Post #18,664
11/18/01 12:50:01 AM
|
Fascism: Not as bad as you've been led to believe.
"In other words, if we catch a foreigner in Afghanistan - or in Cleveland - who was directly involved in killing Americans, we might not resort to reading him his Miranda rights and put him on public trial in a civilian court."
Of course, the way to DETERMINE if s/he was "directly involved in killing Americans" would be to................
Have a trial?
But there won't BE a trial.
There will be a military tribunal.
Because, guilt has ALREADY been "proven".
If s/he wasn't guilty, s/he wouldn't be before the tribunal.
Vote Fascist for TOTAL law enforcement.
"But here's the important thing: If you reject the Geneva Convention and the other rules of civilized nations, you don't become entitled to better treatment if you get caught."
100% incorrect.
How to phrase it better than that.
>WE< signed the Geneva Convention.
That means >WE< are bound by those rules for treating prisoners (and the other stuff in there).
It does >NOT< mean that we are bound to those rules IF AND ONLY IF we are fighting a fellow signer.
"The whole point of civilization is that those who abide by its rules get better treatment than those who do not."
Ummmm, no.
"Al Qaeda doesn't issue uniforms."
True.
"All of their soldiers are essentially spies - not civilians."
Incorrect initial assumption.
They are >NOT< "soldiers".
They are terrorists.
There is a BIG distinction.
"They infiltrate a nation and attack civilian targets without warning."
This is what terrorists do.
Soldiers will attack a nation, wearing uniforms, focusing on military targets.
Just as there is a difference between a policeman and a vigilante.
"As with the Geneva Convention, so with civil liberties, civil rights, and just plain civility."
"All these things are either reciprocal or they are ludicrous."
I'm so glad that you see it that way.
In other words, you'll grant them the same rights they grant you.
Something about the "Rule of Law"?
Anarchy, anyone?
"And they are all things for which the enemy has expressed absolute contempt."
As you just did.
|
Post #18,704
11/18/01 7:35:46 PM
|
In the midst of this incoherent rant, one interesting bit...
They are >NOT< "soldiers".
They are terrorists.
There is a BIG distinction.
They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. Therefore they deserve more rights than a military tribunal would afford? Or did you have some other reason for making much ado about that distinction? If so, what was it?
Did you really mean to imply that terrorists are entitled to better treatment than our boys in uniform? Or was this just an accidental results of your stream of consciousness?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,719
11/18/01 11:22:55 PM
|
Incoherent to you.
"They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. Therefore they deserve more rights than a military tribunal would afford? Or did you have some other reason for making much ado about that distinction? If so, what was it?"
Simple, military tribunals are only applicable under military law.
Military law is different from civilian law.
That is why the military is governed by the UCMJ.
That is why the civilians are NOT governed by the UCMJ.
"Did you really mean to imply that terrorists are entitled to better treatment than our boys in uniform?"
"Better treatment"?
Are you saying that a military tribunal is WORSE than civilian justice?
If so, why?
Do you feel that ACCUSED terrorists should NOT be afforded the basic rights of our justice system?
"Or was this just an accidental results of your stream of consciousness?"
I said Fascist and I meant Fascist. Secret Military Tribunals for >ACCUSED< criminals is the hallmark of the Fascist.
Which is one of the reasons we have public justice in this country.
In case you do not know, I was subject to the UCMJ for 7 years.
|
Post #18,723
11/18/01 11:35:01 PM
|
It's not you - it's an incompatable .dll issue.
Y'see, his worldview .dll file is close enough to ours that we think we're communicating - but his parsed messages keep tossing exceptions of all sorts. Not only that, but he refuses to acknowledge that there is even the possibility that his .dll might be corrupted - just as ours might, I'm willing to acknowledge - and he seems totally unwilling to admit that there might even be other, valid .dll versions out there.
Hmm, wonder who wrote that one, Micros~1? Naw, the code is too tight. Maybe IBM?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,729
11/19/01 1:25:04 AM
|
:)
anyone got some md5's I can check against?
|
Post #18,777
11/19/01 11:49:43 AM
|
Facile dismissals from the peanut gallery?
If this is the best you can do, why do you bother?
If two DLL's are incompatible, how do you tell which one is broken? I'll give you a hint or two. Personal viewpoints are not legitimately part of the troubleshooting process. Factual data points are. And just which side has been producing the bulk of those in this forum?
