One too many!

Posted by: keymaker

One too many! - 05/06/09 09:35 PM

There's been another atrocity in Afghanistan with the US Air Force killing up to 100 civilians in an air strike on Bala Baluk. I'm calling for the culprits to be arrested and prosecuted at the ICC for murder pursuant to Art 7 Statute of Rome.

km
Posted by: starmillway

Re: One too many! - 05/06/09 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
There's been another atrocity in Afghanistan with the US Air Force killing up to 100 civilians in an air strike on Bala Baluk. I'm calling for the culprits to be arrested and prosecuted at the ICC for murder pursuant to Art 7 Statute of Rome.

km


The jury is not in yet on this one:

Quote:
A senior U.S. defense official said late Wednesday that Marine special operations forces believe the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taliban militants, who then loaded some of the bodies into a vehicle and drove them around the village, claiming the dead were victims of an American airstrike.

A second U.S. official said a senior Taliban commander is believed to have ordered the grenade attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Two other senior defense officials said the grenade report comes from villagers interviewed by U.S. investigators who went to the site, but there is no proof yet that the report is right.

If correct, it would be the first time the Taliban has used grenades in this way, presumably to mimic the effect of a bombing.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30579367/

I'll give them a little time to more fully investigate.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/06/09 10:17 PM

Quote:
I'll give them a little time to more fully investigate.

The usual pattern is to deny everything until someone produces incontrovertible evidence and then to retract the denial. That's not the way an investigation is supposed to work - all suspects should be arrested and questioned - not just the dark ones. wink

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 12:44 AM

I believe the US military/government is also entitled to the 'innocent until proven guilty' treatment.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 07:57 AM

Correct - the principle presupposes due process rather than immunity from prosecution.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 11:22 AM

NO the usual pattern is that the Taliban always says its innocent civilians - could be 100 Taliban terrorist for all we know
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 11:43 AM

Quote:
could be 100 Taliban terrorist for all we know

Could be... but Kate's link says that on previous occasions the US military killed innocent civilians and nothing happened about that so I think the time is overdue when we need to start rounding up a few suspects.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 11:47 AM

Collateral damage is always a fact in war - Taliban targets civilians deliberately where is the outrage for that ? What don't you call for their arrest
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 12:08 PM

Quote:
Taliban targets civilians deliberately where is the outrage for that ? What don't you call for their arrest

Well, what Afghan nationals get up to in their own country is a matter for the Afghan authorities.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Taliban targets civilians deliberately where is the outrage for that ? What don't you call for their arrest

Well, what Afghan nationals get up to in their own country is a matter for the Afghan authorities.

km


I see

So your saying that the Taliban can murder its own civilians even if they are no longer their government <-- Okay Pal
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/07/09 06:54 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Well, what Afghan nationals get up to in their own country is a matter for the Afghan authorities.

I see... So your saying that the Taliban can murder its own civilians even if they are no longer their government

No, I'm saying that what Afghan nationals get up to in their own country is a matter for the Afghan authorities.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/08/09 05:45 AM

Quote:
No, I'm saying that what Afghan nationals get up to in their own country is a matter for the Afghan authorities.


Well, if they're suspected of committing war crimes and the domestic government declines to do anything about it, those crimes become an international matter ...

Regardless, what I believe Carp was getting at is that we haven't seen many posts from you demanding even the Afghan government, much less the international community, round up a few Taliban suspects and put them on trial for war crimes ...
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/08/09 12:39 PM

Correct

Not to mention that the Taliban are not even the Afgan government but also attack from inside Pakistan , so that alone is international .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 12:02 PM

Quote:
what I believe Carp was getting at is that we haven't seen... you demanding even the Afghan government... round up a few Taliban suspects

No that's not right... what I said was that "all suspects should be arrested and questioned...".

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 12:28 PM

Well it turns out after another day of investigation

1 - Afghan ground forces Karzai forces "directed" the air strike during a running battle with Taliban militants . This means the Afghans told the US where to bomb

2 - Afghan villagers eyewitness reported that Taliban militants rounded up and forced villagers into houses where they were attacking the Afghan forces from = human shields

If anyone should be arrested is the Taliban for using human shields - Keep in mind that the Taliban knows the civilian are upset over collateral deaths so they deliberately create more to gain local suport
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 12:40 PM

Quote:
it turns out after another day of investigation 1 - Afghan ground forces Karzai forces "directed" the air strike during a running battle with Taliban militants . This means the Afghans told the US where to bomb

Turns out? Your assertions haven't been very reliable in the past so I think we need to start with what you're relying on when you say "turns out"?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 01:22 PM

Here

Quote:
when the governor called in pro-government troops to repel Taliban fighters who had been harassing locals and firing at police. A joint Afghan and U.S. patrol battled with the militants for several hours in two villages before calling for airstrikes.


Quote:
"Reports also indicate that Taliban fighters deliberately forced villagers into houses from which they then attacked ANSF and Coalition forces."


Quote:
U.S. officials have said for months that Taliban fighters are acutely aware of the public anger that civilian casualties cause and actively seek to encourage such deaths to increase


Quote:
A military statement describing the initial results of the investigation condemned Taliban militants for deliberately targeting Afghan civilians and using them as human shields.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 01:41 PM

I didn't think you'd provide a link. Having sourced your first quotation we see that it's quite unreliable - one of US origin whistle lacking any credibility for no man should be a judge in his own cause.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 02:00 PM

Any link that does not support your views is unreliable - hence why I did not post it the first time

Keep in mind that Afghans did the reporting , the link is just the messenger .
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 03:37 PM

Quote:
No that's not right... what I said was that "all suspects should be arrested and questioned...".


Well, your OP cites an alleged atrocity committed by the US Air Force followed by a demand that "the culprits" be arrested and brought to trial ... no demand, however, that the Taliban who allegedly beheaded villagers in the same incident or used them as human shields be similarly brought to trial ...

However, I guess I'm still missing a "One too many!" post in which you demand -- with similar fervor you grace your many, many demands to arrest US personnel -- the arrest and prosecution of Taliban culprits for similar alleged war crimes ...

Your demands seem pretty one-sided I guess would be the point ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 03:40 PM

Quote:
Having sourced your first quotation we see that it's quite unreliable - one of US origin


"A joint U.S.-Afghan investigation has found that civilians were killed several days ago in airstrikes against Taliban forces."

Seems to me if the information was unreliable, the Afghans would disavow the findings ...
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 05:03 PM

To make matters worse , Muslim tradition is to bury the dead almost immediately which would make investigation difficult on who was killed

Quote:
"Following the fighting, Afghan officials also confirmed the Taliban fighters loaded two trucks with bodies and forced elders to parade them through villages to incite outrage among villagers," he said.


The question still remains who killed those civilians and I bet it was the Taliban to anger the village or were they Militants that were killed and told the village they were civilians ?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 08:45 PM

Quote:
OP cites an alleged atrocity committed by the US Air Force followed by a demand that "the culprits" be arrested and brought to triall

That's right... the police chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar said that "the air strikes killed about 120 civilians" which Hillary said she deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply regretted... I'm not sure - there might be a few too many deeplies in there. Let's just say that the US Air Force is implicated in an incident over which the ICC has jurisdiction. Of course that should be invoked if what happened in the past is repeated - that Karai's puppet government delays, prevaricates and does nothing about it.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 08:50 PM

Like I said, your concerns seem decidedly one-sided ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 08:50 PM

Quote:
The question still remains who killed those civilians and I bet it was the Taliban to anger the village or were they Militants that were killed and told the village they were civilians ?

Ah, no I think you might be overlooking his extract that: "A joint U.S.-Afghan investigation has found that civilians were killed several days ago in airstrikes against Taliban forces."

When all reports and circumstances are taken into account there are ample grounds for the pilots and ground forces involved to be arrested and put on trial.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:05 PM

Quote:
Seems to me if the information was unreliable, the Afghans would disavow the findings

What they usually do is play for time and hope that everyone forgets about what happened.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Like I said, your concerns seems decidedly one-sided ...


Correct and is well known

Its like the Nazis can come back and murder German citizens at will , its all okay but once the West gets involved and saves present day Germany from murderers , the US should be tried as criminals
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:11 PM

Quote:
When all reports and circumstances are taken into account there are ample grounds for the pilots and ground forces involved to be arrested and put on trial.


Again you show your bias - what about the Taliban who used the civilians as human shields and may as some suspect murder the civilians to up the counts .

Yet you make no mention about arresting the Taliban - Your to shallow , sorry hate to say it
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:17 PM

Quote:
Quote:
your concerns seems decidedly one-sided ...

Correct and is well known

That's right... if one side is to blame everyone's concerns should be one-sided.

Frankly, you and six are coming across as willing to forgive the most appalling criminality just because those responsible happen to be of your own nationality.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:23 PM

Quote:
what about the Taliban who used the civilians as human shields

You need to distinguish between factual information and propaganda. An impartial court like the ICC can only proceed on the former because that which is alleged has to be proved.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Quote:
your concerns seems decidedly one-sided ...

Correct and is well known

That's right... if one side is to blame everyone's concerns should be one-sided.

Frankly, you and six are coming across as willing to forgive the most appalling criminality just because those responsible happen to be of your own nationality.

km


And that bias site is the result of this

Quote:
"Following the fighting, Afghan officials also confirmed the Taliban fighters loaded two trucks with bodies and forced elders to parade them through villages to incite outrage among villagers," he said.


Your Bias is believing the Taliban are the true angles
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:40 PM

Quote:
Frankly, you and six are coming across as willing to forgive the most appalling criminality just because those responsible happen to be of your own nationality.


Your wrong again
It was the Afghan National Defense Force and Coalition forces that called in the air strike

Why do you constantly feel the Taliban can murder anyone more so citizens at well and have full right to do so ? They are not the government of Afghanistan and they are operating from Pakistan , they beat women in public "TORTURE" they shoot men and women in public for small "alleged crimes" like infidelity <<--- you love to back up this travesty therefore are you one of them ? ?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:40 PM

Quote:
"Following the fighting, Afghan officials also confirmed the Taliban fighters loaded two trucks with bodies and forced elders to parade them through villages to incite outrage among villagers," he said.

That's what Sgt Chuck Marsh said - no one's going to take any notice of his unattrubuted ramblings. What Afghan officials? That's a good example actually of what I meant by propaganda.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:44 PM

Like what Six said the Afghans are not disputing the evidence

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 09:56 PM

Quote:
it was the Afghan National Defense Force and Coalition forces that called in the air strike

For your information the US Air Force does not accept the command of any foreign agency - those decisions are always made by American personnel.

Quote:
Why do you constantly feel the Taliban can murder anyone more so citizens

I don't know whether you read The Independent article I put up but the evidence is becoming overwhelming that the US Air Force killed about 147 civilians including women and children sheltering in mud built houses in three villages. Pilots directed to commit war crimes have a duty to decline their orders or face the consequences.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/09/09 10:41 PM

Quote:
That's right... if one side is to blame everyone's concerns should be one-sided.


