nothin' special

Posted by: keymaker

nothin' special - 04/09/08 02:22 AM

That British soldier killed in Iraq recently was part of an SAS unit working with US special forces in an operation to neutralise a bomb making facility in a Sunni dominated area North of Baghdad. The right to make bombs for pre-emptive strikes in self-defence is well established: Attorney Generalís Ref (No2 of 1983) [1984] QB 456. Those who seek to intrude on that right in the manner of these soldiers can be killed in self defence: R v Hussey (1924) 18 Crim App R 160 CCA<br><br>The soldiers started by lobbing percussion grenades at the target house but as they moved in they were caught in an ambush and sustained the said fatality and injuries to four of their number but not without ultimately killing their targets and at least 9 civilians including a woman and baby who were shot in cold blood as they ran away. Some of the civilian deaths were caused by US Air Force pilots who bombed one of the neighbouring houses. <br><br>These events are war crimes of course so Iím going to be calling for the survivors to be arrested and put on trial if it hasnít already happened when then get back home. Personally I would favour a Crown Court trial in England in which case we would have to extradite the US contingent but one alternative would be to convene the World Court in Holland which can invoke the relevant treaties. <br><br>Either way, a statement that "the Multi-national Force-Iraq sincerely regrets when civilians are wounded or killed and their families have our heartfelt condolences" will he irrelevant to liability which will turn on the question of intent to kill. As one witness stated: "There were no terrorists. The coalition calls us Iraqis insurgents, terrorist, but it is the coalition who are the terrorists, not us." Thatís about right Iím afraid.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 05:28 AM

Interesting that you failed to quote more of that story:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>An interpreter called over a tannoy for the men - there were two "targets" - to surrender, or at least to let the women and children come out. There was no reply from inside the house.<br><br>At one stage the coalition forces also threw "flash bangs" - percussion grenades - through the front portico to ensure there was no confusion about which house was being targeted.<br><br>They wanted to make sure that the people inside knew all the shouts from the tannoy weren't meant for next door, giving them every chance to surrender. This is a detail which will become important later on. <br><br>The American officer told me that had happened because the men were using them as cover: "When they came out of the house, the men were in amongst the women, shielding themselves.<br><br>"You don't do that; we would never shield ourselves with women and kids. It is not acceptable but they'll do it, the insurgents will do it, especially the bad ones.<br><br><br>"Preliminary assessment indicates that despite coalition forces' efforts to protect them, several civilians were injured or killed during the ensuing gun battle."<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>my photos
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 05:47 AM

None of that is relevant for people going about their lawful business. When I sit down with my wife and kids for dinner I don't expect to be shouted at by some idiot with a loud hailer who starts trying to kill me and then accuse me of using my family as a shield. That's just a convenient excuse for war criminals trying to escape responsibility for their actions when what they've done in fact is to reinforce the right of others to take ever more effective measures in self-defence.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 05:56 AM

So, making bombs now is a legal business? <br><br>And, taking your idea that what they are doing is legal (defense etc), why isn't what the coalition did was legal? A pre-emptive strike to reduce the amount of coalition casualties?<br><br>Civilian casualties is a regrettable thing, for sure. But all this could have been avoided had they just come out with their hands up.<br><br><br><br><br><br>my photos
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 06:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> why isn't what the coalition did was legal? A pre-emptive strike to reduce the amount of coalition casualties?<p><hr></blockquote><p> That goes to the crux of the problem as keymaker has pointed out that the entire invasion of the country by coalition forces was illegal. Jumping to an incident within that invasion and saying that the coalition forces are just using yet again a preemptive strike to reduce their own casualties is on the same faulty ground from the day we stepped foot in their country.<br><br>Reverse positions. A foreign invading force in Concord, Massachusetts. Hiding in farm houses and barns and sniping to kill the invading force is heroic. <br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 07:01 AM

[color:blue]So, making bombs now is a legal business? </font color=blue><br><br>It is on the part of those fearing attack for example by way of summary execution or torture. You're not under any such threat but if you were you would have that right, yes, and I can't think of any reason why you should be expected to give it up. The right is exercisable as a defence to any charge there may be for bomb-making contrary to statute which is why such people have to be brought to trial rather than summarily executed on the spot.<br><br>[color:blue]why isn't what the coalition did was legal?</font color=blue><br><br>By exceeding the UN's mandate for reconstruction with the outrageous illegalities we all know about the coalition have cast themselves as trespassers in Iraq. The right of self defence does not extend to trespassers but only to victims thereof. In such a situation Intentionally shooting, bombing and killing people whether men, women or children is murder contrary to common law. That's why I was recommending a Crown Court trial because the conventional law is adequate for testing the soldiers' guilt or innocence over these events. <br><br>[color:blue]all this could have been avoided had they just come out with their hands up.</font color=blue> <br><br>They had every reason to fear for their lives and put up resistance because of past atrocities and acts of torture on the part of coalition forces. There's no such thing as a free lunch - when you go around executing and torturing people you bestow certain rights of self-protection on others whether you want them to have those rights or not.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 07:36 AM

[color:blue]the entire invasion of the country by coalition forces was illegal</font color=blue> <br><br>That's an important point because it's the fall back position when any subsequent authority falls away. There was an attempt which may even have been technically successful to provide cover for our presence in Iraq with a subsequent UN reconstruction mandate.<br><br>Somehow I don't think that our conduct which has included homicides and torture are within the mandate so we fall back to our prior status - whoops, I thought Blair had got it wrong when he said an invasion mandate wasn't necessary.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 07:52 AM

It boils down to the current McCain policy and rhetoric. "We totally screwed up and mismanaged this war from the beginning but we are now stuck and the best policy is to continue hoping for democracy to flower."<br><br>No John, two wrongs don't make a right and the fiction of flowers growing is just that. A fiction. Patreous rhetoric that the Iraqi politicians and Iraqi forces are taking over is utter fantasy. The surge has suppressed the death rates because that is what happens when you put more cops on the street. But there is no end game. It is only postponement of our inevitable retreat. <br><br>It took the Russians ten years to figure that out. Ten years and our army is toast as well as our treasury.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

so friggin what?????? - 04/09/08 09:11 AM

<br>You seem to imply that it is okay to shoot civilians used as shields.<br>What kind of humanity is that, for crying out loud? The objective is more important than the method? <br>That's the same madness used by the Israelis, which made the new UN guy - Falk, I guess is his name - compare them with the Nazis, who also extinguished entire families to get one or two suspects.<br><br>There have been so many US killings of innocent civilians that I wouldn't want to send my wife and kids out there to face the US-SS.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 01:50 PM

Yes, because the family blown apart in their car by an IED is much more just, legal and humane than the family blown apart in their house by a mis-guided guided bomb ...<br><br>Seems to me, either way the results are pretty much the same ...<br><br>You were talking again about the rights of the bomb-makers and the war crimes of the soldiers?<br><br>(Or was it the war crimes of the bomb-makers and the rights of the soldiers? I do get so confused without a program.)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 02:41 PM