(Or could it be you're still sore about how I bested you in free and open debate a few weeks ago? That was your own fault, you know. One lesson you should have taken away from that was to be better prepared next time. Another was: don't try to have it both ways. If it's okay for us to make brutal bloody war against terrorist nations now, it was okay before now, for the same reasons. Consider the consequences of our actions? Our actions are the consequences of their actions, both now and previously.)
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,791
11/19/01 12:42:21 PM
|
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote.
I acknowledged that either my or your viewpoint could be the wrong one - in fact, indirectly I admitted that we could BOTH be wrong, which is a hell of a lot more than I've ever seen out of you. In fact, I can't think of any time that I've ever seen you admit that you made a mistake. That's why a lot of people don't bother replying to you anymore - when a stubborn close-minded person and an idiot argue, it's easy to tell who the idiot is. :)
Your "factual data points" have mainly been taken by grabbing the key sentences from somebody else's post that back up your particular viewpoint, and then blatantly ignoring everything else they've been saying. I pretty much stopped responding to you not because I was taking a drubbing, but because I was tired of fighting somebody who wouldn't respond to legitimate questions, and instead only picked the battles that they wanted to fight, then proclaimed themselves the winner. That's not how real wars are fought - you fight on all the fronts you HAVE to, not just the ones you WANT to.
I'll admit I'm not the best debater in the world. IWETHEY is the first time I've really spoken up for myself and my beliefs, and I'm still coming to terms with conflicts between the "real world" and what I see as the "way things should be, if we'd all stop acting like a bunch of animals, and actually gave a damn about each other." If you'd actually read what I'd said, instead of having your typical knee-jerk reaction to anybody who disagrees with you, you'd see that the only beef I have with you isn't that you have the "wrong" worldview - it's that you're not willing to give even an inch and admit that there's a possibility that somebody else MIGHT be right.
And that's the point where a debate devolves into an argument.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,821
11/19/01 2:25:27 PM
|
No. Factual data points are cites of news articles.
See, this is the crucial difference between a valid point and a mere opinion. A valid point has some grounding in fact. I generally start with a news article or historical article. Sometimes I start with an editorial, which I admit is second best, but it's always one that references verifiable fact, and has a lucid argument. You start with opinion, pointedly ignore my cites while providing none of your own, and make everything about you and your opininon vs. me and what you would dismiss as merely my opinion.
Look around. Who's providing the bulk of article cites here? Hint: it's not you, and it's not anyone who sees things your way. Now why is that?
Yes, I might be wrong. But because I start with facts, I'm far less likely to be wrong than you are. I do on occasion admit that I'm wrong. But not to people who argue the way you do, for the simple reason that you haven't got what it takes to show me wrong. And it's not that I don't respond to legitimate questions. It's that you don't ask them.
I don't mind that you don't know how to argue a case logically. We all have to start somewhere, and it does take practise. Your failing is this: you have the gall to blame those who best you for not letting you win. With this attitude, how will you ever improve your skill level? And what of the truth? This is a free and open debate, not a mutual affirmation society. Those who are best prepared prevail here, not those who parrot the correct views. You're supposed to rise to the occasion. And to date, you have not.
It's not all about you and your posts, or me and my posts. It's not even primarily about you and your posts, or me and my posts. It's about what's actually going on out there in the outside world. And if you can't or won't grasp that, whose fault is that?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,828
11/19/01 2:58:08 PM
|
Everyone needs something to believe in
And if it's in the news, it must be true.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,830
11/19/01 3:13:57 PM
|
WTF?
"Look around. Who's providing the bulk of article cites here? Hint: it's not you, and it's not anyone who sees things your way. Now why is that?"
How many "facts" are there?
Bush signed it.
What "facts" are you refering to?
|
Post #18,838
11/19/01 3:37:58 PM
|
You raise some good points...
...and unfortunately, some that I don't have time to handle properly right now.
Yeah, I know I don't cite much. Problem is mainly due to time - As a full time worker/college student, this is pretty much my sole "entertainment" source lately. Maybe in about a year, when I'm done with college, I'll have more time to go digging through different sites looking for articles to back up my position. My comment about getting 2-3 hours of sleep a night for the past two weeks is unfortunately too accurate, and I wish it was due to something enjoyable.