Given that civilian casualties in Afghanistan are attributable to both sides about equally, I'd say this proposition is without foundation ...

Quote:
Frankly, you and six are coming across as willing to forgive the most appalling criminality ...


And on that baseless low-note, I'll leave you to it, since I really don't see this discussion going anywhere uphill from here ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 01:14 AM

Quote:
Given that civilian casualties in Afghanistan are attributable to both sides about equally, I'd say this proposition is without foundation ...

? Your link doesn't say anything about the atrocity at Bala Baluk. In fact it's dated 17 February 2009 long before it even happened. What it does do is express alarm at the rising civilian death toll pointing out that:

"air-strikes were responsible for the largest percentage, some 64 per cent, of civilian deaths... last year."

and demanding that pro government forces

"take all necessary measures to avoid the killing of civilians.”

If your own link can say:

"Afghans are, rightly, calling for greater accountability" by pro-government forces and "precautionary measures to safeguard the lives of civilians"

I'm not entirely clear on why you have a problem when I say it. Greater accountability includes rounding up and prosecuting the suspects. These are very grave crimes - repeating them time and time again and doing nothing about it apart from saying how deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply regrettable they are is not an option under the Rome Statute.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 04:04 AM

Quote:
Your link doesn't say anything about the atrocity at Bala Baluk. In fact it's dated 17 February 2009 long before it even happened.


That's because Carp and I haven't been talking about only this specific thread, but the overall trend of your posts on this kind of subject that largely ignores the role the Taliban play in civilian atrocities ... if you wish to address this incident specifically: where is your indignation in the same link you provided of the Taliban beheading villagers, for example -- and where are your demands they be prosecuted for such crimes?

Quote:
"air-strikes were responsible for the largest percentage, some 64 per cent, of civilian deaths... last year."


Well, you edited-out an important part of that citation -- to fill in your ellipses: "of civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces" ... meaning that *of the casualties attributed to pro-government forces*, 64% can be attributed to air strikes. This does nothing to refute the fact that 55% of ALL civilian casualties are attributed to anti-government forces ...

Which means your assertion that only one side is to blame for such casualties is baseless ...

Quote:
I'm not entirely clear on why you have a problem when I say it.


I don't have a problem when you say this. I do take issue that you seem to *only* say it about one side.

Quote:
These are very grave crimes - repeating them time and time again and doing nothing about it apart from saying how deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply regrettable they are is not an option under the Rome Statute.


And this applies to all sides. Where are even regrets from the Taliban? And where are your posts *demanding* they be held to account?

It's not that I support one side or the other necessarily -- it's my wondering why you choose to selectively condemn alleged atrocities of just one side while not holding to account the deaths caused by the other side, which represent a majority of the casualties ...

Just seems a little one-sided, is all I'm saying ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 05:00 AM

Quote:
where is your indignation in the same link you provided of the Taliban beheading villagers, for example

Any such incidents are a matter for the Afghan authorities. The ICC can't intervene unless presented with evidence that those authorities are in some way shielding the perpetrators which I don't think anyone is suggesting.

Quote:
you edited-out an important part of that citation

No, I edited out an unimportant part of the citation. The point I'm making is that in your link the UN called for action and accountability to prevent civilian deaths and that nothing was done in that respect with regard to the atrocity at Bala Baluk.

Quote:
Which means your assertion that only one side is to blame for such casualties is baseless

No, my comment related to the incident at Bala Baluk in relation to which my comment is amply justified. Unlike alleged Taleban actions which are primarily domestic crimes US actions are international ones and fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Quote:
Where are even regrets from the Taliban? And where are your posts *demanding* they be held to account?

Actually I called for all suspects to be arrested as I've already pointed out. Beyond that I wouldn't seek to interfere in the internal affairs of a State doing everything in it's power to bring suspects to account. I would interfere, however, when I sense institutional complicity and acquiescence in the murder of innocent civilians.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 06:49 AM

I haven't read the entire he said/she said
but here's one quick aside:

If we expect to actually win (this unwinnable ground war)
it's going to be by "Winning the Hearts & Minds"
IOW even if it's purely propaganda, we need the VILLAGERS
To VIEW US AS "THE GOOD GUYS" in order for them to prefer
our presence to that of the Taliban (who're beheading them) wink

BOMBING the Villagers 'in order to save them'
didn't work in Viet Nam ...... and guess wot....?
Posted by: bird

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 08:46 AM

Quote:
BOMBING the Villagers 'in order to save them'
didn't work in Viet Nam ...... and guess wot....?


Once again your spot on Kiddo. That writing was on our History wall......but as they say history does repeat it self
Especially when the powers ignore what the past has taught us if we chose to learn.
"Bring um on" *Sigh*

We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government --
signs for all to see.

Ah the wars they will
be fought again
The holy dove
She will be caught again
bought and sold
and bought again
as Leonard Cohen sings in Anthem

the dove is never free. frown
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 09:18 AM


you know...
...you're making me a real Leonard Cohen fan

YouTUBE Linky
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 11:49 AM

Yeah, Vietnam's a pretty entrepeneurial place these days. Entrepeneurship comes about with property rights from which is based, or property rights come about from the need for entrepeneurialism, to lift a nation from poverty. With prosperity, children change from servile assets to expensive kids requiring education, healthcare, etc, thus reducing population growth.

I would guess that the environmental returns on population reduction and prosperity would be quicker and greater than any from something more ineffectual, such as the Kyoto Protocol, especially when emerging countries can just leapfrog to cheaper, greater efficiencies (such as the famous post-WWII scratch build of cheap foreign steel, or today with cheaper, more efficient drip irrigation), or to disruptive or revolutionary innovations, or the marginally suspect (such as grain ethanol), especially in light of recognition of resource shock recession that much of the developed world is mired in legacy baggage.

So, the democratization of the world is pretty key, since the state of property rights in the world is pretty abyssmal. The world's dead capital, the value of the land in the world that is not legally owned by the individual(s) equals the total value of the companies in the stock exchanges of the world's developed countries.

It's 46X the World Bank loans of the past three decades, 93X all development assistance to the developing nations from all advanced countries during the past thirty years. There would be little need for aid if the asset value of dead capital was available to the poor of oppressive countries.

However, bombing countries into democracy is no way to accomplish this.

With the global penetration and ubiquity of the internet, mobile web and cellphones, the certainty of unsustainable disparities in expectations/realities differentials, recognition of alternatives, recognition of hope, the dreaded capacity to dream, the ability/means/tools to organize, the more catalytic nature of the transformation of the global village into the global theater, revolution will foment. People turn from faith in their unanswering gods to faith in fertilizer, or selling neighborhood cellphone time. The U.N. perhaps needs to cast off its impotent testicles and grow a pair, and put its full might behind just wars of the populist will.

The revolution will not be televised. It will be uploaded, emailed, modulated and demodulated, digitally converted, etc. It will eventually be a distributive entrepeneurial capitalism, quicker, better, and with even more benefits of scale than conventional state capitalism.

Ed
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 12:22 PM

Compare Vietnam and Afghanistan , not to sure

1 - They are very different wars waged on very different reasons

2 - Mind set one is religious the other ideological

The only similarities is bullets are used

Maybe you could compare the Russia Afghan War ? that would make more sense
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 01:24 PM

The theocracy, ideology, whateverocracyology that ultimately wins is property, opportunity, betterment.

Only monks and bureaucrats pray to some semblance of their true gods and demagogues.

Everybody else, much to the consternation of monks and bureaucrats, pray to a heavenly bellhop or benevolent daddy.

They eventually recognize that property and opportunity delivers the goods, and without some massive tip required, such as their children, etc.

Property, opportunity, betterment, capitalism, making a living requires no propaganda. It's a virus - It just works - It's a natural impetus of man.

Ed
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 02:00 PM


[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSDhlnm0e0[/video]
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 02:06 PM


With the dominant population growth of nations
subsisting on almost nothing but bamboo... all
I'll say is the West better watch their grass. wink
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 03:46 PM

Just heard on the news no link yet

Pakistan is saying that Taliban is murdering Pakistani civilians and blaming the government for collateral casualties ? I guess the apple from the tree don't fall to far from Swat Valley to Afghanistan .

I call for all Taliban leaders to be charged with war crimes
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 04:46 PM


No worries, Mate

If it can be proven
I'll gladly volunteer to pull the switch myself! grin
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 04:48 PM

I suppose this goes against the Geneva conventions (but perhaps not a war on terror), but suspect with Taliban leaders and cadre, that any extermination may require systemic, i.e., identification and extermination of male lineage and relatives, if they are 'family heritage/business' oriented as Latino cartels.

This applies only to leaders and cadre - Followers are like everyone else, they follow, they're human, and make do as best they can under changed circumstances.

This is why some nations are more favored for outsourcing, like China, than others - They don't get hung up on family stuff, feud, disrupt supply/production ecosystem continuity, etc - Business is business.

However, in other countries' leaders and cadres, vendettas, feuds, etc, occur. They cannot let go of insanity.

And so, you have to avoid the problems, or vertically integrate your system, or as in the case of the Taliban, perhaps systemically eliminate the problems. Remember, despite millennia of history and past civilizations, many of these countries are now stuck in primitive social organizations and conventions at the mercy of a relatively few feudal familial hierarchies.

So, this madness has existed for millennia, and so the question is do you allow it to continue, or do you end it somehow. What are the acceptable options? This was a common attempted solution in the ancient barbaric world, because it was an ancient barbaric world. Now we face a modern barbaric world.

Ed
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 05:16 PM

except for the Tong Wars
but they were more Gang Related than clans or families

The Jews had an interesting way to settle disputes.
Courts that prescribed a system of payments for wrongs
committed that would be handled more like debts that
were paid off and everyone could go away satisfied.
(Example: Exodus 21:13-36)

Maybe something like that could be instituted to wipe
away (satisfy) these long-standing family/tribal feuds.
Everybody agrees to take away what they can and make
a fresh start of it.
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 05:44 PM

Well, I guess since no democratic countries, including ours, really adhere to an abhorrence of a landed gentry, that could work smile

Ed
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 05:58 PM

Unfortunately, the Afghans have a lot going against them
Not the least of which is the weather & terrain that isolates
families, clans & villages without any centralized ruler
to adjudicate or mediate disputes.

Another unfortunate circumstance is their location itself.
As harsh as the terrain is, EVERYBODY WANTS IT!
it's located at a crossroad between larger, more powerful
centralized civilizations to the East & West who need
to cross through their land to establish trade routes.

Of course, those powerful (greedy) groups invariably try
to simply seize their land... which (as I'm sure you know)
historically ALWAYS ended badly.

Which brings us to the last problem... their CONSTANT State
of War which is why they never get a chance "to get their
shiit together."

