and-see"
    approach to the matter.

    If it was an insurgent shooting an unarmed, wounded US
    soldier the reaction would be far different. There would be
    plenty of outrage then, and one of the networks would likely
    produce a made-for-TV movie about the soldier and his family.

    Todd Kuzma
     
  12. TBGibb

    TBGibb Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, arke38
    <[email protected]> writes:

    >Who says there's no outrage over taking of hostages ? and the atrocities
    >that are done to them ? go and read Google News and see.


    It's here on the BICYCLING newsgroup. Why are we fully ready to flame our
    armed forces and seem mum on these other issues? The thing spoken of appears
    not to be right, but we don't know the whole story, but we openly prounounce
    that the "US Military Violates International Law, Again."

    Those guys are having to deal with people that booby trap dead bodies, use
    civilians as shields, and cut the heads off of hostages. Perhaps we should cut
    our armed forces a little slack until the facts are all in? Please note that
    it was the Bush administration that imbeded news people with the soldiers.


    Tom Gibb <[email protected]>
     
  13. Todd Kuzma

    Todd Kuzma Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, arke38
    > <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >Who says there's no outrage over taking of hostages ? and the atrocities
    > >that are done to them ? go and read Google News and see.

    >
    > It's here on the BICYCLING newsgroup. Why are we fully ready to flame our
    > armed forces and seem mum on these other issues? The thing spoken of appears
    > not to be right, but we don't know the whole story, but we openly prounounce
    > that the "US Military Violates International Law, Again."


    If you read the original post, you'll see that there was more than the
    shooting mentioned above. It also mentioned the concern expressed by
    Amnesty International and the UN over the rules of engagement used by
    both sides. I expect the insurgents to violate the law, but I expect
    better of our own leadership.

    Todd Kuzma
     
  14. RBS

    RBS New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    wrong foum, bub.
     
  15. You need to be there to see or shut up

    I MTB 2004
     
  16. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>, arke38
    >> <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >> >Who says there's no outrage over taking of hostages ? and the atrocities
    >> >that are done to them ? go and read Google News and see.

    >>
    >> It's here on the BICYCLING newsgroup. Why are we fully ready to flame our
    >> armed forces and seem mum on these other issues? The thing spoken of appears
    >> not to be right, but we don't know the whole story, but we openly prounounce
    >> that the "US Military Violates International Law, Again."

    >
    >If you read the original post, you'll see that there was more than the
    >shooting mentioned above. It also mentioned the concern expressed by
    >Amnesty International and the UN over the rules of engagement used by
    >both sides. I expect the insurgents to violate the law, but I expect
    >better of our own leadership.


    Todd - I read the article, and while it claimed that "both sides" were
    taking liberties, all the examples listed were either attributed to
    the insurgents, or it wasn't determined who actually did the shooting.

    It's an ugly situation at best - fighting in close quarters in a dense
    urban environment against insurgents in civilian dress... certainly
    that's the perfect formula for the "wrong thing happening"... but I
    haven't seen reports of significant civilian casualties. Strike that
    - I haven't seen *credible* reports... there were probably reports of
    thousands of civilian casualties from some bloggers before the
    invasion began...

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

    Todd Kuzma Guest

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

    > Todd - I read the article, and while it claimed that "both sides" were
    > taking liberties, all the examples listed were either attributed to
    > the insurgents, or it wasn't determined who actually did the shooting.
    >
    > It's an ugly situation at best - fighting in close quarters in a dense
    > urban environment against insurgents in civilian dress... certainly
    > that's the perfect formula for the "wrong thing happening"... but I
    > haven't seen reports of significant civilian casualties. Strike that
    > - I haven't seen *credible* reports... there were probably reports of
    > thousands of civilian casualties from some bloggers before the
    > invasion began...


    The concern expressed about US military violations has been over our
    rules of engagement. In Fallujah and other select areas, the US and
    Iraqi military have established "free fire" zones where any target is
    considered legitimate. This has been a big debate in the UK since the
    British military to date has not adopted this strategy. So, British
    soldiers are often operating under different rules of engagement than
    their American or Iraqi counterparts.

    Regarding the number of civilian casualties, there is no official tally
    permitted in general. In areas like Fallujah, an independent count is
    impossible anyway. So, we have to trust the Defense Department figures
    (paging Robert McNamara!).

    I have heard estimates of over 1000 insurgents killed and two different
    estimates of civilian deaths from the Defense Department. One estimate
    was between 30 and 40 civilian deaths. Another estimate was 0 civilian
    deaths. Since I've seen photos of dead children, I'd have to assume
    that the 0 estimate was inaccurate.

    Based on eyewitness reports from non-imbedded reporters from the AP and
    Reuters, I'd have to question the 30-40 figure as well. The question
    might not be over the total number killed but over the definition of who
    is an "insurgent" and who is a "civilian." Since all targets were
    declared legitimate (including directions to destroy ALL moving
    vehicles), it sounds like it would be pretty darned hard to determine
    who is who.

    By the way, it's not just Amnesty International and the UN who have
    voiced concerns about US and insurgent violations of international law.
    Today, the Red Cross voiced their similar concerns. From the Telegraph
    (UK):

    "The International Committee of the Red Cross has strongly condemned the
    'utter contempt for humanity' it says has been shown by all sides in the
    war in Iraq."

    Todd Kuzma
     
Loading...
Loading...