You need to check the date on that article..... the issue was settled. And it is a no-brainer.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, liberal mike532 ! <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle www.filacoffee.com great stuff from a small, high quality, group of FairTrade producers in rural C.R. interested in excellence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