People tend to overlook that it was bin Laden working for
us against the Soviet Union that brought the once mighty
world power to it's knees... ...only to get screwed by
Haliburten who wanted to suck out Russian oil through
Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea. When they tried to cheat
him, he decided to change the deal and go with a Venezuela
Oil Company instead. Long story short... The BUSH Cartel
put out a Hit on bin Laden, how figured he'd put out his
OWN "Hit" ... and what he hit was The Twin Towers...
The rest (as the saying goes) ~ Is History ~

** "It's the Oil, Stupid"
by Noam Chomsky
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Celandine

No worries, Mate

If it can be proven
I'll gladly volunteer to pull the switch myself! grin


No problem just trying to keep the Bullshiit fair laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 08:43 PM

Quote:
I call for all Taliban leaders to be charged with war crimes

Yeah wh... Mohammad Omar and Baitullah Mahsud? I think you're living in a bit of a fantasy world there - no one even knows where they are.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 08:49 PM

Afghanistan does not have oil stupid laugh and Noam Chomsky is an idiot . LOL

Anyway I agree with what you wrote in this

Quote:
Unfortunately, the Afghans have a lot going against them
Not the least of which is the weather & terrain that isolates
families, clans & villages without any centralized ruler
to adjudicate or mediate disputes.

Another unfortunate circumstance is their location itself.
As harsh as the terrain is, EVERYBODY WANTS IT!
it's located at a crossroad between larger, more powerful
centralized civilizations to the East & West who need
to cross through their land to establish trade routes.

Of course, those powerful (greedy) groups invariably try
to simply seize their land... which (as I'm sure you know)
historically ALWAYS ended badly.

Which brings us to the last problem... their CONSTANT State
of War which is why they never get a chance "to get their
shiit together."

People tend to overlook that it was bin Laden working for
us against the Soviet Union that brought the once mighty
world power to it's knees.


Okay so Russia would hire a American company - LOL - ya reading to much of those conspiracy theory fantasies

Quote:
only to get screwed by
Haliburten who wanted to suck out Russian oil through
Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea.


Al-Queada is only about MONEY as mercenaries - they have nothing to do with oil , land or even religion
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I call for all Taliban leaders to be charged with war crimes

Yeah wh... Mohammad Omar and Baitullah Mahsud? I think you're living in a bit of a fantasy world there - no one even knows where they are.

km


Correct
So if Mohammad Omar and Baitullah Mahsud should show up in the UK arrest them for war crimes
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/10/09 09:12 PM

Quote:
if Mohammad Omar and Baitullah Mahsud should show up in the UK arrest them for war crimes

Okay, we'll need a few specifics - which ones? Please supply what details you have of their involvement.

km
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 12:04 AM

Er, uh, Carp, it's about the straws, at least with a straw from Azerbaijan and Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan or India, although the west and oil companies prefer straws from the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and Georgia and on to the Black Sea over one through Afghanistan. Bypassing Russia and Iran breaks the monopoly on regional energy supplies.

With Iraq, it's just about the oil, the second largest reserves in the world.

Hopefully, there might be a break in this vicious partnered cycle of machinations from WWII. Surprisingly, Nixon had a wonderful opportunity, but detente failed with his ouster over Watergate, and a new batch of Cold Warriors returned to the old patterns of hyping threats and stoking paranoia.

In 1975, with Gerald Ford confronting Ronald Reagan on the Right, many key figures associated with detente were purged, while hard-liners were given key jobs. The Halloween Massacre saw Henry Kissinger, the chief architect of detente, stripped of his post as national security adviser to be replaced by Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Schlesinger was toast as Defense Secretary while Donald Rumsfeld was in, CIA Director William Colby lost his job to George H.W. Bush, and Dick Cheney was promoted to Ford’s White House chief of staff.

So, as Ford struggled in primaries against Reagan, detente was banished from the lexicon. Then, to further appease the Right, Bush let a right-wing panel of outsiders critique the work of CIA analysts who had been detecting a declining Soviet threat.

The outsiders, "Team B", including a young neocon Paul Wolfowitz, tore into the CIA professionals and insisted that the Soviet Union was rapidly outstripping the United States as a strategic power. "Team B" concluded that the Soviets were building a new generation of terrifying weapons.

Of course, we know who was right, as USSR and its fantasy weapons and strengths collapsed in 1989, to the then-FUBAR'd CIA's surprised humiliation, although Reagan was roundly hailed in the media as the savior of the west for his vast military spending, Star Wars, etc.

Oops, sorry about that offtrack, but the point is that NeoCons amplified and exacerbated machinations begun decades prior (noting how many retreads showed up in Bush's terms), regarding Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Russia, NATO, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, etc.

It's about the oil. It is also becoming about water. The next epoch may be known as the Resource Wars Period.

Ed

All these guys, and Putin, Taliban, whoever, need a good shot of MDMA to cure em of what's illin em.

Oh yeah, can't resist - Here's another fine example of fallacies being more important than facts, the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's journals cite that he most admired FDR and aspired to be a president like him, but apparently swallowed the lies or lunacy of the right and assumed a greater responsibility to defend his country. So, now we have this everlasting great Ronald Reagan myth, and under the myth, a man himself victim to a myth.

Fallacies are more important than facts. As McLuhan said, "If you don't like those, I have more."
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 06:01 AM

Originally Posted By: soulotomy

Oops, sorry about that offtrack, but the point is that NeoCons amplified and exacerbated machinations begun decades prior (noting how many retreads showed up in Bush's terms), regarding Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Russia, NATO, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, etc.

It's about the oil. It is also becoming about water. The next epoch may be known as the Resource Wars Period.

Ed

All these guys, and Putin, Taliban, whoever, need a good shot of MDMA to cure em of what's illin em.

Oh yeah, can't resist - Here's another fine example of fallacies being more important than facts, the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's journals cite that he most admired FDR and aspired to be a president like him, but apparently swallowed the lies or lunacy of the right and assumed a greater responsibility to defend his country. So, now we have this everlasting great Ronald Reagan myth, and under the myth, a man himself victim to a myth.

Fallacies are more important than facts. As McLuhan said, "If you don't like those, I have more."


Nice to finally meet someone else who saw through the
Ronald Reagan MYTH & the part GWHBush played in creating it.

You must admit that he managed to keep such a low profile
at the time, that most people scarcely recall who was the
Oil-Soaked-War-Profiteer setting up the Iran/Panama connection,
selling WoMD to Sodamn Insane and inflating the Arms Budget
developing the Star Wars Initiative that's also still cropping
up "as re-treads" ever since. Even though the MicroWave
Technology "never got of the ground" it still has the potential
to selectively heat the Earth's Atmosphere...

Which indeed brings us to inevitable "The Resource Wars"

~ Land ~ Water ~ & finally ~ FOOD & FOOD PRODUCTION ~
"Weed" Killers that kill every other edible plant on Earth, Except
for the PATENTED, Genetically Modified Super-Crops copyrighted
and Controlled by a single company and Sold
(forced upon) Farmers WORLD-WIDE as the "SAVIOR of MANKIND"


Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 06:13 AM


Damn... I nearly forgot to mention...

having put his PinHeaded Son in office to continue the Legacy,
and how (even as his tenure came to a close) managed to re-ignite
the COLD WAR with this BS Missle-Shield in Eastern Europe to
give us an excuse to fight a "Righteous War to Free Georgia"
(of it's natural Resources).

BTW...
maybe it's post-Bush-paranoia ... BUT
WTF ARE WE DOING IN AFGHANISTAN???
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 09:40 AM

Spoken like a true Taliban supporter. I hear they don't like The Gay, either.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 10:04 AM



was that trip really necessary?

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 10:17 AM

Quote:
Gay

Gay? No I was just asking because I don't think the ICC would be able to act on what carp was talking about... too vague.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 11:34 AM

You mean vague like this

Quote:
There's been another atrocity in Afghanistan with the US Air Force killing up to 100 civilians in an air strike on Bala Baluk. I'm calling for the culprits to be arrested and prosecuted at the ICC for murder pursuant to Art 7 Statute of Rome.


There is no evidence that 100 civilians were killed or how many were Taliban . They all were buried before any investigation . Keep in mind that the air force was supporting Afghan government troops and joint coalition forces on order from the governor

I am calling for the leaders of the Taliban who used Afghan civilians as human shields and those that murder civilians to increase body counts be tried by the ICC
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Spoken like a true Taliban supporter. I hear they don't like The Gay, either.


They don't hate gays they just shoot them if suspect as being gay . I believe they shot 2 men a few weeks ago on suspicion alone .
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 12:19 PM

Yes it was, since you just had to know.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 12:20 PM

Quote:
They all were buried before any investigation

That'll do - murder.

Quote:
Keep in mind that the air force was supporting Afghan government troops and joint coalition forces on order from the governor

Not good enough - the governor has no authority to order a war crime.

Quote:
I am calling for the leaders of the Taliban who used Afghan civilians as human shields and those that murder civilians

We need a few details - at the moment we haven't got enough to go on.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 12:49 PM

Quote:
That'll do - murder.


How do you know ? ?

Quote:
Not good enough - the governor has no authority to order a war crime.


LOL

Who said the governor ordered a war crime - again your assuming
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 01:08 PM

Quote:
Quote:
That'll do - murder.

How do you know ? ?

I'm saying what the charge should be... whether anyone's guilty is a question for the court. To justify the arrests and prosecution though we have identifiable suspects, named victims, mass burials, injured survivors, eyewitness accounts including those of Afghan officials and US admissions that civilians were killed in the strikes.

Quote:
Who said the governor ordered a war crime

You did.

km




Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 04:01 PM

Quote:
To justify the arrests and prosecution though we have identifiable suspects, named victims, mass burials, injured survivors, eyewitness accounts including those of Afghan officials and US admissions that civilians were killed in the strikes.


Correct and they all point to the Taliban forcing civilians as human shield

Quote:
You did.


Show me where I said the governor ordered war crimes ?
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 04:06 PM

Quote:
because I don't think the ICC would be able to act on what carp was talking about... too vague.
So why bother calling upon them for any action against the Taliban? No need for outrage or protest because you don't think the ICC can act on it? Convenient, eh? Saves all that gnashing of teeth.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 08:11 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the ICC would be able to act on what carp was talking about... too vague.

So why bother calling upon them for any action against the Taliban?

That was carp - yeah, good question.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/11/09 08:36 PM

Quote:
Quote:
we have identifiable suspects, named victims, mass burials, injured survivors, eyewitness accounts including those of Afghan officials and US admissions that civilians were killed in the strikes.

Correct and they all point to the Taliban forcing civilians as human shield

That's not a defence - killing human shields overseas is an international crime.

Quote:
Show me where I said the governor ordered war crimes ?

Don't you remember? You said "the air force was supporting Afghan government troops and joint coalition forces on order from the governor".

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 01:43 AM

Quote:
That's not a defence - killing human shields overseas is an international crime.


Actually, the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population. I'm not really sure anybody's been convicted of a war crime for targeting a military objective and killing civilians hostages they didn't even know were there ...