[color:blue]... the family blown apart in their car by an IED... the family blown apart in their house by a mis-guided guided bomb ... the results are pretty much the same ...</font color=blue><br><br>Well, couple of differences: the first event didn't happen but the second one did and the second one was ordered by people who claim a moral superiority.<br><br>Speculation about why they may have been making bombs can't justify their summary execution because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states at Art 6 that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 04:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, couple of differences: the first event didn't happen<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Really? Care to supply any sort of proof to that statement? ... I'm thinking that bombs detonated in marketplaces tend to affect families somewhat. Or IEDs along roadsides that take out more than just the Humvee they *perhaps* are targeting ... unless you have knowledge of a new type of explosive that kills/maims only those you desire ... <br><br>Bombs kill people in a fairly egalitarian fashion -- either they kill you or they don't. And strangely enough, as the bomber, you don't really have terribly much control over that regardless of what "side" you're on ...<br><br>That you apparently believe *your* bombs don't kill innocent people but somehow those who you oppose make bombs that kill *only* the innocent speaks volumes ...<br><br>Seriously -- do you really believe that the bombs made by the people you're defending are so precise that they *only* kill those who are intended? And is that "intended" targeting any more precise than, say, a guided missile bombing?<br><br>Indeed -- the people you're defending (and I'm speaking of the actual combatants here) are no better or worse than their opponents in terms of killing, and in the "righteousness" of that killing. People are dead as a result. To say that one is "better" or "more just" than the other is a fallacy -- innocent people are lost regardless.<br><br>As for your constant quoting of legal proclamations -- that doesn't help terribly for those actually affected -- bombs don't have a vast legal knowledge. Your bombs kill just as effectively as those you decry -- and are just as impersonal. "Legal" or not, I doubt their families care that much.<br><br>And if you really want to take the "moral superiority" line -- are you really telling me that *your* killing of innocents is morally superior to those you are against?<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by six_of_one on 04/09/08 08:15 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 05:31 PM

<br>Excuse me...<br>[color:white]. . .</font color=white><br>...but I think<br>this is where<br>I came in...<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/09/08 10:58 PM

[color:blue]I'm thinking that bombs detonated in marketplaces </font color=blue> <br><br>The SAS victims didn't have anything to with those incidents or if someone thinks they did they have to get them in front of a court of law. Executing people for something that someone else did is collective punishment which is prohibited by various conventions. <br><br>Since making bombs could be a legitimate or illegitimate activity the question of which it was has to be determined by a proper court not some half-wit bristling with the latest range of weaponry. Look at what happened, women children, babies...<br><br>km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 03:26 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Since making bombs could be a legitimate or illegitimate activity<p><hr></blockquote><p>On what planet is manufacturing BOMBS IN YOUR HOME even remotely considered "legitimate"?? Much less *using* them ... My god, you call behemoth militaries and governments "war criminals" when they use their weaponry, yet these bozos mixing nitrates and whatnot in their basement "could be ... legitimate"??<br><br>[color:red]All these things kill innocent people just as dead regardless of who uses them!</font color=red> What astounds me is that you are trying to legitimize one side making and using them and demonizing the other for doing *exactly the same thing*<br><br>When in fact *both* should be responsible and answerable for their actions, you're trying to let one side off the hook ... and that's fairly disgusting.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>not some half-wit bristling with the latest range of weaponry. Look at what happened, women children, babies...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yet if it's some half-wit with a range of not-the-latest weaponry that kills women, children and babies just as effectively -- that's perfectly fine with you as long as their on your side and are "defending" themselves?<br><br>Your position in this thread and in many others you have penned is hypocritical to a very scary degree ...<br><br>Again: how are your explosives that kill innocent people any more legal, humane or justified than the explosives of those you label as war criminals?<br><br>Or even more to the point, how is this:<br>Bomb blast in Afghanistan kills 8 civilians<br><br>Any different at all from this:<br>US Airstrike in Baghdad Kills Four<br><br>The tragic results are exactly the same, yet you would stridently call one of the actions "war crimes" and the other "perfectly legal" -- innocent people are dead, man! Do you really think either of the above two outcomes is acceptable?<br><br>And yes, I am using this opportunity to counter your stated position on this issue in general, not necessarily just the specifics of this particular thread ...<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 03:52 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You seem to imply that it is okay to shoot civilians used as shields.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, he's just saying there's more to the story than the OP quoted.<br><br>The rest is all inference from your end ;-)<br><br>It's actually a pretty good article, imho, showing viewpoints from both the Coalition side and those of the residents nearby. It also goes to show what an impossible situation exists there and how different people's perceptions can be of the same incident. Truly a no-win situation: You can't just walk away and let the bomb-makers continue, and if you go in you risk innocent lives and whatever goodwill there may have been in the neighborhood. What a mess.<br><br>Yay for Nazi-fying the thread, btw -- that usually leads to further positive discourse =P<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 04:18 AM

<br><br>[color:blue]The American officer told me that had happened because the men were using them as cover: "When they came out of the house, the men were in amongst the women, shielding themselves.<br>"You don't do that; we would never shield ourselves with women and kids. It is not acceptable but they'll do it, the insurgents will do it, especially the bad ones. </font color=blue><br><br><br>This is the part OSX quoted. And the argument contained in it was a quasi justification of attacking despite the fact that there were civilians. <br>And actually, YOU are missing the point: The USA (forget that silly "Coalition" misnomer!) lied their way into attacking and conquering a nation. That makes it quite simple. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 04:22 AM

<br>Judgement does not rest with the unjust invader.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 05:28 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This is the part OSX quoted. And the argument contained in it was a quasi justification of attacking despite the fact that there were civilians. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, he quoted more than that, and there's even more in the article describing the perceptions of both sides of the engagement. I think OSX's purpose (and I don't mean to speak for him) was to point out that there was a lot more going on in the situation and that it wasn't really quite as simple as the OP made it out to be ... and it certainly doesn't sound like "hey! there's a woman and kid trying to get away -- shoot them!"<br><br>As for the US lying their way into the war in the first place or not, that wasn't the point of the OP or this thread in this case, so I'm not really sure why you're bringing that up ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 05:35 AM

Nice platitude but I'm not really sure how it has anything to do with this particular branch of this thread.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 05:36 AM

<br>[color:blue]As for the US lying their way into the war in the first place or not, that wasn't the point of the OP or this thread ...</font color=blue><br><br>Without invasion no bomb-makers and thus no civilian-shooting GIs .... <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 06:06 AM

Which wasn't the point of the OP -- and certainly wasn't the point I was "missing" ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 06:34 AM

<br>Precisely <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: so friggin what?????? - 04/10/08 07:14 AM

Without invasion no bomb-makers and thus no civilian-shooting GIs .... <br><br>You are right. THere would only be ethnic murders by Saddam and his men. <br><br>I love this arm-chair debaters here. The reason we are there is on false pretense as far as I know, but we are there. And we aren't the only ones there.<br><br>You see what the media reports, which is not the full story. I don't care where you get your sources from...CNN/Fox/BBC/Yahoo...it's all the same. <br><br>Civilian casualties will happen in combat. Unfortunately it's something that happens. I don't like it one bit but when you have suspected bomb makers using these people as shields or whatever, then something like this might happen.<br><br>Don't read into what I am posting as saying that I like it or endorse it or whatever. I don't like war, I don't like killing, etc. But it will always happen, whether it's justified or not. Just skim through history and you will see.<br><br>What brings my blood to a boil is your painting everything with a wide-brush. "Civilian-shooting GI's" is nothing more than a comment by someone who hasn't ever been there. It sounds the same as people who call all cops "pigs" or "donut eaters" or whatever, when in fact they don't know what the heck they are talking about. <br><br>I try to stay out of the politics thread because it's not worth it and I only came here to see if anyone posted about the baby with 2 faces. I clicked on this one thread and couldn't resist. But now I'm gone again because honestly you two don't know what you are talking about since you all haven't ever been there.<br><br>Ask McTeak, I'm sure he can provide you all with plenty of information.<br><br><br><br>my photos
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:01 AM

