So I’m pessimistic because I don’t think summary executions are a good idea!!!
To tell the truth, I can’t tell if your joking or not, Millum.
Safe for us. Other people of different religons and societies may feel differently. If killing a few of them makes me safe, I guess it’s ok. Just don’t show it on TV.
Maybe because we’re not too busy sucking Uncle Sam’s dick to see that for every one of our actions over there, there is a potentially negative consequence.
Don’t hold back, monstro.
What do you *really[/] think?
“To tell the truth, I can’t tell if your joking or not, Millum”
Ditto.
So- again, where is the link/cite for this so called “order”? Now, of course, just like in the USA, if a looter or criminal gets violent- he is liable to get shot.
Note that somehow, if you read the quote Tagos gave us, the geneva convetion would prohibit the US occupying forces from using the same amount of “deadly force” which is legal under the US Constitution- ie, if a looter aimed his AK 47 at a Marine, and the marine kiled him, that would seem to be illegal. :dubious: I have my doubts this is true. So far, for example, I haven’t heard the US being brought up on charges when they fired into those rioters (who were armed, and firing their guns- and SOMEONE fired at the Marine. Who, we don’t know.) But if you read that quote, if some dudes robbed a bank at gunpoint, and even began firing at the Marines, and even killed a few marines- the Marines could fire back. I would guess that somewhere else later in the Accords, they have sections which would allow for the normal use of deadly force by troops acting as “police”. If not, and if say those hypothetical marines who might shoot back in a gunfight with criminals are “violating the accords”- then the Accords were written in “happy fairy land” and we can disregard them.
However- until I see a cite which gives proof such an order was given, we are talking “what ifs”. And, you know if such an order was issued, we would not have to rely on an “unnamed US Official” we’d have a fucking copy of the order form some line Marine. Where is that order?
One presumes that it refers not to self defense but to shooting a guy stealing a pair of shoes.
A review of past postings by this particular member should answer that concern definitively.:rolleyes:
It would be helpful if you’d point out what part of Tagos cite from the Geneva Convention you interpret in this way.
There is no instance in which to bring charges against the US that the US recognizes. The reason that the US does not recognize such instances is that the US doesn’t want incidents like these to be tried by any instance outside the US. And the US won’t investigate these incidents.
Nice setup, huh?
According to the official US military recount of events. Other witnesses claim the opposite.
The use of violence in self defense is allowed.
The Geneva convention does not say that. The international agreements that the US have ratified can not be disregarded by the US. They’re like any other contract you sign.
this had better not be true. what kind of thinking justifies shooting defenceless people on sight?
please explain how destablizing the middle east will make the world safe, and how a flag will make me feel loved.
The commander of said force has made an officla statement that he has never issued that order and it is false.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/05/14/no_shoot/
But, please, continue with the hypothetical attorcities debate the US engages in.
Thank goodness.
From your salon link:
So we can be quite sure that some moron(s) in the US administration actually said those things. Luckily someone straightened him/them out.
Well **CTB ** if you see fit to dreg up the sins of my misspent youth and parade them before every Tom, Dick, and Donna that views this board, I see fit to stop crafting my words in honeyed tones and be blunt and direct like DrDeth. But as I am confident of the reality of my views I will do so without saying the favorite word of the neo-uncouth…“fuck”.
Explaining the obvious…
*The order “shoot to kill” does not mean “shoot to kill everyone” it means to just shoot to kill those who refuse to obey a lawful command to stop. You know like over here in the states.
- A strong fear of unhappy consequence is the only tool that can bring to order those who pillage and loot.
*To not act because of a fear of mindless retribution by Islamic extremists, those who kill innocent babies, is cowardly. Thank Heaven for the brave men who protect weak men from tyranny.
Well **CTB ** if you see fit to dreg up the sins of my misspent youth and parade them before every Tom, Dick, and Donna that views this board, I see fit to stop crafting my words in honeyed tones and be blunt and direct like DrDeth. But as I am confident of the reality of my views I will do so without saying the favorite word of the neo-uncouth…“fuck”.
Explaining the obvious…
*The order “shoot to kill” does not mean “shoot to kill everyone” it means to just shoot to kill those who refuse to obey a lawful command to stop. Most of the time they just nip them in the arm or leg. You know like over here in the states.
- A strong fear of unhappy consequence is the only tool that can bring to order those who pillage and loot.
*To not act because of a fear of mindless retribution by Islamic extremists, those who kill innocent babies, is cowardly. Thank Heaven for the brave men who protect weak men from tyranny.
-
See Sect 1A. Where is the exception- that is “except in cases of self defense”?
-
The US certainly does recognize the Geneva Accords, and recognizes the right fo the “Geneva boys” to inspect, make complaints, etc. The Geneva Inspectors have found found mnor violations of the Convention in the past (WWII for instance), which the US either corrected or protested. Since dudes here are quoting the Geneva treaty, you think you might know that. The US doesn’t have to investigate, the Genva Inspectors can do so on their own. Have we stopped them from doing so? Got a cite?
-
Even the local Iman agrees with that. He did claim that it was “outsiders” and NOT the rioters/demonstrators who fired at the US troops. Now, the US dudes claim the firing came from the protestors. But that Iman begs to differ, and he sounded like he was pretty unbiased. So, that is why I added we don’t know where the firing came from. Enough of this, as no more hijacking.
-
Where does it give that exception? Not in the short quote provided.
-
And that’s my point. Those types of common sense exceptions are doubtless there, someplace in the treaty. Thus, this out-of-context quote is meaningless. If those common sense exceptions are not there, the Treaty is meaningless PC babble. :dubious:
However, note that the actual facts don’t come anywhere close to the usual US bashing OP & posts. No “shoot to kill” order. But yes, troops can shoot back. Big deal. I suppose that some here would expect out troops to just take the bullets, as we are “imperialist facist swine” and deserve to die anyway. :rolleyes:
Isn’t it so annoying when those stupid facts get in the way of a good USA bashing?:rolleyes: But the chance I’ll see a “Umm, never mind, I was wrong” from some of the posters here is about the same as the US actually issuing a “shoot to kill looters” order.
Geez, have you actually read the Geneva Convention, of which you seem to have such a grudge against?
Let’s break this down:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever **with respect to the above-mentioned persons: **
(a) Violence to life and person…
Is it not completely plain and obvious that this does not apply to people who ARE taking part in hostilities???
I’d politely suggest that before one criticizes a 54 year old treaty to which nearly every country in the world is a member as PC babble, there ought to be some basic understanding of what the treaty does.
Deth:
Your points 1, 4 and 5 have been sufficiently responded to by Raven so I won’t respond to those. (Quite frankly I find it strange that you didnt bother to even read the quote from the Geneva convention properly before starting your rant.)
Well you ought to remember that you were talking about the US being “brought up on charges when they fired into those rioters”.
This implies (to me) being brought before some instance that has the authority to enforce the Geneva convention in some way. The US recognizes no such instance. (Exept maybe the UNSC where the US holds a veto.)
Now what “Geneva inspectors / boys” are you referring to exactly? I am not saying that there is no such thing. But i’ve never heard of them, and would like to expand my knowledge in this respect.
Well first of all what incident are you talking about? There are at least two that I know of where US soldiers have shot into rioters / demonstrators. What Imam? Cite?
Here’s a thread on the shootings in the city of Mosul which you can consult to get a better picture of the conflicting testimonies back then: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=177441&highlight=Mosul
I suggest we continue any debate on circumstances of these shootings in that thread.