Quote:
Don't you remember? You said "the air force was supporting Afghan government troops and joint coalition forces on order from the governor".


The interpretation that war crimes were committed is one that *you* are making -- Carp never said any such thing. You're putting words in other people's mouths here ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 01:56 AM

Apparently the outrage at acts that may constitute war crimes extends only so far as the alleged perpetrator is civilized enough to actually bear some sort of responsibility to the international community.

I guess if you're a fairly lawless organization committing such acts in a region unable to effectively hold them to account, it's hardly worth mentioning, if not writing them off completely as "internal matters" unworthy of attention ...

The mental gymnastic needed to pin accountability entirely one side of the conflict while not caring less about the actions of the other side is pretty mind-boggling ... Fascinating to witness the attempt, though ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:55 AM

Unless we're talking about a Taliban/Al Qaeda supporter, in which case the mind-boggling becomes the predictable, and the fascinating becomes the obvious. And that's what I believe we're dealing with here.
Posted by: Lea

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 06:06 AM


That and a political forum that's beginning to suffocate.

We need fresh blood, fresh air and fresh topics.

I'm pretty sure there's a "one too many" joke in there somewhere, but I haven't had enough café mocha and I've read too much of this mind numbing, hair splitting, OP* ego driven thread.


* OP ~ To clarify, stands for Original Poster. But y'all already knew that . . .





Posted by: polymerase

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 07:04 AM

What is ridiculous is that KM brings a very pointed other opinion to the forum and the argument degrades into stupidity quickly by bringing in extraneous BS like gays or that he is a lover of the Taliban. I may not agree with his opinion but he is not the one looking like an idiot. If you cannot argue with him I would suggest not arguing with him.

Myself, I would like to hear other opinions. Can anyone disagree that killing a hundred unarmed civilians is not a good tactic to win over a populace? The Taliban certainly understand that. If they are killing and dragging bodies in and blaming the US that is the downside to the USA blowing up a lot of civilian houses.

The solution is to stop bombing and get out of the country. Obama should announce that today. He made a mistake. We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. There is no good end to it by using bombs. But even if I stupid enough to agree with a strategy of bombing the Taliban out of existence KM brings nothing up in this thread that is offensive. It is just another opinion.

Karzai called in our bombers. Let him kill his own people with his own bombs.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 08:40 AM

Quote:
Actually, the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population

I disagree. In any event US actions have gone beyond that. A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity and is answerable to a charge of murder - Art 7 Statute of Rome mentioned in my OP.

Quote:
The interpretation that war crimes were committed is one that *you* are making -- Carp never said any such thing. You're putting words in other people's mouths here

Carp is seeking to excuse the pilots' actions on the basis, as he claims, that they were responding to an invitation from the "governor" to aim lethal rocket fire on residential homes. Any such invitation to a pilot should be refused because acceptance makes him liable to prosecution at the ICC.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 10:40 AM

Quote:
A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity and is answerable to a charge of murder - Art 7 Statute of Rome mentioned in my OP.


Your assuming again , you have no proof who was killed in those huts and again the Air Force was directed to target those homes by Afghan and coalition ground forces . The pilots did not fly in and say hey there are civilians lets bomb them

Quote:
Any such invitation to a pilot should be refused because acceptance makes him liable to prosecution at the ICC.


What a silly statement - LOL
For all the pilots knew they were directed to hit an enemy target - Now if you can tell me that the pilots were told to hit a target filled with civilians then you are correct
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 10:45 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population
I disagree.


Article 51, Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977:

"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

Quote:
A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity


Not in all circumstances, the most obvious of which would be if there are opposing forces occupying the structure and/or are using it for military purposes ...

Quote:
Carp is seeking to excuse the pilots' actions on the basis ...


Again, that's you applying your interpretation onto what Carp said. *He* never said the Governor ordered war crimes.
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 10:58 AM

Quote:
The solution is to stop bombing and get out of the country.


I see , so let the Taliban go into villages and shoot civilians and police at will , humm okay but wait thats what they were doing before the bombings . So stopping the bombing does nothing in fact the bombing follows the Taliban atrocities were they go bombs follow

Quote:
Karzai called in our bombers. Let him kill his own people with his own bombs.


That would be correct - Now even Karzai said himself the real solution is the Afghan army becomes strong enough to defend itself . I don't know why its taking so long to get up to size and strength by now ? ? But once that happens the US can get out of there
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 11:04 AM

Quote:
Again, that's you applying your interpretation onto what Carp said. *He* never said the Governor ordered war crimes.


I hate when someone puts words in my mouth

I am not making excuses for anyone , just pointing out km assuming the US committed war crimes when the the real criminal was the Taliban
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 12:09 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population

I disagree.

Article 51, Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977: "7. The presence or movements of the civilian population

I'm aware of the provision but your statement about its effect is incorrect. The Geneva Conventions operate against states not individuals. The Statute of Rome which is operational against individuals incorporates certain of the Geneva provisions but not the one you're citing. That's excluded because its subordinate to the overriding prohibition against attacks on civilians in all circumstances.

Other reason why the ICC can't act on carp's suggestion is that the Statute of Rome requires it to give way to the Afghan authorities under the principle of 'complemetarity'. Furthermore, that in any case it's a load of baloney traceable to an uncorroborated inadmissible hearsay statement of Chuck Marsh. Even if the court had jurisdiction, which it doesn't, I think it would need something a bit more substantial than what Chuck Marsh makes up for gullible consumers of the US media.

Quote:
Quote:
A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity

Not in all circumstances

I'm talking about the circumstances of the case - Bala Baluk where 147 civilians including women and children were killed and others maimed in private homes - which ones are you talking about?

Quote:
the most obvious of which would be if there are opposing forces occupying the structure and/or are using it for military purposes

No, that's contradicted by the Statute of Rome, Art 8.

Quote:
Again, that's you applying your interpretation onto what Carp said. *He* never said the Governor ordered war crimes.

Well, obviously one has to join up his allegation, unsupported though it is, that the Air Force was acting on directions of the "governor" with what those directions were namely to bomb residential homes which happens to be a war crime. The pilots are unswerable for their actions whether they acted on invitation or otherwise - Statute of Rome Art 8(2)(a)(i):

"wilful killing"

and 8(2)(b(ii):

"intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities"

as well as 8(2)(b)(iv):

"intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians..."

Now we all know that carp is trying to wriggle out of the fact that US pilots are answerable for their actions in Afghanistan before the ICC. His argument that they were under orders or directed by Afghan officials isn't good enough - it's never been a defence to murder to say "someone else is also guilty".

km

Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 12:45 PM

Quote:
Well, obviously one has to join up his allegation, unsupported though it is, that the Air Force was acting on directions of the "governor" with what those directions were namely to bomb residential homes which happens to be a war crime. The pilots are unswerable for their actions whether they acted on invitation or otherwise - Statute of Rome Art 8(2)(a)(i):


1st - Again I did not say the governor ordered war crimes - putting words in people mouths is shameful

2nd - The governor ordered Afghan troops and coalition forces into the villages - YOUR the one that assuming yet again that he ordered them to bomb houses

Your right

Quote:
"wilful killing"


Guilty Taliban

Quote:
"intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities"


Guilty Taliban leaders

Quote:
"intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians..."


Guilty Taliban - Keep in mind that they went into the village and started shooting at civilians and the police

Also keep in mind that the Pilots were directed to those targets which Afghan forces were receiving fire from - All they knew was those targets were Taliban
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 01:11 PM

Heres more proof

From your favorite Aljazeera so don't tell me the site is bias

Quote:
Afghan forces, supported by the US military, battled the Taliban fighters for several hours before the siege was ended and the captives were freed.

"The capacity and efficiency of the security forces resulted in the rescue of all those who were taken hostage," Bashari said.


This clearly shows that the Taliban is in direct violation of Statute of Rome Art 8 - Taliban taking hostages to use as human shields

Quote:
"They even made a call to those who work for the Afghan government, both in the military and government offices, to leave their jobs or they will be targeted."


Another direct violation - even if you work in a government office - your are still a civilian first
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 01:24 PM

The more opinions, the better. Nobody I know has said otherwise. Nobody I know is necessarily disputing the issue raised, either. What I will always rail against, however, is what I read as predictable bias. If I see it, I call it. If you see it in a different light, that's your bidness. How I see it is my bidness. And if that's idiotic in your book, so be it. Somehow, I will survive the shame of it all.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:31 PM

Quote:
1st - Again I did not say the governor ordered war crimes...

What you said was that

"governor called in pro-government troops to repel Taliban fighters"

What they actually did was attack private homes which is a war crime, Statute of Rome, Art 8.

Earlier you had said:

"the Afghans told the US where to bomb"

Makes no difference whether that was the governor or some other Afghan - the fact is that private homes were bombed which is a war crime, Statute of Rome, Art 8

Quote:
Guilty Taliban

That's a matter for the Afghan authorities, not the ICC.

US pilot civilian killings are a matter for the ICC.

km

Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:34 PM

Quote:
the fact is that private homes were bombed which is a war crime, Statute of Rome, Art 8


LOL

NO the fact is that the Taliban attacked the villages and held hostages or killed hostages - and then attacked government troops from those homes

Get your facts strait
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:42 PM

Quote:
Heres more proof

That's a completely different incident - I'm talking about the atrocity at Bala Baluk.

Quote:
the Taliban is in direct violation of Statute of Rome Art 8 - Taliban taking hostages to use as human shields

That's a matter for the Afghan authorities under the principle of complementarity.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:45 PM

Quote:
Quote:
the fact is that private homes were bombed which is a war crime...

NO

No what? Private homes weren't bombed or it's not a war crime?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:49 PM

Quote:
That's a completely different incident - I'm talking about the atrocity at Bala Baluk.


No -- the Taliban used exactly the same criminal tactics

Quote:
That's a matter for the Afghan authorities under the principle of complementarity.


No the Taliban is no longer a government entity and they are operating outside of Afghanistan which makes it and international incident - the ICC should be investigating the Taliban for atrocities and war crimes , immediately or be disband as a useless body

Also

Keep in mind that the US is acting and invited under the authority of the Afghanistan demorcated elected Government by its people
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:51 PM

Quote:
I will always rail against... predictable bias.

Bias?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I will always rail against... predictable bias.

Bias?

km


Yes Bias

When the US or Israel kills a civilian - You scream war crime - But when Taliban or Hamas or even terrorist murders civilians you say nothing
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:06 PM

Quote:
The Statute of Rome which is operational against individuals incorporates certain of the Geneva provisions but not the one you're citing.


Statute of Rome, Article 8, Defining War Crimes:

"(2)(a)(viii) Taking of hostages."

"(2)(b)(xxiii)Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;"

In other words, using civilian hostages as human shields is a war crime.

Quote:
Quote:
the most obvious of which would be if there are opposing forces occupying the structure and/or are using it for military purposes
No, that's contradicted by the Statute of Rome, Art 8.