[color:blue]On what planet is manufacturing BOMBS IN YOUR HOME even remotely considered "legitimate"?? </font color=blue><br><br>The common law planet. I cited the case of Attorney Generalís Ref (No2 of 1983) in which the accused was charged with making petrol bombs, as it happens in his home, contrary to the Explosive Substances Act 1883. This headnote from the law report explains why he was not guilty:<br><br>[color:purple][1984]1 Q.B.456 <br>[COURT OF APPEAL]<br><br>ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE (No. 2 of 1983) 1984 Jan. 3; Feb. 3 <br>Lord Lane C.J., McCowan and Leggatt JJ.<br><br>Crime - Explosive substances - 'Lawful object" - Petrol bombs made for protecting maker's property against rioters - Whether defence of self-defence available - Whether "lawful object" - Explosive Substances Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 3), s. 4(1)<br><br>The respondent, whose property was attacked and damaged by rioters, feared that it might be the subject of further attack. He made some petrol bombs, which he intended to use purely to repulse raiders from his property. He was tried on, inter alia, a count of having made an explosive substance in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had not made it for a lawful object, contrary to section 4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.1 A prosecution submission that self-defence was not open to the respondent was rejected on the basis that it must be open to a defendant to say that his lawful object was self-defence. The jury, who were directed to consider the reasonableness of the means adopted for the repulsion of raiders, acquitted the respondent. The Attorney-General referred for the court's opinion the question whether the defence of self-defence was available to a defendant charged with an offence under section 4 of the Act of 1883.<br><br>On the reference:-<br><br>Held that, in the opinion of the court, the defence of "lawful object" was available to a defendant against whom a charge under section 4 of the Act of 1883 had been preferred, if he could satisfy the jury on balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property against imminent apprehended attack and to do so by means which he believed were no more than reasonably necessary to meet the force used by the attackers (post, p. 470C-F).<br><br>Reg. v. Fegan [1972] N.I. 80, C.C.A. applied.<br><br>Dicta in Palmer v. The Queen [1971] A.C. 814, 831-832, P.C. and in Evans v. Hughes [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1452, D.C. considered.<br><br>Per curiam. Although a person may "make" a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed which made his object lawful, it may cease to be so. It will only be very rarely that circumstances will exist where the manufacture or possession of petrol bombs can be for a lawful object (post, p. 470C-D).</font color=purple> <br><br>So, it is always necessary to examine the reasons why a person is making bombs because it could be for reasons of legitimate self-defence. As I said earlier in the thread, that would include protecting oneself from unawful acts of coalition soldiers of the kind we have all heard obout in Iraq.<br><br>[color:blue]When in fact *both* should be responsible and answerable for their actions, you're trying to let one side off the hook ... and that's fairly disgusting.</font color=blue><br><br>Not really. What would be disgusting would be the law taking sides with an aggressor or war criminal by saying that one is not entitled to resist the illegality. That right will never be taken away from people in a free society.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:13 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The common law planet.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the common law planet lacks common sense.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:21 AM

[color:blue]the common law planet lacks common sense.</font color=blue><br><br>You wouldn't think that if someone came at you or your family with a flame-thrower and you were told you weren't allowed to meet the threat with equivalent force.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:22 AM

you are citing British law or international law? it's not clear to me. and the confrontation took place in Iraq, correct? i am trying to understand the position you are taking. TIA.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: FSM

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"The need to act must not have been created by conduct of the accused in the immediate context of the incident which was likely or intended to give rise to that need Ö Where a police officer is acting lawfully and using only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, self defence against him is not an available defence."<p><hr></blockquote><p>who decides whether the British soldier and others were acting lawfully in Iraq?<br><br>i still think you're debating some national law that isn't even in place in Iraq, no?<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 09:43 AM

[color:blue]you are citing British law or international law?</font color=blue><br><br>Both. The Attorney General's reference case is authority in England and America where the law on self-defence is the same. You'd have to live in some kind of tin pot dictatorship not to have the right in law to use reasonable force in self-defence. International law prohibits such acts as, genocide crimes against humanity and torture so in defence of oneself or one's family, or others for whom one is responsible, virtually any force is reasonable to resist such extreme threats.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 10:10 AM

I'm not quite sure what the source or relevance of your quotation is but to answer your questions:<br><br>[color:blue]who decides whether the British soldier and others were acting lawfully in Iraq?</font color=blue><br><br>I'm suggesting that the Crown Court should be the venue of a murder trial when the soldiers get back home. Further alternative counts could be added to the indictment to deal with international crimes.<br><br>[color:blue]i still think you're debating some national law that isn't even in place in Iraq, no?</font color=blue><br><br>Well, I wasn't suggesting that there be a trial in Iraq because the entire constitution lacks legitimacy. British soldiers serving in Iraq are subject to English law on murder, the Human Rights Act 1998 and international crimes such as genocide all of which are relevant to these events. US soldiers can be tried for genocide in England under the Genocide Act 1969 although we don't have the death penalty so the most that could happen to them if found guilty would be a term of life imprisomment. They are also answerable for their actions in international law.<br><br>km
Posted by: eckhard

real easy point - 04/10/08 10:23 AM

<br>Thanks for the history lesson! <br>You are right, I haven't been to the Iraq. Have you?<br>I also do not call cops pigs.<br><br>My point remains that when there are civilians used as shield, no self-respecting defender of human rights should attack.<br>Rather wait for the next opportunity than to risk knowingly killing innocent children.<br>End of point.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 10:29 AM

the source i quoted came from the same page where i found the quote you used here.<br><br>i've read the article you first linked and i am struggling to see your side of this debate. <br><br>1. insurgents were making bombs in some nice house. the local community, including the police recognized this. i am a guy who recognizes that there are lot of insurgents who are far from terrorists, but i also recognize that six_of_one sums up my thinking pretty well on this matter.<br>2. the bombs were then targeted by coalition forces and they sent a team to stop these bombs from being made. shooting a soldier who is attempting to get bombs is not an appropriate action; nor is it self defense.<br>3. insurgents fought back and killed a Brit. coalition forces retaliated in self defense () and the rest is a sad tale.<br>4. having a trial back in England seems to get away from a lot of the witnesses that could support your case, no?<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: real easy point - 04/10/08 10:51 AM

I was in the first gulf war back in 1990. My nephew served in the current war.<br><br>Rather wait for the next opportunity than to risk knowingly killing innocent children.<br><br>And how do you know that they knowingly killed innocent children? It's easy to judge an action 10,000 miles away when you don't know the whole facts. (Not saying I do either!)<br><br><br><br>my photos
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 11:04 AM

Ah yes, the "protecting personal property" angle again -- because you know, a landowner protecting his home scales so appropriately to an entire theater of conflict o_0<br><br>The problem with the example you cited is that if the landowner had not only made those bombs, but had used them and killed an innocent passerby as a result, he would have been held accountable for that death ...<br><br>Your position is that he should not be held accountable since he was defending his property at the time. Which is, of course, ridiculous.<br><br>Never mind that if he left his home and used those bombs on the nearby crowded marketplace, he really wouldn't still be defending -- well, anything, really. Yet you would excuse that as well.<br><br>And to go further -- if there *had* been rioters trying to invade his home, and *they* had killed an innocent passerby in the process, you would be howling for their heads ... <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When in fact *both* should be responsible and answerable for their actions, you're trying to let one side off the hook ... and that's fairly disgusting.<br><br>Not really<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes. Really. You're taking the broadest possible brush trying to create an environment where everything done by the side you disapprove of is in your view inhumane, illegal and criminal; therefore you can excuse the other side for acting just as inhumanely in the name of "self defense" or "protecting personal property" ... you're giving a complete pass to one side's actions while expecting people on the other to be held accountable for doing exactly the same thing ...<br><br>Not that such hypocrisy is unusual, mind you, just that it kind of puts you conceptually on exactly the same level as those you'd like to see in court ...<br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: real easy point - 04/10/08 11:17 AM

