Are american soldiers 'illegally' killing iraqi civilians?

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**How come US’ers are so obsessed with their unbelievable expensive and incredible inhuman murderous wartoys, that they want to try them out where ever they can and even claim they have the God given right? **

Because it’s fun. Besides, we only use them against brown people…no one important.

Plus, how else are we supposed to get the blood from Arab babies that our Zionist masters require to make their matzoh?

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**Forgot:

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to say that my definition is wrong?

Invaders of sovereign nations are mass murderers.

Talk to us about Iraq invading Kuwait, then, Aldebaran.

[More_Cowbell]

Unpopular does not equal illegal
Killing does not equal murder

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Aldebaran]

ThunderB

Yet illegal remains illegal and murder remains murder.

Why is that so difficult to accept?
Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**Because it’s fun. Besides, we only use them against brown people…no one important.

Plus, how else are we supposed to get the blood from Arab babies that our Zionist masters require to make their matzoh? **

You are not complete nor accurate in your listing… Nevertheless your points are worth considering.
Salaam. A

[XT]

Let me ask a basic question here: How is it “Illegal”? What law is it against? We aren’t talking if its right or wrong here…we are talking that its against some law (thus the word “Illegal”). Ok, cool. What law is being broken here? Is a UN resolution legally binding? Is that the law being broken here? If so, which resolution is the US in violation of? Is it some treaty the US signed that is the law that is being broken here? If so, what treaty is the US in violation here? If we could get some of these questions answered (I frankly have no idea) then maybe we would have the basis of an actual debate.

Want to take a shot at an actual answer, Aldebaran, or do you want to just wave your hands about and rant, as usual? What law do YOU think is being broken here by the US?

-XT

[Saen]

He defines “illegal” the same way he defines “murder”. He is so caugth up in his hyperbolic vitriol that he will not admit that no country ont he face of the earth, not even the most totalitarian of regimes, makes it illegal to defend yourself when attacked. Yet, with his ideological blinders on he has admitted that all killings by the hands of foriegn soldiers in IRAQ is considered murder. You would think such a “learned” man would be able to make that distinction.

[yojimbo]

You could start here.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

[yojimbo]

BTW there’s a lot of link at the bottom of that page that link to stories about Iraqi deaths.

[sailor]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
Let me ask a basic question here: How is it “Illegal”? What law is it against? We aren’t talking if its right or wrong here…we are talking that its against some law (thus the word “Illegal”). Ok, cool. What law is being broken here? Is a UN resolution legally binding? Is that the law being broken here? If so, which resolution is the US in violation of? Is it some treaty the US signed that is the law that is being broken here? If so, what treaty is the US in violation here? If we could get some of these questions answered (I frankly have no idea) then maybe we would have the basis of an actual debate.

Want to take a shot at an actual answer, Aldebaran, or do you want to just wave your hands about and rant, as usual? What law do YOU think is being broken here by the US?

Not that I want to be associated with Aldebaran here or anywhere but there are international laws and the report cited mentions them:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/2.htm

Under international humanitarian law, the occupying powers in Iraq are obligated to restore and ensure public order and safety. The means used to achieve security must conform with international humanitarian law and human rights standards. As such, the governments of the occupying coalition should ensure that:

In law enforcement situations, U.S. and other coalition forces should use law enforcement means. In such situations, military forces should abide by the standards set forth in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and be provided with the equipment and training necessary for this purpose.

ETC. . . . .

[Saen]

yojimbo

Most of what that agenda driven site says has already been debated on these boards even before the war. And while some are blatantly false are misconstrued arguments, I can invalidate much of the arguements with on statement.

That the US Constitution recognizes no treaties as above itself and lets not laws beyond itslef give or take away powers that itself has given. It is unconstitutional to try to take the president’s power to wage war due to outside agreements.

Supreme Court justices have affirmed just what i have said. I can try to dig up a cite or even the debates we have had here abotu the very thing.

While I admit thatthe US may have broken many treaties and some International Laws (wich is debatable) It is up to the people of the US, as well as the government to follow the laws of the US Constitution and outside laws only if they do not go against teh Constituion. And it is up to other nations to counter that…if they can.

[Saen]

And to show what I meant by misconstrued:

When the site quotes the Constitution on saying taht any outside agreements are law of the land, it is only refering to the US citizens. And then only of it does not affect thier Constiutional rights. The Government is bound by nothing acceot what is in ther interest.

[Saen]

And to show what I meant by misconstrued:

When the site quotes the Constitution on saying taht any outside agreements are law of the land, it is only refering to the US citizens. And then only of it does not affect thier Constiutional rights. The Government is bound by nothing accept what is in ther interest.

[yojimbo]

Saen you don’t have to bother looking for threads for me as I’ve read most of the threads about Iraq here. I don’t remember any thread where anyone from either side scored a home run and proved to me that the war was illegal or legal. My own opinion is that if it wasn’t illegal is was misjudged and had nothing whatsoever to do to an immediate threat or humanitarian reason. I feel it was a power play for more control of the ME and to further the NeoCon policies that are well documented on the project for a new century site. I am willing to be proved wrong BTW but I’ve seen very little to convince me.

I agree that that site was very has a definite bias but it a easy link to remember and I’m away from all my bookmarks(they’re on my work comp) and I’m on a dial up. We pay for local calls in Ireland so I’m paying by the minute so didn’t really want to go googleing.

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Saen *
He defines “illegal” the same way he defines “murder”. He is so caugth up in his hyperbolic vitriol that he will not admit that no country ont he face of the earth, not even the most totalitarian of regimes, makes it illegal to defend yourself when attacked.