Virtually all of the relevant entries under Article 8 have as their proviso that the persons / structures / areas in question are not being used for military purposes ...

Quote:
I'm talking about the circumstances of the case - Bala Baluk where 147 civilians including women and children were killed and others maimed in private homes - which ones are you talking about?


The one where Afghan government ground forces were actively engaged with 100+ Taliban forces and requested air support from the US. The same incident, actually.

Quote:
and 8(2)(b(ii)


You appear to have misquoted this provision -- at least all the ones I've been looking at have things worded thusly (italics mine):

"(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;"

Also, the part of 8(2)(b)(iv) you left off (entire provision, italics mine):

"(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;"

In order for a pilot to be accountable for war crimes in this circumstance, they would have to had have known:

-- That civilians occupied the target
-- That the target was in fact not a military objective
-- That incidental civilian deaths would have been excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.

Unless they were told specifically, there's no way a pilot could know any one of these things ...

More likely is they were told friendly forces were under fire and were vectored-in to target a specific building (likely painted by ground forces) and not much else ...


Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:11 PM

Quote:
Quote:
That's a completely different incident - I'm talking about the atrocity at Bala Baluk.
No

No? Civilians were killed in air strikes Bala Baluk but not at Khost... so the incidents are completely different.

km





Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:15 PM

Quote:
When the US or Israel kills a civilian - You scream war crime - But when Taliban or Hamas or even terrorist murders civilians you say nothing

No that's not right... what I said was that "all suspects should be arrested and questioned" and that suspected offences by Afghans are "a matter for the Afghan authorities".

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:29 PM

Quote:
No? Civilians were killed in air strikes Bala Baluk but not at Khost


NO - you don't know that - your again assuming , those civilian could have been dead long before the air strike and placed into those homes by the Taliban who were there hours before shooting at police and civilians

Show me the PROOF that you are correct which I konw you cannot and assuming yet again.
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:37 PM

Yeah. Bias. You know, that thing you wear like an oversized Rolex.
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
When the US or Israel kills a civilian - You scream war crime - But when Taliban or Hamas or even terrorist murders civilians you say nothing

No that's not right... what I said was that "all suspects should be arrested and questioned" and that suspected offences by Afghans are "a matter for the Afghan authorities".

km


Your wrong again - here is what you said

Quote:
There's been another atrocity in Afghanistan with the US Air Force killing up to 100 civilians in an air strike on Bala Baluk. I'm calling for the culprits to be arrested and prosecuted at the ICC for murder pursuant to Art 7 Statute of Rome.


No mention of (All Suspects ) just the mention of all US Air Force Culprits be arrested

Quote:
and that suspected offences by Afghans are "a matter for the Afghan authorities".


Like I said before the US and coalition forces are invited by Afghanistan elected government to help defend themselves from Taliban terrorist so they are acting under Afghan authority , this means ICC has no jurisdiction from what YOU even spills out .

So yes it is a matter for the Afghan authorities who which ordered the forces into the villages to protect Afghan citizens from the Taliban
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 03:46 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Civilians were killed in air strikes Bala Baluk but not at Khost

NO - you don't know that - your again assuming , those civilian could have been dead long before the air strike and placed into those homes by the Talibanl

Give it up carp - US pilots bombed and killed civilians including women and children in their homes - not for the first time, I might add..

Quote:
Show me the PROOF that you are correct...

Proof is for the court - it isn't needed for arrest and prosecution.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 04:07 PM

Quote:
Quote:
what I said was that "all suspects should be arrested and questioned".

Your wrong again....

I was quoting from my post - how can it be wrong?

Quote:
... all US Air Force Culprits be arrested

That's right "arrested and prosecuted at the ICC".

Quote:
ICC has no jurisdiction from what YOU even spills out

Well, Afghanistan is a signatory to the Statute so, yes, the ICC has jurisdiction.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 04:15 PM

Your wrong yet again

Quote:
“It looks like at least some of the casualties were caused by the airstrikes,” the official acknowledged. A second Pentagon official said, “It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a mix,” but added that it was too soon to tell.


Again your assuming
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 04:16 PM

Quote:
Proof is for the court - it isn't needed for arrest and prosecution.


Which court ? ? ICC has no jurisdiction - like I mention the Coalition is there by Afghanistan Authority
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 04:24 PM

Quote:
Your wrong yet again

Every time you've said that so far it turned out I was right! smirk

Quote:
It looks like at least some of the casualties were caused by the airstrikes,

At last... that's why the pilots need to be arrested and prosecuted.

Quote:
A second Pentagon official said, “It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a mix,” but added that it was too soon to tell.

Oh. I don't think the ICC will care ahout what is or isn't surprising to the Pentagon.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 05:09 PM

Quote:
I was quoting from my post - how can it be wrong?


Quoting from what POST - that was your initial post that started the thread or are you now saying you have this future powers that is beyond human beings ?

Quote:
Well, Afghanistan is a signatory to the Statute so, yes, the ICC has jurisdiction.


So by that means the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute the Taliban as well
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 10:57 PM

Quote:
Yeah. Bias.

No. Doing nothing to prosecute persons responsible for 147 civilian deaths is where the bias is. My call for "all suspects to be arrested and questioned" is fair and balanced.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/12/09 11:24 PM

Quote:
that was your initial post that started the thread or are you now saying you have this future powers

Future powers? No, in my opening post I called for US pilots to be prosecuted at the ICC for killing civilians because the Red Cross and other credible sources said that they were responsible. When you started trying to blame the Taleban on the strength of what Chuck Morris said I pointed out that their alleged actions were matters not for the ICC but for the Afghan authorities.

Quote:
So by that means the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute the Taliban as well

No I think that's where you've been going wrong - you and six. ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes of the Taleban is qualified by the principle of ccomplementarity which requires it to give way to Afghan authorities. That doesn't apply to the US pilots because the Court can proceed whenever national agencies can't or won't take action.

In this case Karzai can't take action because he has to do as he's told by us... that's why he always prevaricates and plays for time and in the end does nothing. That was the pattern when all those civilians were killed by the US Air Force last August. This time something needs to be done because people can't go around bombing women and children with impunity - it's offensive to the conscience of mankind.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:15 AM

Quote:
ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes of the Taleban is qualified by the principle of ccomplementarity which requires it to give way to Afghan authorities.


Correct. However, if the local authorities are unwilling/unable to take action, the matter devolves to the international community ... and if you're correct that:

Quote:
In this case Karzai can't take action because he has to do as he's told by us...


Means these conditions have been met and the international community has jurisdiction ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:58 AM

Fair and balanced. As you tout so many clever reasons not to notice those deliberately using civilians as human shields. As you manufacture ways to deflect complicity from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Fair and balanced. Sure.

Yes. Bias. Own it, km.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 08:17 AM

Quote:
As you tout so many clever reasons not to notice those deliberately using civilians as human shields.

You're buying in to what Chuck said, right? Still doesn't relieve the US pilots of their responsibilities.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 08:18 AM

Quote:
Quote:
In this case Karzai can't take action because he has to do as he's told by us...

Means these conditions have been met and the international community has jurisdiction

That's right, in relation to the US pilots.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 08:38 AM

As well as the Taliban. Can't have things both ways.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 09:03 AM

Quote:
As well as the Taliban. Can't have things both ways.

No, not the Taleban - we're not placing any restrictions on Karzai in that respect so complentarity applies.

Quote:
Can't have things both ways.

Yes, one can have it both ways. if Karzai is willing to prosecute one group but unwilling to prosecute another the ICC can move in on the latter.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 09:17 AM

The only thing I'm not buying in to is your tunnel vision. And your bias. Never have. Never will. Doesn't leave much to debate, does it?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 09:33 AM

Quote:
Doesn't leave much to debate, does it?

Doesn't, does it... all that sentimental boloney about families and 9/11 that you like to come out with looks pretty shallow when it turns out that you don't give a damn about those being bombed by your own air force.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 10:06 AM

You really do get a kick out of deciding what others think or say or do. Problem is, you're just not very good at it. More than half the time, you're the one with the load of baloney. More than half the time, those thoughts and words and deeds exist only betwixt your very own ears. You know... The Cases In Your Head®.

Keep selling if you wish. Just know I'm not buying.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 10:11 AM

147

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 10:20 AM

Quote:
we're not placing any restrictions on Karzai in that respect so complentarity applies


Well, restrictions are immaterial if he is unwilling to investigate or prosecute regardless. Have any Taliban been arrested and brought to trial for war crimes? It's been six years ...

Spain is already initiating war crimes investigations regarding torture against some US officials despite several US Government inquiries in progress -- so obviously the international community doesn't have to necessarily wait on domestic processes ...

Quote:
if Karzai is willing to prosecute one group ...


Is he, though? I haven't seen anything regarding war crimes arrests and prosecutions on either side from the Karzai government ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 12:34 PM

147 Cases In Your Head® ? Holy crap! I hope you have an assistant.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 12:49 PM

No, 147 victims of the air strikes.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 12:57 PM

Your assuming again it could be 147 Taliban militants
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:06 PM

Quote:
Your assuming again...

Noope - reading the reports.

Quote:
it could be 147 Taliban militants

Too many women and children.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:25 PM

Quote:
restrictions are immaterial if he is unwilling to investigate or prosecute regardless.

Well, there's the ability to prosecute, or otherwise, and the willingness to prosecute, or otherwise.

Quote:
Have any Taliban been arrested and brought to trial for war crimes? It's been six years ...

Yeah, quite a few have been arrested and quite a few shot dead... no action against the US pilots though.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:28 PM

How would they know ? they all were buried , unless they dug them up but goes against their religion . Plus were they shot in the head by the Taliban ? or did they die from bomb fragments ? who is doing the autopsies ? ?

I guess your just reading hearsay again
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:37 PM

Quote:
How would they know ?

Being there when it happened.

Quote:
they all were buried

That was after they were killed.

Quote:
I guess your just reading hearsay again

No, first hand. Chuck was hearsay.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:52 PM

Quote:
no action against the US pilots though.


I'm interested why you're so hot on prosecuting pilots who, depending on the specific circumstances, may not have had the amount of information and situational awareness that you seem to think they should have. What about the people who call-in the air strikes? The ones who direct the pilots where to go and paint the targets they want to be hit?

As I mentioned in another post, the amount of knowledge a pilot running a CAP has regarding the target just called-in or the circumstances surrounding that order is fairly limited -- that he would have enough information to question the legality of an order is highly unlikely in these cases.

Obviously in instances of a planned mission, with preflight briefings and such, that amount of information grows significantly, but is still dependent on what the briefers wish to tell the pilots ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 01:55 PM

Well it appears that you're taking their cases. All 147 of 'em.

Were you as outraged over the 17 crew members of the Cole that died on October 12, 2000? How about the nearly 3K on September 11, 2001. Or the 6 deaths from the 1993 WTC bombing? What about the victims of the London Subway Bombing and the Madrid train bombings from a few years ago? Do those numbers count, too? With the exception of the Cole, they were all innocent civilians, too. And the Cole was not in Yemen on a combat mission.