<br>[color:blue]And how do you know that they knowingly killed innocent children? It's easy to judge an action 10,000 miles away when you don't know the whole facts. (Not saying I do either!)</font color=blue><br><br>Clearly, we can only speak about the facts presented in the article, but it states that they were calling for the people inside the house to let the women and children go, and a four-month-old baby certainly would have to be considered "innocent".<br><br>By the way, Bagdhad is just 2000 miles from here .... many of us drove there in the 60s. Personally, I only made it to Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. (before the 1967 war)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: real easy point - 04/10/08 11:26 AM

did they know any women and children to be present when they made that request or is that pretty much standard procedure? i have no idea, but i don't think merely making the statement is an indication of knowledge of these innocents being present.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: real easy point - 04/10/08 11:38 AM

<br>The house in question is in a residential area, surrounded by other family dwellings. (The chief of police, apparently lived opposite.) Moreover, they had intelligence about the people inside .... <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: real easy point - 04/10/08 11:50 AM

during any day around here, my neighborhood could have women and children inside or be completely empty. merely being residential doesn't equate to be populated at any given time. now, you say they had intel saying otherwise. i haven't gone back to read, but i'll trust that you're right on that -- that would have been a better argument in your post than what you used.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: eckhard

well, of course, there's always Waco, eh? - 04/10/08 11:57 AM

<br>Why treat a bunch of Iraqis better than people in Texas, eh?<br>Perhaps, there may well be a cultural difference at work here. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 04:29 PM

Okay well I now know where you got the quotation from but I'm still not sure what you say is its relevance. <br><br>[color:blue]insurgents were making bombs in some nice house. </font color=blue><br><br>We've established that bomb-making is not illegal per se. Whether it's illegal in a particular case and what the punishment should be if it is has to be determined by a court not a soldier.<br><br>[color:blue]... they sent a team to stop these bombs from being made</font color=blue> <br><br>That's the problem, they weren't entitled to.<br><br>[color:blue]shooting a soldier who is attempting to get bombs is not an appropriate action; nor is it self defense.</font color=blue><br><br>That's your declaration but what is reasonable force is decided with reference to what the victim thinks is reasonable. As against the fear of genocide, torture or women and baby killing type crimes there can't be much that wouldn't be considered reasonable in self defence. <br><br>[color:blue] having a trial back in England seems to get away from a lot of the witnesses that could support your case, no?</font color=blue><br><br>Well, questions of evidence can be considered by counsel further down the line - the first thing is to get the investigation under way and take statements from the suspects and go forward from there.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 05:40 PM

[color:blue]a landowner protecting his home scales so appropriately to an entire theater of conflict</font color=blue><br><br>The scale is irrelevant - what counts is the principle. <br><br>[color:blue]if the landowner had not only made those bombs, but had used them and killed an innocent passerby as a result, he would have been held accountable for that death ...</font color=blue> <br><br>Well, anyone found guilty of manslaughter should be sentenced for it but that's not what happened.<br> <br>[color:blue]Your position is that he should not be held accountable since he was defending his property at the time. Which is, of course, ridiculous.</font color=blue><br><br>No, my position is that manslaughter which is a crime and bomb-making which may or may not be a crime are decided on different principles.<br><br>[color:blue]if he left his home and used those bombs on the nearby crowded marketplace, he really wouldn't still be defending -- well, anything, really. Yet you would excuse that as well.</font color=blue><br><br>On those facts if someone died it would look more like a homicide than lawful self-defence.<br><br>[color:blue]if there *had* been rioters trying to invade his home, and *they* had killed an innocent passerby in the process, you would be howling for their heads ... </font color=blue><br><br>Would I? I don't think I've ever done that before. What I normally do if someone appears to be guilty of an offence is recommend that they be charged with it and brought before a court.<br><br>[color:blue]you're giving a complete pass to one side's actions</font color=blue><br><br>Don't think so. What I said was that bomb-making is not illegal per se so you can't you round shooting people for it. If you think someone is breaking the law you have to arrest them and put them on trial but the right of arrest is not available to a trespasser.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 11:01 PM

[color:blue]We've established that bomb-making is not illegal per se. Whether it's illegal in a particular case and what the punishment should be if it is has to be determined by a court not a soldier.</font color=blue><br><br>They were acting in SUPPORT of the Iraqi legal government-- yes it was illegal to be making bombs <-- remember there is an Iraqi government by Iraqi people and they were supporting an Iraqi operation.<br><br>Spend your time chasing NAZI war crimes there would be millions of civilians death cases to keep you busy.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/10/08 11:39 PM

[color:blue]They were acting in SUPPORT of the Iraqi legal government... </font color=blue><br><br>The government is bound by law as well. In fact if Maliki has got anything to do with this he should be put on trial as well. The fact that the government was involved doesn't alter the fact that people fearing death or torture are entitled to act in self-defence. <br><br>[color:blue] yes it was illegal to be making bombs</font color=blue><br><br>You're just making a statement. I've cited the authority that explains why it's wrong. That's why the Attorney General lost the case - because he had no answer to the truth that anyone in fear of attack from a trespasser is allowed to act in self defence which includes preparations for self defence.<br><br>[color:blue]Spend your time chasing NAZI war crimes there would be millions of civilians death cases to keep you busy.</font color=blue>I<br><br>Can't think of any reason why I should give that priority over current atrocities being committed by the British army?<br><br>Why are you trying to defend war crimes of the coalition? Everyone knows you can't go around shooting babies.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 12:43 AM

[color:blue]The fact that the government was involved doesn't alter the fact that people fearing death or torture are entitled to act in self-defence. </font color=blue> - bullshiit<br><br>I did not vote for Bush and that does NOT give me the right to make bombs for whatever fear I might have against my own government. Keep in mind that said government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens even from them selves. I guess its the same in Britain unless you guys can make bombs and shoot guns at will ??? I don't no??<br><br>Example said bomb maker blows the house up killing that said woman and baby by accident and the surrounding neighbors. That kind of crazy shiit happens in the US all the time. NOT TO MENTION said bomb maker that drew Iraqi Government attention to that house and got that woman and baby killed, try and imagine if that house was not a bomb making factory would her life be in jeopardy ?. Who should be on trail is the bomb maker and not the US who was in support of a Iraqi government army operation.<br><br>Nothing Pukes me more is when attorneys support "criminal" intentions. Against their government its supporters and their own people.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Aloha? - 04/11/08 01:02 AM

[color:blue]government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens even from them selves.</font color=blue><br><br>What, you think that summary execution of criminal suspects and wilful killing of women and children is protecting people? Sorry, it's all outside the law. You wouldn't want that state of affairs in Hawaii so don't argue it's acceptable for Arabs.<br><br>[color:blue]said bomb maker blows the house up killing that said woman and baby by accident and the surrounding neighbors.</font color=blue><br><br>Well, a person acting within his rights who kills someone by mistake is not guilty of an offence.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 01:29 AM

[color:blue]Well, a person acting within his rights who kills someone by mistake is not guilty of an offence.</font color=blue> <-- WHAT ?<br><br>This is getting pointless - seems you will back up criminal murder if it suits your goal. In my neck of the woods you cannot harbor illegal substances bombs. guns, missiles, lasers and drugs with the intent to use them for political gains <br><br>[color:blue]What, you think that summary execution of criminal suspects and wilful killing of women and children is protecting people?</font color=blue> <-- sorry are we now back to Saddam Hussien ?? because thats how he keep the peace so to speak<br><br>Bottom line;<br>You have a bomb making facility that also endangers the surrounding neighborhood. This facility also facilitates covert activities against it own government, which should be breaking some new Iraqi law - You want to stand up and say that they are blessed with murdering even more people ?? Then when force comes in to stop an illegal operation <-- you say its criminal ?? wtf<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 01:48 AM

