| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/10 |
| 2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34963 Activity:high |
11/18 Sowell on the killing of the wounded insurgent. I was wondering
the same things.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041118.shtml
\_ "Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of
war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules." I stopped
reading after this. By the same token, the Genova convention
is obsolete, because anyone can say the enemy is not covered.
\_ i'm not losing sleep over it.
\_ Hello. I do not condone the murder of the wounded man, but
people who do not act like an organized military are not
afforded Geneva Convention protections. End of story.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya, war is no longer declared between nations and fought
by cavalry regiments adhering to strict rules of combat.
It's a dirty, filthy brutal mess, and you're going to see
more and more irregular forces fighting wars. The Geneva
Conventions were not designed to strictly protect "soldiers"
based on some static definition of who wears what; the
brutality committed against civilians and irregulars in wars
since they were signed has been despite them, not as a
result. The Conventions seek to limit the damage done by
wars as a natural result of the kind of barbarism unleashed
in a war of any kind. If you were to capture OBL himself, if
he is defeated and can no longer defend himself, it is your
responsibility as a combatant to treat him according to a
basic set of standards. You may _not_ sodomize, shoot, or
torture him. Period. Legalese aside, the US must follow a
higher standard of conduct than terrorists, undemocratic
states, irregulars, tyrants, etc. There is no argument that
can justify anything that goes against this imperative.
None. The only justification that the USA have for engaging
the rest of the world, unless it is against some body that
has directly attacked us, is moral authority. When that
fails, the whole basis for being the (necessary) world
policeman is destroyed as well. -John
\_ The only 'moral' argument I can offer is of a utilitarian
nature, and that is if you must wage war, wage it as
quickly and brutally as possible, so it is over as
quickly as possible. I simply disagree with your morals.
A captured, ununiformed man who tried to kill soldiers
forfeits his life, in much the same way a civilian who tries
(or does!) kill a cop. There is no way to wage moral war,
by the way. War is inherently immoral. -- ilyas
\_ Quickly, yes. Brutally? That is counterproductive.
A democracy should not wage unprovoked offensive war,
which is essentially what we have done, but even if you
disagree with the {morals,ethics} of this, being
purposely nasty to people _after the fact_ has never
in any war, ever accomplished anything. Furthermore,
it is not in the authority of an individual soldier to
mete out summary justice or punishment, ever. It is
his duty to win, and it is the duty and authority of
a military chain of command to deal with uninformed
soldier-whackers and their ilk. This is a simple,
black and white issue; if a captive is killed in self-
defense while trying to harm a soldier, it is (as with
your cop example) regrettable but probably unavoidable.
If it is a captive killed after the fact of trying to
harm a soldier, it is a crime. Period. -John
\_ I also disagree that a democracy should not wage
offensive war, I simply don't see why offensive war
\_ You've obviously never played Civilization
\_ EU or Victoria >> Civ. -- ilyas
is always unjustified. Similarly, I don't see why
executions of ununiformed people, if properly
authorized, are wrong (they certainly were not in
this case, and the soldier will be dealt with).
I think given that a certain portion of the population
(or, in the case of Iraq, mostly foreigners)
is actively soldier hunting with guns and bombs, I
think the situation has moved past pleasant
discussions, and basically such people need to be
killed. If captured, they can possibly be killed
after a trial or some such, but a short military
trial is not unreasonable in my eyes. These people
are not conscripts of a state, they are not taking
orders. They can leave at any time, yet they fight.
There is a reason GC is applied to uniformed
soldiers, it's not just a quaint 19th century
cavalry thing. Btw, brutality and quickness are not
tied together just as a turn of phrase. Brutality
really is the most efficient way. Not moral, of
course. -- ilyas
\_ I'd love to prove you wrong, but some baboon
keeps overwriting my reply. Screw it. -John
\_ Ironically, it's probably ilyas, esp
considering how active he is in this thread.