You're predictably selective in your indictments, km. And just as predictably unwilling to accept any POV but your own.

Bias. Own it.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:07 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
I'm interested why you're so hot on prosecuting pilots who, depending on the specific circumstances, may not have had the amount of information and situational awareness that you seem to think they should have.


Not to mention those said pilots would call off the strike if during the course of the mission they found out the target wasn't legit.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:08 PM

Quote:
No, first hand.

You don't have access to first-hand information. You're getting accounts filtered through whichever media you choose to consume, just like the rest of us -- some of those accounts being second- or third-hand themselves. Unless, of course, you've had direct access to the people on the ground ...
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Too many women and children.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously dude, is there some magic fairy dust sprinkled around that makes women and children magically not be a militant? Because I'd like to sprinkle some on the women and kids over here that run around with guns and knock over stores.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:21 PM

Quote:
I'm interested why you're so hot on prosecuting pilots...

Well, aiming rocket fire at residential homes is liable to kill civilians. Airmen ordered to do so should decline because acceptance breaks the Statute of Rome.

Quote:
pilots... may not have had the amount of information and situational awareness that you seem to think they should have

They can raise that defence at their trial of course although I wouldn't give it much hope in the circumstances.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:34 PM

Quote:
You don't have access to first-hand information. You're getting accounts filtered through whichever media you choose to consume

By 'first hand' I was referring to the accounts of people who witnessed what happened and would therefore be in a position to give personal testimony at trial. Hearsay is what Chuck March was offering - what mysterious unnamed "officials" were supposed to have said to him. His evidence would be inadmissible. International trials often proceed from initial media reports but the terms 'first hand' and 'hearsay' are used with reference to the status and admissibility of evidence at trial.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 02:38 PM

Quote:
Well, aiming rocket fire at residential homes is liable to kill civilians. Airmen ordered to do so should decline because acceptance breaks the Statute of Rome.

You appear to have a fairly naive impression of how air strikes are coordinated and of the amount of information a pilot running a CAP has about his target ...

Quote:
They can raise that defence at their trial of course although I wouldn't give it much hope in the circumstances.

Given neither you nor I have any idea under what circumstances the pilots received their orders, I'd consider that a rather uninformed opinion ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 03:19 PM

Quote:
You appear to have a fairly naive impression of how air strikes are coordinated

Oh brilliant! "I've got no idea what I'm firing at but I'm going to fire anyway". The consequences of US Air Force incompetence are there for all to see - co-ordinated in such a way that large numbers of civilians are being killed. A person who repeats an action that he knows or believes will kill civilians is answerable to a charge of murder.

Quote:
Quote:
They can raise that defence at their trial of course although I wouldn't give it much hope in the circumstances.

Given neither you nor I have any idea under what circumstances the pilots received their orders, I'd consider that a rather uninformed opinion ...

Well, there are so many civilian deaths by these means nowadays that pilots are all on notice and excuses are wearing a bit thin.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 04:01 PM

Perfect. Now you're a Combat Lawyer. Good luck with your new career.
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 05:57 PM

Quote:
Being there when it happened.


So you were there during the shooting and everything - LOL - If not its all hear say

Quote:
That was after they were killed.


Well I hope they were not alive when they were buried
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 06:06 PM

Quote:
Oh brilliant! "I've got no idea what I'm firing at but I'm going to fire anyway". The consequences of US Air Force incompetence are there for all to see - co-ordinated in such a way that large numbers of civilians are being killed. A person who repeats an action that he knows or believes will kill civilians is answerable to a charge of murder.


You really don't know what your talking about at all.

Air strikes are directed by ground personal not the pilots , via radio direction or targets marked by color smoke . It is the responsibility of the ground team to identify the targets . In this case the targets that were marked were homes which were the Taliban were shooting at them . We don't know if the ground teams knew if there was civilian human shields inside or not ?

Its a moot point anyway the Taliban committed a crime by forcing the civilians as human shields
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 06:09 PM

Quote:
Oh brilliant! "I've got no idea what I'm firing at but I'm going to fire anyway".


Well, that's a simplistic description of the way all militaries work: Artillery rely on spotters to designate targets. Ships rely on forward controllers to direct fire. Pilots rely on forward controllers to indicate targets. Soldiers rely on their commanders that their objective is militarily significant ... a lot of times, everybody knows what they are supposed to be shooting at. A lot of other times, they're just given coordinates or have someone painting a target with a laser ...

Pilots flying CAP and providing ground support rarely select their own targets; their job is to take direction from someone on the ground with a better assessment of the battlefield ...

I'm not really sure how you're expecting a pilot to override his controller and determine that the designated target really only holds civilians and not the insurgents he was told were there. How exactly is he supposed to assess that? It's not like he has an Eye of Kilrogg that he can fly into a window and see for himself ...
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 06:15 PM

Right Six its not like they can see the future or have X_Ray vision

First things first Taliban broke a number of rome statues

1 - They entered the villages and started shooting civilians and police

2 - They took hostages "kidnapping" and forced them to be human shields

Lets charge them with those crimes before we even consider getting side track un warranted charges against the pilots
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 10:26 PM

Quote:
I'm not really sure how you're expecting a pilot to override his controller and determine that the designated target really only holds civilians and not the insurgents he was told were there. How exactly is he supposed to assess that?

Well in Farah there are large numbers of residential mud built structures. Pilots receive combat briefings about their missions so any suggestion of bombing mud built stuctures should immediately strike alarm and be questioned. Most of the time pilots can see the targets even when directed from the ground and at that point they have to say to themselves "hold up! There could be civilians in those mud built structures". They should check, and double check, that there's no possibility of civilians getting caught up in the action and seek cast-iron guarantees in that regard - without that they don't fire.

We don't need absolute proof of liability at this stage. There's enough to go on for arrest and questioning of the mission pilots and then if any of 'em appear to have convincing defences the legal teams can decide whether the case is strong enough to prosecute. During questioning it may transpire that ground staff have something to answer for as well in which case they can also be arrested and questioned. Killing civilians in these circumstances is unquestionably a crime. We just need to get the interrogations and prosecutions going so that guilt or innocence of individual suspects can be decided by the Court.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 11:00 PM

Quote:
Air strikes are directed by ground personal

Yeah, I think we all know that... under the Statute of Rome however pilots have individual responsibility for their actions.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/13/09 11:18 PM

Quote:
So you were there during the shooting and everything

No, I was in England.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:42 AM

WOW! You're REALLLLLY Stretching this "Human Shield" BS
that attempts to transfer the blame off of the actual
killers and onto the people being killed.

I read the first accounts the morning it happened, I may
even have saved the page (as I often do) when I see one
of these "he-said/she-said" situations in the making...

...but the first account was a man that was explaining
how they had purposely gathered the women & children,
and sent them "out-of-harms-way" (away from the combat
zone) and had sequestered them in huts where they were
assumed to be safe, only to find that several of those
huts, filled with their loved ones, had become targets.

*Insert Lebanon-like scenes of wailing women in black,
and men franticly digging thru rubble, others carrying
away mutilated children, ...scenes of open mass graves
already half filled with wrapped & bloodied corpses etc.

SO far, I was content to hang back until an investigation
uncovered how things could have possibly gone so wrong...

I'm aware of what Six is saying, about "Painting targets"
using forward observers and spotters... and that the pilot
has little control over "picking his own target" ... it's
not like the WWII random strafing runs anymore, it's
become cold, calculated, computerized combat these days.

SO again... I was left waiting for the reports to sort
themselves out... Was it Pilot error? or had the observers
merely SEEN All the Activity in the area... (The people
being herded into the huts) and simply ASSUMED that they
were "combatants" gathering together for some offensive?
...was the fuk-up on HIS part? and he's afraid to cop
to it...? (knowing he'd prolly wind up stoned to death)

...or more insidiously (I'm the suspicious sort) did the
observer/spotter/laser-painter have SOME OTHER AGENDA?
Was he perhaps a "double-agent"? or paid to escalate the
situation... ((and if so BY WHO??? and WHY???))
Had he INTENTIONALLY TARGETED Gathered Women & Children
knowing full well the outcry that would ripple worldwide?

Just too many unanswered questions at this point...

I was hoping it was a simple screw-up, actually.

BUT THEN STEVE-0 Decided to "JUMP The SHARK" by
co-opting the violent death of another 147 civilians to fulfill
HIS PRIVATE LITTLE AGENDA!


FUK! YEAH! But HE'S NOT BIAS.


Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 03:23 AM

Those other incidents were all part of my "private little agenda?" Even though others have asked the same question in this very thread? Because I cite other victims, I'm "co-opting" these 147. Yeah, Right. I'm biased.

Ah, but then, you are the resident shark expert, so you must know what you're talking about, eh? sick
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 05:12 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker

Well, there are so many civilian deaths by these means nowadays that pilots are all on notice and excuses are wearing a bit thin.


I noticed you didn't bother to respond to my comment about women and children militants. You're the one who's wearing thin.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Too many women and children.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously dude, is there some magic fairy dust sprinkled around that makes women and children magically not be a militant? Because I'd like to sprinkle some on the women and kids over here that run around with guns and knock over stores.


What is hilariously funny in a real stupid way is that we invade a country, remove a government, install a government, ask that government for clearance to blow up their civilians, then go and bomb those civilians which include women and children, and then we sit and discuss how militant women can be and how the Taliban is tricking us into bombing human shields as if this could somehow justify the policy.

So much for winning hearts and minds. Obama is continuing the mistake of Bush. That we can somehow bomb a country into submission.

Are we this stupid? I guess we are. It took the Russians ten years to admit how stupid it was. It looks like it will take us even more time. All we do by creating videos of dismembered women and children in hospitals is create more enemies. We need to look in the mirror and consider how stupid that policy is. Bombing women and children in some western province of Afghanistan is justified because Osama bin Laden caused such mayhem for us on 9/11.

For the people being bombed, that justification wore thin long ago. Discussing the militancy of those women and children would make them laugh if they could ever grasp the ironical absurdity of the opinion.

KM is making everyone angry because he is pointing out the rules of warfare which make the pilot culpable. The only thing he is doing wrong is not explaining how the pilot is only one small cog in the wheel of a gigantic terrorist creating engine which is our war policy in Afghanistan.

My one fear in electing a liberal Democrat is that Obama now has to earn street cred on national defense by acting tough. And so it goes.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:21 AM


yep...

People were having a stimulating discussion (like we had been
((blessedly)) in your absence) when you blow back in like
a green fart, dragging your lil gay wagon behind you...

Thus my comment 'was this trip really necessary?' -- and I
wasn't the only one who spotted it, that you were back
& obviously "Hungry 4 Blood" *cue theme from "JAWS"

T'was you co-opted a tragedy to ratchet it up another notch.
Using the legal point km was making in suing for peace,
YOU decided to Declare him ~ "A TALIBAN SUPPORTER" ~ then
trumped it up and down long enough to catch the attention of
anyone that might take objection to The TALIBAN to join in
on the attack.