[color:blue]In my neck of the woods you cannot harbor illegal substances bombs. guns, missiles, lasers and drugs with the intent to use them for political gains</font color=blue><br><br>Same here... but you can to protect yourself or your family. For whatever reason you can't be shot dead for it.<br><br>[color:blue]are we now back to Saddam Hussien</font color=blue> <br><br>Yeah, more or less the same sort of thing... and look what happened to him. <br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 03:18 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>a landowner protecting his home scales so appropriately to an entire theater of conflict<br><br>The scale is irrelevant - what counts is the principle.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Garbage. You're attempting to apply a specific case of a landowner protecting his personal property to the conditions of an entire theater of conflict in order to justify atrocities committed by one side of the combatants ... and sorry, but the principle just doesn't scale nearly that large or that wide ...<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>if there *had* been rioters trying to invade his home, and *they* had killed an innocent passerby in the process, you would be howling for their heads ... <br><br>Would I? I don't think I've ever done that before.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh, please. You've spent *years* calling for "war crimes" prosecutions of coalition forces for doing exactly that kind of thing. The point, of course, is that you don't appear to call for prosecutions of similar actions undertaken by the other side of the conflict ...<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>if he left his home and used those bombs on the nearby crowded marketplace, he really wouldn't still be defending -- well, anything, really. Yet you would excuse that as well.<br><br>On those facts if someone died it would look more like a homicide than lawful self-defence.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That being the case, then why do you not call for the prosecutions of those responsible for such actions? In those years you've been castigating coalition forces for their "war crimes" I have yet to see you apply that standard equally to all combatants.<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your position is that he should not be held accountable since he was defending his property at the time. Which is, of course, ridiculous.<br><br>No, my position is that manslaughter which is a crime and bomb-making which may or may not be a crime are decided on different principles.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, your position, as you state here, is that you think basically anything goes as long as you're able jin up a scenario where you're "acting within your rights" (read: "defending your property" as you have stated earlier). Also here, where apparently it's just fine to kill an innocent bystander as long as it's "the lesser of two evils" -- a horrifyingly subjective standard in this regard ...<br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by six_of_one on 04/11/08 06:54 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 03:36 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In my neck of the woods you cannot harbor illegal substances bombs. guns, missiles, lasers and drugs with the intent to use them for political gains<br><br>Same here... but you can to protect yourself or your family.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, you can't -- at least not in the U.S. You can own a gun here, as we all know, but not much beyond that without some sort of permit without running into legal issues. Explosives you need to have a permit for, and obviously drugs are a no-no. Not sure I've ever seen or heard of a home-based missile defense system, but I'm pretty sure that would be beyond the pale as well ...<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>For whatever reason you can't be shot dead for it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, you can. Depends on wether or not you're threatening duly appointed authorities investigating your activities (like, say, shooting at them) ...<br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by six_of_one on 04/11/08 06:49 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 04:42 AM

Very well said. Much better than I could have done. But I think that people like him are ones that can only hold a solitary notion in their head and won't change their mind, no matter what evidence you show them.<br><br><br><br>my photos
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 04:58 AM

All of those misconceptions are covered by my previous posts. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 05:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No, you can't -- at least not in the U.S. You can own a gun here, as we all know, but not much beyond that without some sort of permit without running into legal issues. Explosives you need to have a permit for,<p><hr></blockquote><p> What part of the US do you live in? One can purchase all of the makings for high explosives without a permit in the United States. The Edward R Murrow building was brought down by fertilizer and kerosene. Gunpowder in keg quantities can be purchased by anyone. You reload shotgun shells with it. But would forcing someone to get a permit for the local Sheriff so one can purchase several kegs of gunpowder be a deterrent? Your garage and storage shed have the makings of quite a few bombs if you have fertilizer, gasoline lawnmowers and cleaning supplies around. Then all you need is to purchase a garage door opener and some cell phones and you have everything to defend your house. Which you would be doing in Ohio or Utah when an invading army is sweeping your neighborhood of insurgents.<br><br>Just because these people are killing British does not mean they have less right than you protecting your home from an invading army. Luckily the farmers in Concord knew that in 1775 and waited until they could see the white's of those British soldier's eyes before they shot them. Women and children were in the mix. Did the Minutemen then give up because children were at the window? No, they killed the redcoats and became heroes and martyrs for their cause which was to defend their land from an invading country. They spent the rest of the afternoon shooting the Brits while hiding behind trees as they tried to retreat back to Boston. Those soldiers thought the farmers were cowards hiding behind trees and shooting from farmhouses. They did not know that war had changed. But it really hasn't. Continues to this day.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 07:01 AM

[color:blue]sorry, but the principle just doesn't scale nearly that large or that wide ...</font color=blue><br><br>No that's wrong. The offences and defences we've been discussing are defined without reference to scale. For example an intentional killing of a hundred people is murder as is an intentional killing of one - scale has got nothing to do with it. <br><br>[color:blue]you don't appear to call for prosecutions of similar actions undertaken by the other side of the conflict ...</font color=blue><br><br>If you look carefully at my posts again you'll see that's exactly what I have been calling for. For example I cited Art 6 IDHR that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law" and in another response that "they have to get them in front of a court of law" and "making bombs... legitimate or illegitimate... has to be determined by a proper court." In another post I said about bomb-making that "Whether it's illegal in a particular case and what the punishment should be has to be determined by a court" and in yet another that "What I normally do if someone appears to be guilty of an offence is recommend that they be charged with it and brought before a court." <br><br>When I've repeated a point that often and you still don't notice it you give the impression of just wanting to be cantankerous for the sake of argument.<br><br>[color:blue]anything goes as long as you're able jin up a scenario where you're "acting within your rights" </font color=blue><br><br>I've never said 'anything goes' what I said was that you can't be guilty of a crime just for making a mistake. That's the case because criminal offences require a guilty mind.<br><br>[color:blue]apparently it's just fine to kill an innocent bystander as long as it's "the lesser of two evils" </font color=blue><br><br>I've never said it's 'just fine'. On the contrary I said "I deplore the loss of innocent life ... completely unacceptable." What I've also said is that in choosing between two evils a person has a moral duty to choose the lesser of them. Maybe you prefer to max out on the misery but I don't think most patrons would want to go along with that.<br><br>km<br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 07:13 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What part of the US do you live in?<p><hr></blockquote><p>East coast, actually =)<br><br>I never said you couldn't physically *make* explosives -- you can do anything you want, actually -- but it may not be legal. Heck, there's stuff under my kitchen sink that could pack a nasty punch, but if I mixed-up a batch and the police found out about it, I'd probably be arrested ...<br><br>As for who's a "terrorist" and who's a "patriot": that subjectivity is one of the reasons the whole "war on terror" is such a farce ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 08:54 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No that's wrong. The offences and defences we've been discussing are defined without reference to scale. For example an intentional killing of a hundred people is murder as is an intentional killing of one - scale has got nothing to do with it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, that's incorrect. In the case you cited, the legitimacy of your bomb-maker extends only so far as his property line -- once the intent scales beyond purely protecting his property to, say, blowing up a bus or a marketplace down the road, that legitimacy goes out the door.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you look carefully at my posts again you'll see that's exactly what I have been calling for<p><hr></blockquote><p>Really? I must have missed your posts where you call for the insurgent survivors of a coalition assault to be brought to a war crimes tribunal for using women and children as human shields. Or specifically calling for insurgents (or whatever label you prefer to attach to them) to be brought to trial for torture and murder. Or the threads you've started demanding those who make bombs for the purpose of blowing up marketplaces or mosques be held to account, going so far as to suggest which jurisdiction should handle the proceedings. You may make citations of equality under the law, but you certainly don't appear to practice such equality in your postings ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When I've repeated a point that often and you still don't notice it<p><hr></blockquote><p>Maybe that's because under the sheer volume of your specific condemnations of just one side of this conflict, such generic assertions are easily missed, and *certainly* they cannot be interpreted as condemnations of the other side or calls for their prosecution as well -- You'll have to admit that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law" is not quite the same thing as, say, "As soon as soldiers X, Y and Z get out of the hospital, I'll be calling for their immediate prosecution under War Crimes Statute Melvin [hyperParagraph A; subHendrix B], and I suggest the most proper venue would be the Framistainian World Court, because for some reason it seems to have jurisdiction over a country thousands of miles away"<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I've never said 'anything goes' what I said was that you can't be guilty of a crime just for making a mistake. That's the case because criminal offences require a guilty mind.<p><hr></blockquote><p>A. This is demonstrably untrue -- people are held to account legally all the time for mistakenly causing harm to others, or damage to their property, regardless of their intent.<br><br>B. Even if it were true, many of the cases you would have brought to the war crimes courts would have to be tossed as a result, since many of the alleged offenses were the result of mistakes in intelligence, targeting, etc. and the victims not the ones intended.<br><br>C. In any case, the proposition that someone who is making bombs in their basement is justified because they are "defending themselves" and can therefore simply write-off any unintended collateral damage as a "mistake" ... is pretty much the same as "anything goes" in my book ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What I've said is that in choosing between two evils a person has a moral duty to choose the lesser of them. Maybe you prefer to max out on the misery but I don't think most patrons would go along with that.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, what I'd prefer is to realize that there aren't just the two choices -- another option is to, say, simply not plant that bomb on a busy street corner. Then there would be no evil to have to chose from in the first place. When you posit that the evil choices are the *only* ones available, you are of course legitimizing at least one of them, and yes, giving a pass to the person committing it ...<br><br>And again, even if your proposition was correct, would that not justify the SAS event with the bomb-makers, since it's more likely that those explosives would have been used to kill far more people than died in the assault?<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 08:55 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>As for who's a "terrorist" and who's a "patriot": that subjectivity is one of the reasons the whole "war on terror" is such a farce ...<p><hr></blockquote><p> Which also shows what a farce actions like the story that started this thread are. What we did by killing those people is create 100 patriots who will give their lives to kill US and British soldiers to avenge the killing of the baby and those women. There is no getting around that we are the invading army there under false pretenses killing people indiscriminately calling Shia, Sunni, and avenging brothers and fathers "terrorists".<br><br>We still do not realize, even after five years of stupidity, what kind of sh[i][/i]it storm of bad mojo we are creating for ourselves and our children each day we stay.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 09:07 AM