\_ this is total bullshit. I never understood how people
get away w/ calling our enemies in this Iraq war
"terrorists" instead of soldiers or whatever other
military jargon people use.
Isnt this what the british said about the US in the
Revolutionary War? (I mean, not literally about the
Geneva convention per se, but this mentality)
\_ Because they _aren't_
soldiers. Soldier = in a chain of command, wears
uniform, etc. Certainly, armies employ 'spies'
and other unconventionals. But if they are caught,
they are not afforded the GC protections, are
tortured, etc. This has been done in every war, by
all sides. This is a distasteful business, etc.
but why is this new to anyone? People can't seem
to separate 'distasteful', 'reprehensible', etc.
from 'unlawful.' US is not being unlawful. -- ilyas
\_ Thank you John Yoo Jr. Sodomizing and torturing
innocent people or executing guerilla fighters are both
against the Geneva convention, and both these groups of
people ARE covered, as much as the administration would
like to argue otherwise.
\_ Sodomizing innocent people is against the rules of
war. Is there a link detailing protections
ununiformed people (guerillas, random fuckers with bombs,
etc.) are granted? My impressions are such folks
are shot on the spot if they are lucky, or 'questioned'
if not. Methinks you be full of shit. You can't expect
the military to gingerly handle folks who are out to
kill them. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not asking them to shake hands and be polite,
merely refrain from torture and executions. Is
that too much to ask of the US Army?
\_ I dislike torture. I think executions are morally
justified. YMMV. I have yet to see a document the
US signed which forbids either being applied to
ununiformed folks with guns/bombs. -- ilyas
\_ It's called 'framing the debate'. This way it's about how
you treat terrorists. If you call them rebels or
insurgents or, god forbid, freedom fighters that opens up
all sorts of unpleasant questions about what they're
fighting for.
\- i agree with your sentiment but i dont think you have
picked a good example. i think a better example [i have
not giventhis huge thought, so there may be even better
cases] is agent orange. i bet in the NVA were spraying
american troops with agent O, "we" would have called
that chemical warfare. i dont like the writing
especially but you may wish to see waltzer: just and
unjust wars. --psb
\_ Why would calling them rebels or insurgents open up
unpleasant questions? I don't think you can call them
freedom fighters. I don't think they're calling
themseves that. I suppose Bush would say they're
freedom fighters -- they're fighting freedom!
\_ Hahahahaha!!!
\_ Just to add more facts:
Dubya says Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists are not
afforded GC protections. Former Baathists and other Iraqi
nationals fighting aginst Americans probably are covered
as long as they are easily distinguishible from civilians.
\_ Ummm.. yeah. If they were wearing uniforms and acting
like soldiers, then sure.
\_ This whole 'uniforms and be in an army' thing just seems
like trying to justify raping people with glowsticks.
Uniforms don't matter because you should not be
commiting war crimes on civilians either, and if someone
is pointing a gun at you you know they're a combatant.
The 'act like soldiers' thing is meaningless. Do they
not deserve protection because they did not surrender
when the invaders disbanded their army? Guerilla
warfare is a perfectly valid battle tactic, just not one
the the US army handles well.
\_ Guerilla Warfare != Terrorism. Car bombing
civilians and beheading hostages is not
"Guerilla Warfare"
\_ Of course not everything they do is guerilla
warfare, and I never defended terrorism or
brutality. It is a perfectly legitimate tactic to
take sniper shots at an occupying foreign army.
Denying these people the GC protections is a bad
thing. Realize that the Iraqi insurgency is not
some unified force for evil, but many people
fighting for different reasons and using different
tactics.
\_ That's true. So far I haven't seen a lot
of evidence that the army is lumping them
into one group. But sometimes it's
better to be safe than sorry.
\_ Like pp said, al-Zarqawi != The Insurgency
\_ Unlike previous battles in Iraq, the Fallujah
insurgents have been easily distinguishable from
civilians.
