The use of phosphorus as an incendiary weapon as it now appears to
have been used against Hamas fighters - as opposed to a smoke screen
-
is covered by the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons to which
Israel in not a signatory.
However, Israel also is obliged under the Geneva Conventions and
customary international humanitarian law to give due care to
protecting the civilian population when deciding on appropriate
military targeting and response to hostile fire, particularly in
heavily built up areas with a strict prohibition on the use of
indiscriminate force.
"They obviously could not have gone on denying the use of
phosphorus," Donatella Rovera, Amnesty researcher for Israel and the
Occupied Territories, told the Guardian yesterday. "There are still
phosphorus wedges burning all over Gaza including at the UN compound
and at the school.
On Jan 22, 8:44 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> FINALLY !!! You used a KEY WORD (target). While the Israelis have
> fired directly into crowded areas.......... there were PROVEN, active
> combatants present using them as shields. Those combatants were
> targeted REGARDLESS of what they chose to use for cover.
>
> just how is Israel with holding medical care from Palestinians when
> supplies are indeed being sent in ?? The cease fire put ALL Israelis
> OUTSIDE the fence and ALL Palestinians INSIDE. This was the
> Palestinian Governments' request...
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:03 AM, liberal mike532 !
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > the targeting of civilians is a war crime ! and that is what the Jews
> > are doing ! it is also a war crime to withhold medical care to wounded
> > civilians again which Israel is doing .
>
> > On Jan 21, 6:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I do not. You DO.
>
> >> By claiming that Israeli disregard for WHO is present at a location
> >> issuing fire on their forces is a war crime you are in fact saying
> >> that the use of a human shield is a good tactic. The CRIME is
> >> committed by those forcing or using human shields.
>
> >> The US has a mandate that it does not pay ransom to terrorists.
> >> Everybody I know thinks it is a good policy. WHY ???
>
> >> Whose fault is it if the terrorists then kill the hostage ?? It is a
> >> human life being bartered for mere money...
>
> >> The principal outweighs the price in life or money.
>
> >> On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > as i am saddened that you would support killing innocent civilians for
> >> > political gain !
>
> >> > On Jan 21, 10:13 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > There is NO legal middle ground. The insertion of emotion into
> >> > > legalities is what brought about the Bush policies and ideals. Know
> >> > > that your position in wanting to disregard and obvious intolerence for
> >> > > the law is what gave you the erosion of your liberties under Bush and
> >> > > does support his positions.
>
> >> > > When an attacking or defending force must subrogate their duty to the
> >> > > others use of civilians as shields and suffer defeat for it; it will
> >> > > only see the increased use of this distasteful tactic in the future.
>
> >> > > I am sincerely saddened to think that you tacitly approve of this
> >> > > tactic.
>
> >> > > On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > you see things your way and i see them my way and there is never
> >> > > > going
> >> > > > to a middle ground on this issue !
>
> >> > > > On Jan 21, 9:22 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > > The convention does not include the responders position as
> >> > > > > incorrect
> >> > > > > or illegal nor does US law, distasteful as it may be.
>
> >> > > > > On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > partially correct when you include the people killing those
> >> > > > > > innocent
> >> > > > > > civilians you will be correct .
>
> >> > > > > > On Jan 21, 8:20 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > No. they wrote the Geneva so that people using civilians as
> >> > > > > > > shields
> >> > > > > > > could be tried.
>
> >> > > > > > > On 1/21/09, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > very true which is why the people of the world got together
> >> > > > > > > > and wrote
> >> > > > > > > > the Geneva convention so that things like what the Jews are
> >> > > > > > > > doing in
> >> > > > > > > > Gaza don't happen .
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 5:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > Like Americans killed off the buffalo to starve the
> >> > > > > > > > > Indians? Civilians
> >> > > > > > > > > caught in a war zone are sitting ducks.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:57 am, "liberal mike532 !"
> >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > are you trying to say the UN has been attacking the
> >> > > > > > > > > > Israelis ?
> >> > > > > > > > > > the jews attacked a UN hospital and shelter killing many
> >> > > > > > > > > > of the
> >> > > > > > > > > > already wounded civilians . and Gaza is an ocupied
> >> > > > > > > > > > teritory under
> >> > > > > > > > > > control of the jews . they have been stopping food and
> >> > > > > > > > > > water as well
> >> > > > > > > > > > as medical supplys to the people who live there which is
> >> > > > > > > > > > also a war
> >> > > > > > > > > > crime .
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 10:56 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Care to cite where it's stated in the Geneva
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Conventions?
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > For example, consider the following;
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Persons in Time
> >> > > > > > > > > > > of War.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals
> >> > > > > > > > > > > are entitled shall
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not cease unless they are used to commit, outside
> >> > > > > > > > > > > their humanitarian
> >> > > > > > > > > > > duties, acts harmful to the enemy.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly but it sure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > seems like Article
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 19 is indicating that civilian hospitals are protected
> >> > > > > > > > > > > UNLESS they are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > used by the enemy to promote the fight, in which case
> >> > > > > > > > > > > you can then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > return fire. And clearly, if it's OK to fire on a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > hospital if the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > enemy is using it to promote the war, then firing on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > homes, schools or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > whatever else must also be OK when these same
> >> > > > > > > > > > > conditions exist.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > I readily admit I am no scholar of the Geneva
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Conventions so am open
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to other interpretations.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 1:15 am, "liberal mike532 !"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using civilian
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > shields is NOT a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > war crime."
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that is indeed a war crime as stated in the Geneva
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > convention
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:58 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, so now you've stooped to taking people out of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > context!
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What jgg said was;
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > civilian shields is NOT a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > war crime."
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no disagreement that using civilian
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > shields is a war crime.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But that's not what jgg was talking about and you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > know it. What jgg
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > was referring to was returning fire on an enemy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > who is using civilian
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > shields, and that is not a war crime.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:21 pm, "liberal mike532 !"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " using civilian shields is NOT a war crime...
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " like fucking hell
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it isn't !
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, jgg1000a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seek to apply the Geneva Accords. Fine
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then you are bound by the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standards they use -- that is returning fire
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to an armed opponent
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using civilian shields is NOT a war crime...
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also includes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storing weapons or ammunition or bases in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > civilian neighborhoods..
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:23 am, "liberal mike532 !"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overwhelming majorities by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the United States Congress and signed into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law by President Bill
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clinton.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The law defines a war crime to include a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "grave breach of the Geneva
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conventions", specifically noting that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "grave breach" should have the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning defined in any convention (related
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the laws of war) to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which the U.S. is a party. The definition of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "grave breach" in some of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Geneva Conventions have text that extend
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > additional protections,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but all the Conventions share the following
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > text in common: "...
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > committed against persons or property
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protected by the Convention:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > willful killing, torture or inhuman
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > treatment, including biological
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiments, willfully causing great
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffering or serious injury to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > body or health."
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The law applies if either the victim or the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perpetrator is a national
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the United States or a member of the U.S.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > armed forces. The penalty
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may be life imprisonment or death. The death
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > penalty is only invoked
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if the conduct resulted in the death of one
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > victims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part II. General Protection of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Populations Against Certain
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consequences of War
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the whole of the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > populations of the countries in conflict,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without any adverse
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinction based, in particular, on race,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nationality, religion or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > political opinion, and are intended to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alleviate the sufferings caused
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by war.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