While a do agree with the conclusion of your post, I do have a question:<br><br>in this line:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There is no getting around that we are the invading army there under false pretenses killing people indiscriminately calling Shia, Sunni, and avenging brothers and fathers "terrorists".<p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you mean "killing people indiscriminately" or did you mean "indiscriminately calling Shia, Sunni, and avenging ..."?<br><br>The latter I also agree with; not so sure about the former ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 09:12 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No, that's incorrect. In the case you cited, the legitimacy of your bomb-maker extends only so far as his property line -- once the intent scales beyond purely protecting his property to, say, blowing up a bus or a marketplace down the road, that legitimacy goes out the door.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You muddy the waters when you state these bombs are to be used to blow up a bus or marketplace. What if they were to be used as IEDs to blow up and kill invading army vehicles and personnel? Does anyone know that these were ALQ or Sunni or Shia or people who want their country back?<br><br>Move this debacle to Provo, Utah. The invading army just wiped out some insurgents who were making bombs to blow up the invading army personnel carriers. They would have a legitimate right to do so and they would be driving up to Interstate 80 to set the charges.<br><br>Leave the marketplace out of it. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 09:46 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Did you mean "killing people indiscriminately" or did you mean "indiscriminately calling Shia, Sunni, and avenging ..."?<br><br>The latter I also agree with; not so sure about the former ;-)<p><hr></blockquote><p> Although in reality it matters a great deal, in arguing what keymaker is arguing, that bomb makers have the legal right to attack an invading army with bombs, and to transport them to the location of the invaders and killing them all of the above is correct. It just depends on your definition of "indiscriminate" is.<br><br>You are arguing a logical fallacy by over generalizing. Bombs were used in Iraq to blow up market places and buses therefore all bomb makers are illegal and should be hunted down and killed even with fixed wing aircraft bombing a neighborhood.<br><br>That would be like me saying all firearms are bad because of the Virginia Tech slaughter. Keymaker is correct in saying all those bombings are legal even if innocents are killed which is true but it gets to be a very contentious argument if we start lumping in all bombings in Iraq together as if one group is doing it all. I would counter that attacking a neighborhood with a bomb dropped from a fixed wing aircraft is pretty close to indiscriminate murder as a marketplace bombing. Yes, there are differences but not to the dead or especially the survivors who have become our new deadly enemy.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 09:53 AM