If you say: "That isn't enough, you need to wear the
uniform of the Iraqi armed forces", well, then who cares
about the occasional GI who got hit in the face the
previous day and doesn't want to take any chances? He
could have nuked all five guys in the mosque, in which
case, he would only need to show he didn't violate the
rules of engagement.
\_ I just don't think we can condemn the soldier out of hand. We don't
know the circumstances, and "insurgents" have been booby trapping
dead bodies and running suicide missions. We kill Japanese just
fine in the same situations.
\_ "He's fucking faking he's dead! He's fucking faking he's dead!"
*brapbrapbrapbrap*
"Well he's dead now."
== He's going to unload a wad of C4 on you!
In the mean time, the entire video is replayed over and over
again in Iraq and across the Arab world while U.S. citizens
are trolling http://freerepublic.com and /etc/motd about hidden
grenades and uniforms. U.S. broadcast and cable networks
cover nekkid Desperate Housewives character jumping into the
arms of a uniformed NFL football player. |
| 7/10 |
|
| www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041118.shtml During the recent election campaign, it has been a liberal mantra that th ey "support the troops" while opposing the war in Iraq. Just what does s upporting the troops mean -- other than just a throwaway line to escape the political consequences of a long history of being anti-military? It certainly does not mean making the slightest effort to understand the pressures and dangers of combat, so as to avoid the obscenity of sittin g in peace and comfort while second-guessing at leisure some life-and-de ath decisions that had to be made in a split second by men 10,000 miles away. The latest example is the now widely-publicized incident in which an Ame rican Marine in Iraq shot and killed a wounded terrorist in Fallujah. Ch ris Matthews on Hardball spoke of "what may be the illegal killing of a wounded, unarmed insurgent" -- the politically correct media term for a terrorist -- and asked: "Is there ever a justification for shooting an u narmed enemy?" The unreality of this question is breath-taking, both logically and hist orically. How do you know that someone is unarmed, when finding out can cost you your life? A hand grenade is easily concealed and can kill you just as dead as if you were shot by a machine gun or hit by a nuclear mi ssile. American troops in Iraq have already been killed by booby-trapped bodies . During World War II, wounded Japanese soldiers sometimes waited for an American medical corpsman to come over to help them and then exploded a hand grenade, killing them both. Assuming that somehow you are certain that an enemy is unarmed, perhaps because you have already searched him or disarmed him, is it ever justif ied to kill him anyway? That question was answered more than half a cent ury ago, when German troops wearing American uniforms and speaking Engli sh infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge. Those German troops, when captured, were lined up against a wall and sho t dead. The rules of war, the Geneva Convention, do not protect soldiers who are not wearing their own country's uniforms. To get the protection of rule s, you have to play by the rules. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of war. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations can al l talk about "the Geneva Convention." But that agreement on the rules of war has never applied to combatants not wearing the uniform of any coun try that is a party to the Geneva Convention. Terrorists wear no uniform and show no mercy, as they have repeatedly de monstrated by beheading innocent civilians, including women. Why any such terrorists should be captured alive in the first place is a real question. But ev ery terrorist our troops try to capture alive increases the risk of deat h for American combat troops. It is more than enough to ask a man to put his life on the line for his country, without needlessly increasing those risks by trying to be noble r than thou or playing to the international gallery. The very fact that this Marine in Fallujah has been taken out of combat and is under invest igation can only have an inhibiting effect on other troops. The inhibitions under which American troops have already had to fight ha ve needlessly jeopardized their safety while we tiptoe around the delica te sensibilities of the media, European critics and "the Arab street." The Times of London refers to a Marine "killing an unarmed man in cold b lood." If that was his purpose he could have opened fire when he entered the room, instead of waiting until