I agree that you post a lot more "raw data points" than others in the form of newslinks - but I've also seen you grab one sentence out of a whole paragraph that somebody else cites, then dismiss the rest as an "incoherent rant" without explaining WHY you think its an "incoherent rant." IIRC, in formal logic studies, there's a specific name for that kind of fallacy, but it doesn't come to mind at present.
I'll also admit that it's possible I missed seeing you admit that you've been in error. I can't recall ever seeing such a post, but I'll admit the possibility. If you want to point it out to me, fine, if not, I'll take your word as a man of honor. Oddly enough, I do respect you as somebody who at least stands behind what they say. A lot more than can be said for one other person who didn't respond to a certain chess challenge a bit back... (No, not the two of you who are currently playing me - in fact, I wasn't the challenger...)
As far as the "blaming others for not letting you win" bit - I mentioned merely that you and I have incompatible .dll structures, and that from my viewpoint, you don't appear to have room to admit that other possible .dll structures exist. I probably did overstep that a bit - like all dogmas, (including my own!) they cannot accept the existence of a dogma that is not subservient to their own. I'd like to improve my debate skills, I'm just realizing that right now, it's counterproductive for me to worry about debate when I've got homework. :) I keep bouncing into arguments when my emotions get the better of me, and then bounce out when I realize I've got 1k lines of code due the next morning, which does give kind of a scattered appearance. :( Sorry if I've given the impression that I'm blaming you for my inability to debate.
I think the largest disconnect between you and me, however, comes on a philosophical level - we seem to disagree on a pretty deep level exactly what we should and should not do in response to recent world events. You might be surprised, if I ever ran off at the mouth, just what I would be willing to do in order to put an end to this threat once and for all, just as I have expressed my surprise at the actions you seem willing to do. In the end, however, we are ultimately on the same side - we do not wish to have threats to civilization wandering around Out There. Barbarians at the Gate, et al.
For now, I'll TRY to stop firing blanks into the crouds... And just chuck a few grenades when I find live ones.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,876
11/19/01 7:48:15 PM
11/19/01 9:17:54 PM
|
Okay, fair enough.
I know what insomnia is like. But I'd forgotten you were a sufferer. I'd have been a lot less confrontational otherwise. Apologies and regrets for that. As for time pressure, I have a different way of dealing with that. I choose subjects where the facts are readily at hand, and pass on discussions of other topics.
But a couple of points:
1. This is a topic where data points can be had just by perusing the news and commentary sites, then perhaps following up with Google. It's a bit exceptional in that regard, but there it is.
2. I only call something incoherent if it does not, in fact, cohere. Bad sentence structure, excessive use of glittering generalizations, a smokescreen of emotionally freighted adjectives, and the repeated failure to link conclusion to premise in any fashion, all are symptoms of a lack of coherency. And when any or all these things are in abundant evidence, I say "incoherent rant" because that's precisely what it is. To ask one to explain "why this is an incoherent rant" is like insisting on an explanation of why two plus two must equal four, or just what basis has someone got for telling you that your fly is unzipped. The obvious is not only factual in itself, but is a starting point to finding the non-obvious truths. If you can't admit and acknowledge the obvious, how can you ever get anywhere in the neighborhood of truth?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Edited by marlowe
Nov. 19, 2001, 09:17:54 PM EST
|
Post #18,878
11/19/01 8:23:24 PM
|
Sorry but.. (again)
Most 'issues' worth discussing at all - are rarely solvable via some succession of Authorized-facts or their little cousins, factoids.
You might wish it otherwise (and it seems - you do). Neither Google nor the Library of Congress possess sufficient Facts to solve most homo-sap problems du jour. For just one Factual Example: attribution of 'motive' is basic to our sysetem of 'justice' (another Duesy of a notion in its very concept). Now Shakespeare has given us a rich source of possible remedies - with nary a Fact being required - all one needs is to acquire Wisdom ;-)
Facts can.. settle some issues of time, place - and possible motive. But where human behavior is the 'issue' -- facts have damn little to do with events, except afterwards: is it a fact that such and such occurred. More examples? Start with Rashomon for a primer.
IMhO - it doesn't matter if your self-bestowed Logic Skills\ufffd are real or imagined factoids. Your view appears to be about duelling Facts and not about (as my Mater used to say) arriving at the truth of matters through discussion, or so it appears.