[color:blue]the legitimacy of your bomb-maker extends only so far as his property line</font color=blue><br><br>Not just property - in the law report I posted, the decision was: <br><br>[color:purple] Held that... the defence of "lawful object" was available to a defendant... if he could satisfy the jury on balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property...</font color=purple><br><br>[color:blue]once the intent scales beyond purely protecting his property to, say, blowing up a bus or a marketplace down the road, that legitimacy goes out the door.</font color=blue><br><br>The dead guys didn't do that though did they - they were shot for making bombs which could have been used defensively or offensively.<br><br>[color:blue]I must have missed your posts where you call for the insurgent survivors of a coalition assault to be brought to a war crimes tribunal for using women and children as human shields. </font color=blue><br><br>What has actually happened is that enemy suspects have been dumped at Guantanamo without due process - I really can't remember how many times I've asked for such detainees to brought to a court of law but I can't believe you've missed all of 'em.<br><br>[color:blue]people are held to account legally all the time for mistakenly causing harm to others, or damage to their property</font color=blue><br><br>Well, mistake of fact is a defence to indictable crimes as would be the argument that what you did was an accident.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Aloha? - 04/11/08 12:04 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>that bomb makers have the legal right to attack an invading army with bombs, and to transport them to the location of the invaders and killing them all of the above is correct. It just depends on your definition of "indiscriminate" is.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I actually understand bombmakers attacking invading armies, or even those armies trying to eliminate the bombmakers -- that's part and parcel of armed conflict. For all I care they can go mash each other into puddles of DNA so long as they let the rest of us alone ...<br><br>My main beef with Keymaker's arguments is that he wishes to hold one side of the conflict responsible for civilian deaths, but not the other ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bombs were used in Iraq to blow up market places and buses therefore all bomb makers are illegal and should be hunted down and killed even with fixed wing aircraft bombing a neighborhood.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not my argument at all or my logic at all. My argument is that making a bomb with the intention of using it on innocent civilians cannot be justified under any code of law or ethics. Similarly, targeting those same civilians from a plane and dropping a bomb on them is likewise indefensible. In such cases, calls for war crimes trials should apply regardless of which side of the conflict the perpetrators are on. Attempting to justify one side committing those acts whilst holding the other side to task for exactly the same actions is at best hypocrisy and at worst aiding and abetting ...<br><br>THAT's my argument ...<br><br>As for the conclusion that you ascribe to my thinking: "all bomb makers are illegal and should be hunted down and killed even with fixed wing aircraft bombing a neighborhood." -- I have no idea where you could have gleaned that from anything I've written.<br><br>As for the general legality of making bombs in your house, using Keymaker's own legal citation, making bombs in your basement is illegal except under the rare circumstance where one's property or life is under direct threat, and even that legality vanishes once the threat has passed. So it should be more accurate to begin with the premise that all bombmaking is illegal, then test for the rare exception ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 12:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Move this debacle to Provo, Utah.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Okay, your patriot insurgents just set off an IED which missed completely the column of trucks the makers were hoping to destroy and took out a couple carloads of families. oopsey.<br><br>Legal or not?<br><br>How is this any different than a jet pilot who targets an enemy headquarters, but misses and takes out the house full of women and children next door?<br><br>And if one of these is committing a war crime, why should the other be any different?<br><br>And if these *are* crimes, why should only one of the perpetrators be prosecuted and the other be allowed to continue?<br><br>My argument is since they are basically the same actions with the same motivating factors behind them with the same tragic outcomes, they should be treated equally ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Leave the marketplace out of it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I will as soon as it stops being targeted.<br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 01:18 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Okay, your patriot insurgents just set off an IED which missed completely the column of trucks the makers were hoping to destroy and took out a couple carloads of families. oopsey.<br><br>Legal or not?<p><hr></blockquote><p> I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that this is legal. An invading army brings a war upon my native country soil and any attacks from either side are all to blame on the invading army. The Nazis were attacked by underground insurgents in France, Poland, all over the place. Innocent civilians were killed. (Someone please list here the sinking of the Norwegian ferry by insurgents to kill a high ranking Nazi officer while killing many innocent lives on board. It was deemed a necessary act. (Gee, war sucks. We should avoid it.) The Germans then killed civilians in retaliation. All deaths were held against the Germans. No illegal act was taken by the insurgents even though their acts contributed directly to civilian deaths. That's not hard to understand is it? It is war. Not tiddleywinks.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>How is this any different than a jet pilot who targets an enemy headquarters, but misses and takes out the house full of women and children next door?<p><hr></blockquote><p> Because, although you say it is not part of the problem, the initial invasion was illegal. Even if it was "legal" in the sense that the United Nations deemed it necessary, (they did not), the invading Army is still on sovereign soil. Iraq nation sovereign soil. Not American soil. The reason Bush blows off the international court is because he could be brought up on charges of murdering that baby. Why him? He invaded illegally with no consent by the UN and, as it turns out, for no reason.<br><br>Why did coalition forces murder that baby? Why did they invade? The answer to both of those questions are the same. The fact that only George Bush knows the answer is part of the problem which will follow him to his grave.<br><br>Would you think ill of the Iraqi who spits in your eye if you tell him you murdered his mother so that you could fight the terrorist in his country and not yours? You would likely have to kill him to keep him from killing you but what we really should do is apologize and leave. Now.<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 01:47 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Not just property - in the law report I posted, the decision was: <br><br>Held that... the defence of "lawful object" was available to a defendant... if he could satisfy the jury on balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property...<p><hr></blockquote><p>You need to finish that, though with the bit that comes next: "against imminent apprehended attack" and combine it with "Although a person may "make" a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed which made his object lawful, it may cease to be so."<br><br>Which pretty much means that unless they are defending themselves against an imminent or engaged attack against their persons, property or family, the legality of their making bombs at any other time is questionable at best ...<br><br>Never mind that, unless your family or your property happens to be under attack at that spot on the roadside where you're planting that IED (because, if your family is under attack over *there*, why are you planting a bomb to defend them over *here*?), you're seeing why this rationale doesn't scale well at all to an entire theater of conflict ...<br><br>And of course all of this according to a ruling affording legal standing to a man who improvised petrol bombs on the spot to fend off rioters actively attacking himself and his property -- and emphasizing that at time, and pretty much *only* at that time, was such an action justifiable. I'm not sure that if you cited this as precedence in court, the judge would agree that it equally applies to those boys making bombs to plant along the roadside to kill whatever happens to be nearby when the egg timer goes ding.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The dead guys didn't do that though did they<p><hr></blockquote><p>Since we don't have the details, wether or not they had made bombs previously or how they may have been used is unknown. However, I'm inferring from the article that since it mentioned the "bomb-making team" had recently moved up from Baghdad, they were at least engaged in that activity previously. As to wether their devices had been targeted at civilians specifically, or merely murdered them as collateral to targeting military units, we can only speculate ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>they were shot for making bombs which could have been used defensively or offensively.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, from the article, which, again, is our only source of information on this, it appears they were shot for not surrendering in the first place, not letting the women and children leave the building, and then shooting at the SAS as they entered the building. If the article is accurate, I'm imagining that last bit may have been what really sealed their fates. Regardless, it doesn't appear from the article their being shot was a direct result of their making the bombs per se.<br><br>(As for the bombs being used for offensive or "defensive" purposes, it would be interesting to know how that determination would be made at a practical level on the ground. Short of knocking on the front door and asking "So ... whatch'a making the bombs for?", I'm thinking you'd have to walk up to that front door with a fairly hefty amount of backup in case the answer wasn't what you're were expecting. Again from the article, since it seems there were at least some attempts at communications before the attempted entry into the house, how do we know that this kind of determination wasn't exactly what was being attempted? And given the unresponsiveness from those inside, what should have been the next correct course of action? Surely simply leaving them there to continue building bombs is not an acceptable option.)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What has actually happened is that enemy suspects have been dumped at Guantanamo without due process - I really can't remember how many times I've asked for such detainees to brought to a court of law but I can't believe you've missed all of 'em.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah yes, I have seen those. Oddly enough I took them to be a call for those held at Guantanimo to be served their rights under the law, not as a call for them to be hauled off to the Hague (or wherever) and tried as war criminals, and certainly not with the same vehemence and enthusiasm you put into such calls for the coalition folks ...<br><br>You did go into detail of each as to which actions constituted their war crimes, which statutes they should be tried under, and in what specific venues they should be tried, did you? Yes funny I did miss that, I'll have to go look again.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, mistake of fact is a defence to indictable crimes as would be the argument that what you did was an accident.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Awesome! Then I'll be looking for many of the war crimes cases you're calling for to be dismissed summarily on those very grounds.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 03:02 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that this is legal.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Awesome. I take it then, that you would also not consider it to be a war crime. Neither would I. (If he specifically targeted the civilians, though, that would be another matter entirely) ...<br><br>Next question to answer is if the jet pilot has committed a war crime.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>An invading army brings a war upon my native country soil and any attacks from either side are all to blame on the invading army.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Really? ANY attacks? Woohoo! Carte Blanche, baby! <br><br>If Joe Sixpack Patriot Insurgent decides he doesn't like cut of the tunics the prisoners he's just taken are wearing, and he lines those prisoners up against a wall and guns them down in cold blood ... I'm not really thinking anybody on the other side is going to be held responsible for that atrocity ... (nor should they be.) Wether or not Joe Sixpack actually gets tried for his actions will probably depend on who eventually prevails -- if he's on the "winning" side, odds are he's home free -- because, lets face it, as you've pointed out (wether intentionally or not) "war crimes" simply don't exist for the winning side. That doesn't eliminate the fact that he *did* commit that atrocity, though, and *should* be held accountable. This is what I'm saying, and its the reason I'm muddying the waters with my pesky little examples of bombs in marketplaces and on busses and in cafťs -- they may be extreme, but they're actually *happening*, and unlike "normal" combat activity, these incidents ruin the legal perfection of "well, THEY invaded, so basically I'm justified in doing anything I want, because, you know, I'm defending myself".<br><br>And with this conflict, it's possible, just possible, that people who commit such atrocities on *both* sides might be held accountable ... but trying to hold only one side culpable while giving the other a free ride is not acceptable.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's not hard to understand is it? It is war. Not tiddleywinks.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You need to be careful there -- that excuse applies to both sides. And besides the fact that it's true, it also largely renders moot all this talk about legality in the first place -- a battlefield can be a pretty lawless place and lots of [censored] goes down on one that basically laughs at the notion of legal prosecution ...<br><br>So, you're right. It's WAR, man -- [censored] happens! Deal with it!<br><br>Of course, that also makes Keymaker's calls for war crimes prosecutions somewhat ludicrous as well, doesn't it?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Would you think ill of the Iraqi who spits in your eye if you tell him you murdered his mother so that you could fight the terrorist in his country and not yours?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Probably no more ill than the Iraqi who spits in yours when you tell him you just murdered his entire family with a fragmentation bomb you made that blew up outside a busy western hotel -- and then bragged to him about the second bomb you made that went off several minutes later that took out all the rescue services responding to the first one, along with several more bystanders -- because that's just really the only way you could possibly think of to defend yourself against those running dog Americans. Be sure to tell him it's perfectly legal, too. He should appreciate that.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 03:19 PM