So, yeah... YOUR PRIVATE LITTLE AGENDA (To inflame a MOB
to get rid of someone who disagrees with YOUR Point of View
---that YOU are POWERLESS to Otherwise Silence On Your Own ---

Yeah, Geniarse...
BIAS! You lean just as far -- only in a different direction!
Of Course you'll claim it as THE RIGHT DIRECTION, but then
that's only natural--since YOU'RE On A BIAS.("OWN IT")




Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:31 AM

Quote:
They should check, and double check, that there's no possibility of civilians getting caught up in the action and seek cast-iron guarantees in that regard - without that they don't fire.

There's no such thing as an iron-clad guarantee of anything in a combat zone -- there will *always* be the possibility of civilians being present that nobody is aware of, despite precautions and assurances to the contrary. No military in the world could possibly operate within parameters of iron-clad guarantees that nobody but combatants would be harmed ...

Regardless, lets assume a pilot did go through the laborious fact-checking sequence you demand -- he's still almost entirely dependent on what he's being told. So he goes through challenging his orders and his controllers over and over and over again, and still ends-up being told that yes, that mud building is the target, bristling with insurgents ... he looks down at the target and sees an inert mud structure, which tells him exactly zero about anything except that there's a building there. Because he's concerned that KM may prosecute him for war crimes, the pilot circles around for a few more minutes while he again challenges the information he's given. Being now assured for the umpteenth-time that the mud structure is really, really the target -- and seeing no kids playing in the front yard or anything -- he eventually follows his orders and launches his weapons ...

After all of this, would you still want the pilot arrested if the mud building actually contained civilians? After all -- he followed your approved procedure. But because the pilot's not omniscient and has limited means to assess the situation and intelligence independently on-the-fly, the result is exactly the same as if had simply trusted his orders and controllers in the first place ...

All of which is a long-winded way of restating that flying ground support, it's not the pilot's responsibility to determine the validity of a target -- that's the forward controller's job. Why you insist that the pilot take the fall for the error is still a mystery to me ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:39 AM

As an aside, I may have to bail on this thread at this point, since I'm finding it organizationally difficult to follow in threaded mode (and I'm hopeless in flat mode -- there's no way of telling who is responding to what)-- the posts are all mashing-up on the right side and it's tough to tell who's responding to whom and which are new and old posts ...

I'll stick with it as long as I can, but can't guarantee I'll be able to follow stuff =)
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:40 AM


.
. . . .
BINGO!

Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
As an aside, I may have to bail on this thread at this point, since I'm finding it organizationally difficult to follow in threaded mode (and I'm hopeless in flat mode -- there's no way of telling who is responding to what)-- the posts are all mashing-up on the right side and it's tough to tell who's responding to whom and which are new and old posts ...

I'll stick with it as long as I can, but can't guarantee I'll be able to follow stuff =)


That would be a shame---

since your level headed assessment is easier on my
blood pressure than you-know-who's BullyShyte

but it's the same reason I can't respond to posts once
they become a mass of cascading quotes that I can no
longer tease apart once they're in POST MODE.
.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 07:21 AM

Back to Topic:

You bring up another of those "Nancy Pelosi moments"
WHERE LIES THE LINE BETWEEN QUESTIONING ORDERS/**
Disobeying Them/and COMMITTING MUTINY?


** note that I'm buying less than 50% of that action
since since I seriously doubt that they give a spit.
*Late Home Tonight Pt1 & Late Home Tonight Pt2
TOO MUCH ROPE
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 07:27 AM

Having personally known my fair share of combat pilots, I can assure you they care very deeply about what they are doing and do absolutely everything they can to avoid mistakes ...

These are not the "Top Gun" maverick loose-canon stereotypes ... and they do not enjoy killing innocent people ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 07:55 AM

That's somewhat reassuring
The 3 songs I just posted
above are by my Peacenik Hero
whose father, Fletcher Waters,
had been lost during World War II.
s'truth
I don't know any Pilots, other than
helicopter pilots attached to Med-Evac.

btw this is not my first war frown
I've been around since the Korean "Conflict"
I've known my share of military personnel
many of them family members. My mom's
people are the "conscientious objectors"
My dad's family have been in combat
since the Civil War.
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 08:32 AM

Looks like you've got a bit of a "private little agenda" of your own, Ms. Butinski. Knock yourself out.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 08:46 AM

Quote:
lets assume a pilot did go through the laborious fact-checking sequence you demand ... would you still want the pilot arrested if the mud building actually contained civilians?

Yeah. When large numbers of women and children are repeatedly killed in air strikes by the same air force the world needs to see that those who perpetrated the act are acquitted only of they are free of guilt. Nothing in your posts so far allows for the possibility of pilot action exceeding ground based instructions. Not even arresting suspects for questioning let alone exposing them to cross-examination in open court proceedings should not be an option unless independent counsel so advises on the merits.

Quote:
Why you insist that the pilot take the fall for the error is still a mystery to me ...

Probably because you're wrongly associating arrest and prosecution with guilt. There can be arrest and prosecution and a finding of 'not guilty' and no doubt would be if the facts you're speculating about are all found to pertain to the case. Pilot knowledge that the targets were residential on the other hand would raise a strong evidential burden of guilt irrespective of directions by third parties.

The law does not require action to minimise civilian loss of life as the United States keeps telling itself but action to avoid it altogether so only complete certainty about that albeit a mistaken certainty, can afford a defence. Either way the proper place to establish the guilt or innocence of those suspected of mass murder is a duly constituted court of law.

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 09:21 AM

Quote:
I noticed you didn't bother to respond to my comment about women and children militants.

It was so remote from reality I thought you were joking. Why would Hillary deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply regret the civilian loss of life if none of 'em were civilians?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 10:37 AM

Quote:
When large numbers of women and children are repeatedly killed in air strikes by the same air force the world needs to see that those who perpetrated the act are acquitted only of they are free of guilt.

This statement gives me the impression that if a civilian is killed in an air strike you believe all pilots should as a matter of course be arrested and prosecuted for war crimes regardless of the evidence -- that they should be presumed guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law ...

Quote:
Nothing in your posts so far allows for the possibility of pilot action exceeding ground based instructions.

That is always a possibility, although you have yet to present a shred of actual evidence that this is the case in this event -- indeed, you have presented zero evidence a pilot acted autonomously against instructions. Your propositions have thus far been pure speculation on your part. And people shouldn't be arrested and brought before a court on nothing but speculation.

If you have actual hard evidence that a pilot disregarded or exceeded their instructions in this case -- as opposed to your own inference or supposition -- please do let us know, and we can discuss actual facts ...

Quote:
Probably because you're wrongly associating arrest and prosecution with guilt.

No, I'm asking why you insist on arresting and prosecuting people without any credible evidence they are guilty of a crime. Again, if you have evidence -- not inference or assumption on your part -- that a pilot willfully ignored direction and attacked a target he knew to be of no military importance, please present it ...

Quote:
Pilot knowledge that the targets were residential on the other hand would raise a strong evidential burden of guilt

In a combat zone, that a structure lies within a residential district means nothing if people are shooting at you from it, or holding hostages, or using it at as shelter to regroup, as examples. You have yet to explain how a pilot is expected to challenge the information he is given that such a residence is being used for such purposes. The mere fact that it's made of mud or that it is located in a village indicates nothing one way or another - it's simply a building, and by it's very nature cannot indicate the intent of the persons within ... and certainly a pilot cannot be expected to magically divine such information from thin air -- so where is that information supposed to come from? And why should a pilot expect to be arrested and prosecuted for failing to make such a supernatural divination?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 10:56 AM

yeah, dipsh!t, ANTI-WAR

Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 11:01 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Looks like you've got a bit of a "private little agenda" of your own, Ms. Butinski. Knock yourself out.


yeah, dipsh!t, ANTI-WAR



sorry dint want the message lost in transition
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase


What is hilariously funny in a real stupid way is that we invade a country, remove a government, install a government, ask that government for clearance to blow up their civilians, then go and bomb those civilians which include women and children, and then we sit and discuss how militant women can be and how the Taliban is tricking us into bombing human shields as if this could somehow justify the policy.

So much for winning hearts and minds. Obama is continuing the mistake of Bush. That we can somehow bomb a country into submission.

Are we this stupid? I guess we are. It took the Russians ten years to admit how stupid it was. It looks like it will take us even more time. All we do by creating videos of dismembered women and children in hospitals is create more enemies. We need to look in the mirror and consider how stupid that policy is. Bombing women and children in some western province of Afghanistan is justified because Osama bin Laden caused such mayhem for us on 9/11.

For the people being bombed, that justification wore thin long ago. Discussing the militancy of those women and children would make them laugh if they could ever grasp the ironical absurdity of the opinion.

KM is making everyone angry because he is pointing out the rules of warfare which make the pilot culpable. The only thing he is doing wrong is not explaining how the pilot is only one small cog in the wheel of a gigantic terrorist creating engine which is our war policy in Afghanistan.

My one fear in electing a liberal Democrat is that Obama now has to earn street cred on national defense by acting tough. And so it goes.


It All Makes PERFECT SENSE! It All Makes PERFECT SENSE! Pt 2

Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 11:19 AM

Wrong

The Afghan government is elected by its people - Yes at one time it was a puppet but not now

Quote:
The only thing he is doing wrong is not explaining how the pilot is only one small cog in the wheel of a gigantic terrorist creating engine which is our war policy in Afghanistan.


What km is doing wrong is he is not holding the Taliban responsible for starting the battle in the first place and using human shields
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 11:21 AM

You have a link ? ?

I am going off initial eyewitness statements from my link
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:09 PM

And obviously anti-class, too. We can always count on you for our daily minimum requirement of vulgar hysteria.

I certainly hope you don't eat with that mouth. Or kiss your mother.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:12 PM

Quote:
gives me the impression that if a civilian is killed in an air strike you believe all pilots should as a matter of course be arrested

We're not talking about 'a' civilian but 147 civilians including women and children following the 60 children among 90 civilians killed in a similar strike last August and others before that.

Those two atrocities, serious though they are, account for fewer than one half of the 650 plus civilians killed by US pilots last year and so far this year. Enough is enough. I wouldn't as a matter of course arrest a pilot for killing one civilian but I would demand it when there appears to be a policy of systematic genocide. You go on about the organised system of ground based instructions to pilots as though they're recognised by law. This is completely wrong. Any system for co-ordinating air strikes that is liable to result in civilian deaths or casualties is contrary to the Statute of Rome as an act of genocide, a war crime, or crime against humanity.

Quote:
you have presented zero evidence a pilot acted autonomously against instructions.

Evidence is for the court... that's the whole point of arresting someone - to obtain evidence.

Quote:
Your propositions have thus far been pure speculation on your part... people shouldn't be arrested and brought before a court on nothing but speculation.