he saw an Iraqi terrorist faking bei ng dead -- for what purpose the Marine had no way of knowing. We cannot fight wars to please The Times of London or the other nay-saye rs and nit-pickers who have been against us from the beginning. There is no point trying to appease people who are not going to be appeased anyw ay. And to do so at an increased risk to American lives would be crimina l 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Applied Economics So much of our national political debate these days revolves around econo mic matters -- taxes, health care, even affirmative action and immigrati on policy -- that it is essential for every informed American to have a working knowledge of economics. Now the renowned conservative economist Thomas Sowell has made it possible for you to grasp quickly and easily t he economic elements of key public policies -- even if economics has alw ays seemed dry and forbidding in the past. Then write a letter to your Members of Congress or your local newspapers, who you can find by entering your ZIP code in the boxes below. Also mak e sure to tell your newspaper editors that they should carry your favori te conservative columnists! NOTE: Columns will not be automatically attached to the emails you send t hrough this tool. |
| freerepublic.com -> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse Republic Log In | Register News/Activism Latest | Search | Topics | Home | Help News/Activism Threads Threads | Messages Search (by title: enter all relevant words or partial title) Search Austrians Praise Schwarzenegger in US Posted by Ernest_at_the_Beach On 05/13/2004 9:28:13 PM PDT with 1 comment The Las Vegas Sun ^ | May 13, 2004 at 11:56:36 PDT | GEORGE JAHN GRAZ, Austria (AP) - America, nein. Arnie, ja! When Austrians vent about the United States, the key word nowadays is "no" to things American, with only a few exceptions - including praise of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie, that country has a real problem," says Robert Biber, echoing sentiments across Austria roused by images of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. Outrage as KISS player mouths off on Muslims Posted by veronica On 05/13/2004 9:25:48 PM PDT with 3 comments Sydney Morning Herald ^ | May 14, 2004 KISS bass player Gene Simmons has caused an uproar among Australia's Muslim community by launching an attack on Islamic culture while in Melbourne. The lizard-tongued rock god who is touring Australia with the world's most enduring glam rock band launched an attack on Muslim extremists during an interview on Melbourne's 3AW radio - including comments which were labelled inaccurate. Cold Turkey Posted by Rennes Templar On 05/13/2004 9:23:01 PM PDT In These Times ^ | May 10, 2004 | Kurt Vonnegut Many years ago, I was so innocent I still considered it possible that we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was no peace. But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of Americas becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. May, 2004 10amET | Fintan Dunne The family firm of beheaded American Nick Berg, was named by a conservative website in a list of 'enemies' of the Iraq occupation. That could explain his arrest by Iraqi police --a detention which fatally delayed his planned return from Iraq and may have led directly to his death. Nick Berg, 26 disappeared into incommunicado detention after his arrest by Iraqi police in March, 2004. He vanished again after his release 13 days later. Science & Space ^ | Thursday, May 13, 2004 Posted: 10:13 PM EDT (0213 GMT) | From Dave Santucci, CNN Firm is competing for the $10 million X Prize Aircraft designer Burt Rutan and his firm Scaled Composites took a giant leap early Thursday toward becoming the first private company to send a person into space. Scaled Composites, funded by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul Allen, set a new civilian altitude record of 40 miles in a craft called SpaceShipOne during a test flight above California's Mojave Desert. Turning Shame Into Outrage Posted by neverdem On 05/13/2004 9:18:08 PM PDT with 1 comment LA Times ^ | May 13, 2004 | Charles Paul Freund Charles Paul Freund is a senior editor at Reason magazine. It's a tough call whether Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the Jordanian militant who is reportedly responsible for the videotaped butchery of Nicholas Berg is more stupid than he is brutal, or whether he is a bigger monster than he is a fool. Zarqawi's own nauseating videotape makes the case for his indescribable brutality and may have inadvertently delivered his enemy from its own demoralization. Official