Oh I’m so sorry… I must be living on an other planet once again. Can you update me with all that extremely important information I seem to lack? You seem to know everything about how, when, why the USA was attacked by Iraq.
So when was it that Iraq launched the first attack on the USA, which city was the target, where did the bombs explode, how many people died… You know… Such details.
And when did the first Iraqi soldier land on US soil… I really don’t have that anywhere in my database.

Yet, with his ideological blinders on he has admitted that all killings by the hands of foriegn soldiers in IRAQ is considered murder. You would think such a “learned” man would be able to make that distinction.

You don’t even need to have been in a classroom at any school whatsoever to know that killings by the hands of foreign soldiers invading/occupying a sovereign nation are nothing else but murders. Or how do you define killing other people?

Like I said, I’m not informed about Iraqy soldiers who according to you killed people in the USA… They were murdering that many US’ers that the USA decided to bomb Iraq into the Stone Age?
Thus those US’ers invading that sovereign nation didn’t and don’t murder at the orders of the US president? The Iraqis are the murderers…

OK. I see your logic.

So sorry that I was not informed about the details you come up with. You know, your valuable information is going to cost some people their job… I was kept deaf and blind and uninformed… You can’t trust anyone anymore these days.

But wait a bit…Now that I think of it… The whole world outside the US is in the same position.
I’ll wait for your confirmation that the whole world is mad… Nobody saw those murdering Iraqis bombing and invading the USA.

Salaam. A

[Saen]

The Iraqis are the murderers…

The only person moronically accusing individuals of murder is you bub.

If a US patrol is ambushed, they have every right to defend themselves and kill their attackers if necessary. As a matter of fact i do not know of any situation where it is alright for a US soldier to kill someone unless it is in self defense.

And yes, strategic strikes against unwary targets can be considered self defense. But it has to be a military target of course. (colateral damage notwithstanding)

*Sorry to say it like this, but that is the reality.
*

[Aldebaran]

Why don’t you answer my questions?

By the way: If a US patrol doesn’t want to be ambushed in an other nation, then the US patrol must stay out of that nation.
Every Iraqi has the right to attack and kill every foreign soldier inside Iraq.

Now, following your weird locig : If I for some reason (no need to have any foundation or even a beginning of a proof) consider you a threat for me, I can come and kill you?

Nice… Good to know. I’ll think about it.

Where do yo live?
Salaam. A

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Saen *
yojimbo

Most of what that agenda driven site says has already been debated on these boards even before the war. And while some are blatantly false are misconstrued arguments, I can invalidate much of the arguements with on statement.

That the US Constitution recognizes no treaties as above itself and lets not laws beyond itslef give or take away powers that itself has given. It is unconstitutional to try to take the president’s power to wage war due to outside agreements.

Supreme Court justices have affirmed just what i have said. I can try to dig up a cite or even the debates we have had here abotu the very thing.

While I admit thatthe US may have broken many treaties and some International Laws (wich is debatable) It is up to the people of the US, as well as the government to follow the laws of the US Constitution and outside laws only if they do not go against teh Constituion. And it is up to other nations to counter that…if they can.

This thread is about American soldiers killing irqi civilians so the point you are addressing is a hijack but anyway,. . .

International treaties are the law of the land. There is no question about that. The Constitution clearly says so and the Supreme Court has confirmed that International law is part of US law. To say the USA is not bound by the treaties it has ratified would be nonsense. What good is a treaty if you have no obligation to abide by it?

The Supreme Court of the USA has recognized repeatedly that International Law whether it originates by treaty or by custom is indeed part of the law of the land and the US is bound by it. For instance, During the Spanish- American war in Cuba the US government seized a couple of ships but the SCOTUS ruled the seizure was illegal as against customary International Law.:

http://lawofwar.org/paquete_habana.htm

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163, 164, 214, 215, 40 L. ed. 95, 108, 125, 126, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139.

Wheaton places among the principal sources of international law ‘text-writers of authority, showing what is the approved usage of nations, or the general opinion respecting their mutual conduct, with the definitions and modifications introduced by general consent.’ As to these he forcibly observes: ‘Without wishing to exaggerate the importance of these writers, or to substitute, in any case, their authority for the principles of reason, it may be affirmed that they are generally impartial in their judgment. They are witnesses of the sentiments and usages of civilized nations, and the weight of their testimony increases every time that their authority is invoked by statesmen, and every year that passes without the rules laid down in their works being impugned by the avowal of contrary principles.’ Wheaton, International Law (8th ed.), § 15.

Chancellor Kent says: ‘In the absence of higher and more authoritative sanctions, the ordinances of foreign states, the opinions of eminent statesmen, and the writings of distinguished jurists, are regarded as of great consideration on questions not settled by conventional law. In cases where the principal jurists agree, the presumption will be very great in favor of the solidity of their maxims; and no civilized nation that does not arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance will venture to disregard the uniform sense of the established writers on international law.’ 1 Kent, Com. 18.

Taking all of the above into account I believe that when the USA attacked Irak it did break its obligations under international law.

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
Why don’t you answer my questions?

Good question, Aldebaran. Why don’t you answer mine above.

By the way: If a US patrol doesn’t want to be ambushed in an other nation, then the US patrol must stay out of that nation.
Every Iraqi has the right to attack and kill every foreign soldier inside Iraq.

That’s just wrong on so many levels, it’s insane to even pretend there’s a good place to begin. But, what the hey, I’ll take a stab at it. A foreign soldier’s mere presence on one’s territory does not constitute grounds for use of deadly force, IIRC. But, go ahead and feel free to post the bit from the Geneva Conventions, etc., that permit murder.

[Kinthalis]

Eh, monty, are you saying that the iraqi’s have no right to defend their country form hostile invaders?

Wether ambush or not, assaulting U.S soldiers is fair game in war, last I heard.