<br>OH BOY! A FILIBUSTER! <br><br>Boy, if I only had One Thin DIME for every time I've seen this tactic employed:<br>One side just keeps on & on (and on & on & on & on & on) talking until everyone<br>else simply gives up out of disgust, and walks away. It doesn't take any particular <br>insight, (nor a lick of talent), other than an inability to accept that a topic's already <br>been fully explored from every conceivable angle ........so out comes ye olde standby: <br>That of wearing-down one's opponent in the debate, who has better things to do than to<br>restate the obvious until it's time to resume work the following Monday.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 03:25 PM

If you win the war you are not treated as a war criminal. Correct. No winner of a war was ever treated as a war criminal. If you win a war you get to write the history of the war, even rewriting how the war started blaming someone else if you in fact did start it. Is this news to you?<br><br>That is what Bush expected. To win an easy war. No matter what Carp says, Bush has not won anything. The jury is not in but it looks to be that Iraq will be a humiliating disaster. No matter how the players rewrite it, likely it will be a war that is lost. The only way to win is to win the hearts and minds. I believe only John McCain thinks this possible currently.<br><br>As for the question as to whether the pilot is a war criminal is a point only a lawyer would argue. The pilot will never see a courtroom. Bush needs to see a courtroom but that will never happen either. If you were that baby's father you would know what the answer to your question is.<br><br>What really sucks is that up until 2004 this was Bush's War. That is what Frontline calls it. But the American people re-elected Bush in 2004. It is our war now and we will be held culpable. Besides having to pay our three trillion dollar debt and burying our soldiers we will be treated as a people who are not quite right in the head. What Bush is doing now, with the surge, and the attacks presented in this article is trying to push it out there until after the election so that it is no longer his war at all. Pity the poor fool who becomes President who has to tell us what a waste this all was. That is unless McCain is elected which I can only see as America going from not quite right to totally insane and we will deserve the collapse of our army, and our economy. If that happens our whole country should stand in the docket in the Hague.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/11/08 10:49 PM

[color:blue]a person may "make" a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed...</font color=blue> <br><br>The threat hadn't passed because the SAS came along and shot them.<br><br>[color:blue]Which pretty much means that unless they are defending themselves against an imminent or engaged attack</font color=blue><br><br>The defence requires apprehension of an imminent attack and there is certainly much apprehension in Iraq.<br><br>[color:blue]if your family is under attack over *there*, why are you planting a bomb to defend them over *here*?)</font color=blue><br><br>You keep embarking on things that didn't happen which is not something you can shoot people for.<br><br>[color:blue]all of this according to a ruling affording legal standing to a man who improvised petrol bombs on the spot to fend off rioters actively attacking himself and his property -- and emphasizing that at time, and pretty much *only* at that time, was such an action justifiable.</font color=blue><br><br>No. The Toxteth riots at the centre of the case I cited took place in between 3 and 12 July 1981 during which time his property was attacked. After the event on 13 July he took defensive measures to protect himself and his property because he thought it might happen again. The fact that there were no further attacks is not important to the defence - what matters is that he genuinely believed there would be further attacks which the jury obviously accepted.<br><br>[color:blue]they were shot for not surrendering in the first place</font color=blue><br><br>You can't mean that they were shot for not surrendering? Presumably your point is that had they surrendered they would not have been shot. You don't have to surrender to an adversary - a person acting within his rights is entitled to stand his ground. That's what our friend was doing in the Toxteth riots case.<br><br>[color:blue](As for the bombs being used for offensive or "defensive" purposes, it would be interesting to know how that determination would be made at a practical level on the ground. Short of knocking on the front door and asking "So ... whatch'a making the bombs for?"</font color=blue> <br><br>It's a dilemma but in our own society we presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Summary executions might solve a lot of problems at home but they are not allowed because it becomes the bigger problem that the State itself might be taking innocent life.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: nothin' special - 04/12/08 04:58 AM

This will be my last post in this particular thread since, as has been pointed out, it's rapidly reaching (if it hasn't already) a state of futility on both our parts (but I hope Celandine's enjoying the popcorn ;-)...<br><br>Recapitulating WAY back to my original point before it got sidetracked onto the bomb-making issue:<br><br>Persons committing atrocities upon innocent non-combatants should be held accountable for their actions. This holds regardless of what side of a conflict they may be on, or what the circumstances were that brought them into conflict to begin with. WHY they are in conflict is irrelevant because no reason can excuse the commission of such atrocities.<br><br>Application of calls for war crimes trials must apply equally to both sides of the conflict -- anything less than an equal application necessarily results in the implicit (if not outright explicit) support and approval of one of the sides continuing to commit those atrocities. And that is something I'm sure nobody wants.<br><br>As has been noted previously, historically such an equal application has not happened due to the victors' revising the history to absolve themselves from blame. I'm hoping in this instance there will be enough documentation gathered by outside parties that this cannot be the case. But I ain't holding my breath.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: polymerase

Re: nothin' special - 04/12/08 06:04 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Persons committing atrocities upon innocent non-combatants should be held accountable for their actions. This holds regardless of what side of a conflict they may be on, or what the circumstances were that brought them into conflict to begin with.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Ah, I didn't realize we were dealing with a hypothetical fantasy world. A world where it does not matter why we are fighting a war, referees in striped shirts show up every time a gun is fired and decide who is good and who is bad regardless of why. A world where the losers as well as the winners have equal opportunity to discuss how they have been wronged during a war in an international court.<br><br>Are Easter bunnies used as jurors? <br><br>The United States has invaded a sovereign nation and will likely lose the overall conflict and is led by a President who has flaunted international law and flipped the international courts and the United Nations the bird. But you think, even with that totality of reality you then expect the referees to admonish and find guilty insurgents who are fighting against all of the above?<br><br>If that is true then we really are the most powerful country in the world and can do anything we want without any thought of regress upon us. Bush thinks this so I guess we all should.<br><br>Bravo America. Your arrogance knows no bounds.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: nothin' special - 04/12/08 07:01 AM

[color:blue]Application of calls for war crimes trials must apply equally to both sides of the conflict -- anything less than an equal application necessarily results in the implicit (if not outright explicit) support and approval of one of the sides continuing to commit those atrocities. </font color=blue><br><br>There's not necessarily a moral equivalence between two sides to a dispute as polymerase has pointed out so the same act could be an atrocity when committed by one side but not the other. For example if a burglar attacks a person in his home with a carving knife but the homeowner picks up a carving knife and in the ensuing struggle one of them loses their head in a pool of blood - it's a crime if the head belongs to the homeowner but not if it belongs to the burglar because the homeowner will have acted in self-defence.<br><br>This is rather similar to the situation in Iraq. The coalition were trespassers at the time of the invasion and later blew the legitimacy they gained by UN SC Res 1637 (2005) in exceeding the re-construction mandate by going around killing and torturing people - which made them trespassers all over again. As trespassers coalition forces are answerable for their atrocities but equivalent acts committed against them in proportionate self-defence are lawful by definition.<br><br>km<br><br><br>