The Doberman Pinscher School of assertion? OK in a dogfight. If ya like discussing philosophy with dogs? Oh Alpha Male.
Ashton
Woof!
|
Post #18,887
11/19/01 9:15:49 PM
|
If you don't much care for facts...
I wonder if you have an alternative in mind?
You can't have a discussion without something to discuss. Are you suggesting we discuss mere opinions? Opinions are meaningless in a vacuum. Yes, mine too.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,900
11/19/01 11:39:24 PM
|
Facts are important too,
in issues - especially where there are contradictory versions. But once an issue is defined, then next, most often what is needed - is some insight into the issue. Often that is about - what homo-saps often do in ____ situations.
Offhand I see little place for further facts at that stage - and damn little about Winning, either. Thus I don't understand your preoccupation with facts - since no one ever could hear all of those; we always decide upon ~insufficient data. Or never decide at all.
A.
|
Post #18,767
11/19/01 11:30:04 AM
|
Re: Incoherent to you.
Having been in the military, you should know that the Laws of Armed Conflict(Geneva Convention and another such that I'd have to look up to remember the name) deal with "combatants" and "non-combatants" as opposed to "military" and "civilian". The terrorists are "combatants" as such, they are the same as an opposing military. A war tribunal is just as applicable for them. Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that a tribunal is not just a sentencing of a known criminal, but a trial in it's own right. With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases. More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern for terrorist reprisal. A few things you need to consider about a civilian style criminal case are: - How do we set up a jury of bin Laden's peers?
- What's the potential that the jury picked might be pre-biased against him given the information broadcast continuously on the news?
- What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?
- What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism
And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their "non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes under the laws of armed conflict. ~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
Post #18,785
11/19/01 12:05:58 PM
|
You're partially correct.
But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is.
Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the terrorists or anything like that.
We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start.
"Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that a tribunal is not just a sentencing of a known criminal, but a trial in it's own right."
That is true.
As we did in Nuremburg.
But we didn't do it in secret.
"With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."
Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it?
Again, in Nuremburg, we had multiple countries, in the open.
"More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern for terrorist reprisal."
Ummm, exactly HOW is that?
And don't tell me "because it is".
Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets. Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now?
"1.How do we set up a jury of bin Laden's peers?"
Ummm, the way we do now?
"2.What's the potential that the jury picked might be pre-biased against him given the information broadcast continuously on the news?"
Probably pretty highly.
Oh, or did I say that it would be easy to do?
I suppose you'd have to allow a larger than usual pool with more latitude regarding dismissals.
"3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors.
"4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad.
"And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their "non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes under the laws of armed conflict."
Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their "crimes"?
Are you sure you read that correctly?
|
Post #18,788
11/19/01 12:25:14 PM
|
Sounds reasonable to me
Let's say someone stands in the middle of, say, a group of football fans, wearing the same team team logo and assorted paraphenalia they use to identify themselves as fans. He then initiates violence against members of the opposing club's fans, with the specific intent of triggering a larger violent confrontation. In this case, I would agree that any deaths on either side in the resulting riot would properly be blamed on the interloper.
Converting terms to expand this example to a global application is LAAEFTR.[1]
[1] Left as an exercize ...
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,809
11/19/01 1:33:02 PM
|
Which brings us full circle.
We're killing your civilians because you made us kill them because we can't tell who the bad guys are.
I'll remember that comment, Drew, next time Israel uses a gunship on Arab civilians.
Remember, we aren't talking about assigning blame AFTER the event.
We're talking about our actions DURING the event.
We're still bombing. The event is still happening. We do NOT HAVE TO kill civilians right now.
Restraint.
Which was my point at the beginning.
All we're doing is breeding another generation of suicide bombers.
It isn't Osama who's dropping those bombs. It's the US.
It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US.
That same "logic" is what keeps every generation of suicide bombers going.
And now we have a chance to break the cycle.
But why? That's too much work. Better to blame them.
And drop more bombs.
|
Post #18,818
11/19/01 2:11:43 PM
|
On the effect of propoganda
It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US.
I don't doubt that. But my point stands: When someone hides among non-combattants, and goes out of his way to make himself indistinguishable from non-combatants, he should shoulder the blame when non-combattants inevitably get hurt.