Says War Budget to Exceed $50B Posted by Ernest_at_the_Beach On 05/13/2004 9:14:08 PM PDT with 3 comments Yahoo via AP ^ | Thu May 13, 6:29 PM ET | ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) will cost more than $50 billion next year, a top Defense Department official told Congress Thursday in the Bush administration's clearest description yet of the conflicts' price tags. Berg's Father Demands Answers From Bush (Free Republic mentioned) Posted by kristinn On 05/13/2004 9:13:32 PM PDT with 25 comments Duluth News Tribune ^ | Thursday, May 13, 2004 | Nicole Weisensee Egan Posted on Thu, May 13, 2004 Berg's father demands answers from Bush BY NICOLE WEISENSEE EGAN Knight Ridder Newspapers PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - The day he buried his son, Nick Berg's father angrily lashed out at President Bush - and said he had a question for him: "I would like to ask him if it's true that al-Qaeda offered to trade my son's life for another person," Michael Berg told a small group of reporters early Thursday morning outside his West Chester home. One Last Card to Play Posted by Russian Sage On 05/13/2004 9:10:54 PM PDT Claremont Review of Books ^ | Posted March 18, 2004 | By Peter W Schramm One Last Card to Play A review of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, by Allen C Guelzo. Since 1865, the new york state library has been the proud owner of the original Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Media Maelstrom Posted by hope On 05/13/2004 9:06:15 PM PDT with 3 comments News Max ^ | 5-11-04 | John L Perry Media MaelstromJohn L PerryTuesday, May 11, 2004 This presidential election is in peril of being swallowed in a perfect media storm, more terrifying than Edgar Allen Poes A Descent Into the Maelstrom. With the inexorable force of the novelists oerpowering whirlpool that funnels nearly every object in its clutches down, down, down into certain doom, the perfect storm of television is sucking American democracy into oblivion. The way things are headed, television mass communications with print media puppy-trotting alongside its ankles are what will determine the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Not the candidates. Bush Team to Rework Iraq Funding After Senate Balks Posted by Ernest_at_the_Beach On 05/13/2004 8:59:04 PM PDT with 7 comments Yahoo via AFP ^ | Thu May 13, 4:11 PM ET | Vicki Allen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration officials said they would rework a plan for a $25 billion reserve fund for Iraq (news - web sites) operations after Republican and Democratic senators on Thursday deplored it as an effort to get "a blank check" without congressional oversight. STRATFOR: Geopolitical Diary: Friday, May 14, 2004 Posted by Axion On 05/13/2004 8:57:27 PM PDT STRATFOR ^ | May 14, 2004 0305 GMT Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers went to Iraq on May 13. Three things are clear from this trip. First, the administration is committed to retaining Rumsfeld, or at least is committed to doing everything it can to salvage him. An open letter-- Berg dies while the Senate preens Posted by hatfieldmccoy On 05/13/2004 8:54:43 PM PDT with 16 comments vanity | 5-13-04 | hatfieldmccoy Senator Hagel, Senator Nelson, It has taken two days for me to have regained my composure to the point I could actually write you. You see, I've seen the unedited video of the Berg (an American) murder. Yes I watched the horrors of 9-11. I saw the Pearl (an American) murder video and the burning and gleeful dismemberment of the four security personnel (Americans). But the Berg video was staring straight into Hell. These things took their time. They used a dull knife and took 30 seconds to saw off this man's head. AM ET LONDON, May 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper suspended the weekly column of Barbara Amiel-Black after its parent, Hollinger International, filed a lawsuit accusing her and her husband Conrad Black of looting the company. Martin Newland, the editor of Britain's top-selling broadsheet, "has decided to suspend the column until legal proceedings are completed," the paper said in a statement on Thursday. What Led Nick Berg to Iraq? Posted by dyno35 On 05/13/2004 8:48:10 PM PDT with 20 comments The Philadelphia Daily News ^ | May 13, 2004 | By William Bunch BERG'S JOURNEY SPARKED FBI PROBE AND OTHER STRANGE DETAILS HE WAS not like anyone else his friends from West Chester had ever known - an adventurous dreamer, a driven idealist, part philosopher and part inventor who was bored with college Record 26m divorce win 'a pyrrhic victory' (More Saudi kidnapping) Posted by Lan... |