However (here's where propaganda comes in) when the non-combatants have been told by their state-sponsored media that the people in their midst are freedom fighters -- or whatever the local term is -- they have blamed the foe even before the retaliation.
To see it from the other side, there have been monuments built and legends told of the heroic people who hid resistance fighters during WWII. When the Nazis came in and killed not only the resistance fighters but also those who housed them, would we expect the "non-combattants" to blame the resistance?
Of course not. The point is, anyone who knowingly and willingly harbors a combattant has already made up their mind about who is right or wrong. They have chosen a side and taken part. (Damn, I'm agreeing with Bush.)
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,820
11/19/01 2:21:30 PM
|
You're shifting focus.
We started off with people who UNKNOWINGLY shielded the attacker.
Your example of someone dressing as a fan of one team and attacking fans of the other team.
Now you're to the point of discussing people who actively support the attacker.
Instead of that, why don't we continue to focus on the reactions of the people who don't fully support the attacker yet.
The one's that form the crowd he is hiding in.
You go to a ball game.
You're cheering your team.
Arabs start shooting at the crowd you're in. Hitting and killing many of you.
But they were just trying to get the one person hiding in your crowd.
Feel free to blame the person they claim to be shooting at.
Rather then them for actually killing the people who weren't involved.
Again, full circle. Let's breed another generation so we can continue the bombing.
|
Post #18,823
11/19/01 2:40:27 PM
|
You left out a few parts from the analogy
Like the parts where the crowd I'm in is told that there is a "criminal" in our midst.
Shown pictures of what he looks like.
Told what he did and shown footage of the thousands of dead he caused.
Told what section of the stands he is in.
Told that that section will be targeted in 15 minutes and anyone still in it will be considered a willing collaborator.
Okay, the analogy is getting stretched. But I know that's your preferred method of debate: focus on the flaws in an analogy rather than the insight it may provide. Any analogy that so closely matches the original situation as to have no arguable differences is no longer an analogy, but the thing itself.
So rather than trying to refine my analogy any further, I'll go back to the original formulation: If a combatant hides among non-combatants in an explicit effort to cause them to be targeted, he is at fault for their deaths.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,827
11/19/01 2:57:47 PM
|
Think about that.
We've bombed sites that we KNOW he is not in.
We've hit civilians because of that.
Care to reconsider your example?
I agree, >IF< we could do what you say, then it would be easy to justify.
But when they know what he looks like
AND
They know he isn't near them
AND
We bomb them
THEN
We are at fault
|
Post #18,847
11/19/01 4:35:33 PM
|
Re: You're partially correct.
But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is. Yes it does, and anyone who takes an active part in an attack (i.e. fires the gun, pilots the plane, even planning and coordination) is a combatant. Even a doctor that takes up arms for more than an immediate last line defense of his charges can be considered a combatant. Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the
terrorists or anything like that.
We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start. Unless they meet the criteria specified above (and I doubt any have), we won't "With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a
criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."
Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it? I haven't examined the proposal, but I would imagine such oversight will be a requirement. Any attempt to do otherwise would probably bring down the condemnation of our allies. "More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern
for terrorist reprisal."
Ummm, exactly HOW is that?
And don't tell me "because it is". If "because it is" was the only answer I had I wouldn't bother saying it. The fact is it's easier to intimidate people than governments. By this I mean that those jurors would be individual people with their own fears as opposed to a tribunal of government officials whose concerns are much broader Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets.
Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now? It wouldn't. The effect on the people making the decisions would be different. "3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors. How much do you keep secret? The threat can be against the courthouse itself, or the hotels around the courthouse (one of wich would probably contain the sequestered jury. It wouldn't necessarily be directed at the jurors. And if you have to keep too much secret, then we're back where we started. "4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and
defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad. Yes, to some degree you are correct here, my confidence isn't high, and that may be just my prejudice in the system, so I'll strike that question "And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their
"non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes
under the laws of armed conflict."
Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their
"crimes"?
Are you sure you read that correctly? With the obvious exception of attacks that hit civilian centers instead of terrorist controlled targets. If they are housing civilians near obvious targets and dressing the same as the civilians, they are responsible for their deaths. And yes, I just went through my annual LOAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) training for the Air Force last week. ~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