The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.

Quote:
I'm asking why you insist on arresting and prosecuting people without any credible evidence they are guilty of a crime.

Oh - there's definitely credible evidence of a crime namely large numbers of civilian deaths and casualties caused by US air strikes on residential property.

Quote:
if you have evidence... that a pilot willfully ignored direction and attacked a target he knew to be of no military importance, please present it ...

Not a problem, although you're reinterpretation of what I said is a misrepresentation. I didn't say strikes that a pilot "knew to be of no military importance" but that nothing in your posts allowed for the possibility of a pilots exceeding ground based instructions - which of course can occur recklessly as well as knowingly. But with regard to substance you're saying that the pilots were relying on ground based instructions that the targets presented no threat to civilians. In fact, the targets that were struck killed large numbers of civilians so there's a discrepancy - one that suggests that they hit the wrong target. You can ignore that little problem if you like but most people outside of the United States want to know why it happened because of the civilians, women and children now being mourned.

Quote:
The mere fact that it's made of mud or that it is located in a village indicates nothing one way or another - it's simply a building

No, that's not right - in Bala Baluk if it's made of mud it'll be someone's home.

Quote:
why should a pilot expect to be arrested and prosecuted for failing to make such a supernatural divination?

Anyone who kills civilians including women and children should be arrested and questioned and if there's a case to answer - prosecuted for any apparent offences contrary to the Statute of Rome. There's not one law for US Pilots and another one for everyone else.

km

Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:34 PM

Quote:
that's the whole point of arresting someone - to obtain evidence.


Is that how its done in the UK ? In the US you cannot arrest anyone without first having evidence

Quote:
The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.


Again your assuming where is the autopsy evidence ? Those civilians all could have been dead at the hands of the Taliban before the bombings

Quote:
Oh - there's definitely credible evidence of a crime namely large numbers of civilian deaths and casualties caused by US air strikes on residential property.


Present this evidence you claim to have ? Keep in mind that an enemy combatant enters a private residence and conducts military operations from such residence it now becomes a legal military target
Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:37 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
And obviously anti-class, too. We can always count on you for our daily minimum requirement of vulgar hysteria.

I certainly hope you don't eat with that mouth. Or kiss your mother.


cut me some slack (JO)
here I was trying to be SO Good
by having restrained myself from
adding THIS to that Post,
then you come along and ruin it.

...and mom passed last year...
I told a few members privately
but was afraid to post it in the open forum
...afraid you'd make one of Your StoopidA$$ Cracks™
and I'd be forced to ...er... 'take you to task' over it.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 12:40 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No, that's not right - in Bala Baluk if it's made of mud it'll be someone's home.


No, that's not right. Once occupied by military or combatants it's no longer a home, it's a target.
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 01:27 PM

First, my condolences on your mother's passing.

But for you say that I'd make an inappropriate remark about it just proves you're a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Coming at me with "dipsh!t" — twice, no less — while butting into an exchange that has nothing to do with you directly and within which I made no reference to you is asking to get your ears clipped. So no, I don't feel obliged to cut you any slack at all. If you're going get in my face over "conversations" that don't involve you, deal with the blow back or shut up.

And again, my condolences.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 01:49 PM

Would you two get a room already? :P
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 01:55 PM

Quote:
Quote:
that's the whole point of arresting someone - to obtain evidence.

Is that how its done in the UK ?

Yeah, in the UK the police are allowed to question a suspect detained in custody and use his answers in evidence at trial along with any exhibits obtained as a result.

Quote:
In the US you cannot arrest anyone without first having evidence

Ah! No, you're getting confused between evidence and suspicion... in Hawaii for instance as in the UK and in international law a person can be arrested on suspicion of an offence even if the suspicion is not based on admissible evidence. Then, if any evidence is obtained during questioning, it can be heard by the jury who will take it into account in deciding whether a person's guilty or not guilty of the offence charged.

Quote:
Again your assuming where is the autopsy evidence ?

Oh! No, I think I can help you there - autopsy evidence is not a requirement. Do you remember the Nuremberg trials for example? Well, there wasn't any autopsy evidence there and yet war crime suspects were still arrested and prosecuted.

Quote:
Present this evidence you claim to have ?

I think you must be confusing me with someone else - I'm sure I never claimed to have any evidence. I was in England when it all happened and no one has supplied me with any documents or anything... if you want to know more about the evidence you need to contact a witness.

Quote:
an enemy combatant enters a private residence and conducts military operations from such residence it now becomes a legal military target

Ah, no that's a little bit too simplistic - it depends on whether any civilians are inside.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 02:00 PM

What can I say, she just can't stay away from me. Maybe I need a change of cologne. sick
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 02:47 PM

Quote:
Evidence is for the court... that's the whole point of arresting someone - to obtain evidence.

Yikes! I think we may have discovered the problem here:

On this side of the pond there's usually something called due process, where before you go out slapping handcuffs on whoever you feel like, you have to gather some evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) evidence that the person you want to arrest may be guilty of that crime ...

The immediate past administration tried to reimagine that process, but it still largely survives to this day ...

Quote:
The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.

No, it's enough to justify inquiry and investigation. If evidence of wrongdoing is gathered during such inquiries, and evidence of those who may be responsible, then you can arrest people for any crime discovered ...

Quote:
Oh - there's definitely credible evidence of a crime namely large numbers of civilian deaths and casualties caused by US air strikes on residential property.

That's evidence that people have been killed, not that pilots have committed a war crime. For that, you'd at least need evidence that the pilot knew civilians were inside the target to begin with and evidence that he knew the target had no military significance ...

Quote:
But with regard to substance you're saying that the pilots were relying on ground based instructions that the targets presented no threat to civilians.

No, I'm saying that they were trusting the information from their controllers that the target was militarily legitimate.

Quote:
In fact, the targets that were struck killed large numbers of civilians so there's a discrepancy - one that suggests that they hit the wrong target.

Or that the controller screwed up. Or the perfectly plausible possibility that no one knew there were civilians in the building to begin with. Actually the possibilities are fairly numerous. I still don't see the fixation on the pilot necessarily bearing responsibility ...

Quote:
No, that's not right - in Bala Baluk if it's made of mud it'll be someone's home.

No, it's simply a building. What matters at the moment is if it's occupied, and if so, by whom and what is their intent. A pilot running ground support cannot ascertain all of these things and must rely that his commander/controllers have correctly made these determinations ...

Quote:
Anyone who kills civilians including women and children should be arrested and questioned

You do realize it's not necessary to arrest someone in order to question them, correct?
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 03:52 PM

Quote:
Yeah, in the UK the police are allowed to question a suspect detained in custody and use his answers in evidence at trial along with any exhibits obtained as a result.


Here its called wrongful arrest and coercion

Quote:
in Hawaii for instance as in the UK and in international law a person can be arrested on suspicion of an offence even if the suspicion is not based on admissible evidence.


That is highly illegal here - are you sure you know anything about law ? ? I suspect you are a terrorist "km" but I don't have any evidence at all just a suspicion so there for you should be arrested and interrogated to get the evidence I need . LOL

Quote:
Oh! No, I think I can help you there - autopsy evidence is not a requirement. Do you remember the Nuremberg trials for example? Well, there wasn't any autopsy evidence there and yet war crime suspects were still arrested and prosecuted.


No autopsies but they had photo evidence plus many eyewitness and thousands of Nazi documents , keep in mind the Nazi were very big on paper work - Non of those proceeding were done merely on suspicion alone like the UK would do wrongly

Quote:
I'm sure I never claimed to have any evidence. I was in England when it all happened and no one has supplied me with any documents or anything... if you want to know more about the evidence you need to contact a witness.


Here what you said again

(The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.)

Where is your facts ? your evidence ? ?

Quote:
Ah, no that's a little bit too simplistic - it depends on whether any civilians are inside.


Your being to simplistic after the fact and yet you cannot prove without a doubt with facts or evidence that those civilian were not Taliban combatants or civilians murdered by the Taliban or even if they were killed by US bombs



Posted by: Celandine

Re: One too many! - 05/14/09 04:00 PM

<[censored]
Originally Posted By: steve

If you're going get in my face over "conversations" that don't involve you, deal with the blow back or shut up.

see above
Originally Posted By: steve

And again, my condolences.


if I thought that wasn't just for show....
oops another Jersey-ism** (see above)

LOL ** For those playing along at home:
When you think of Jersey-isms; Think Joe Pesci wink


To Sgt Baxter: OK, Point Taken. I'm outta' here.
To Steve-0:Cologne? Yeah, maybe I'm drawn to the smell of fresh fertilizer.**
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 12:55 AM

Quote:
you have to gather some evidence that a) a crime has been committed

No that's wrong - I looked it up. Generally in the United States an officer can arrest a person without warrant for probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a felony has been or will be committed.

Quote:
Quote:
The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.

No, it's enough to justify inquiry and investigation.

No, it's enough to justify arrest. An arrest can be made without warrant of anyone reasonably believed to have committed an offence. Large numbers of dead bodies including women and children is clearly sufficient for that.

Quote:
That's evidence that people have been killed, not that pilots have committed a war crime.

Evidence isn't required only reasonable suspicion. Evidence is for the court. As I said before the whole point of arresting someone suspected of an offence is to obtain evidence sufficient to charge the suspect.

Quote:
I'm saying that they were trusting the information from their controllers that the target was militarily legitimate.

Well, targets that endanger civilians are illegitimate and the target they hit was illegitimate so there's a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the pilots, ground staff, or both. The pilots should be arrested first as suspected perpetrators and then if evidence is obtained from them that others may also be to blame they can be arrested as well.

Quote:
For that, you'd at least need evidence that the pilot knew civilians were inside the target to begin with and evidence that he knew the target had no military significance ...

No, that's wrong. For genocide liability is founded on intent not knowledge. An intent to kill the occupants of a mud built residential dwelling as part of an organised or systematic policy would support a charge of genocide where the occupants included civilians.

With respect to crimes against humanity it was decided in the Tadic trial that liability for crimes against humanity such as murder required no such knowledge. An accused is liable if he commits an act which is part of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population" meaning that there is some organisational or group policy to commit the act and that the suspect knew the context within which his actions were taken.

There's nothing in the books, I'm afraid, to support your contention that a suspect is guilty only if he knows his actions are directed at civilians. On the contrary an intent to kill members of the Taliban is transferable to the actual victims under the principle of transferred malice thus fulfilling the mental element required for charges of genocide, murder and wilful killing contrary to the Statute of Rome.

Quote:
Or that the controller screwed up. Or the perfectly plausible possibility that no one knew there were civilians in the building to begin with. Actually the possibilities are fairly numerous.

I've dealt with knowledge - not required.

Quote:
A pilot running ground support cannot ascertain all of these things and must rely that his commander/controllers have correctly made these determinations ...

In that case he should withold fire because he's personally responsible for his actions.

Quote:
You do realize it's not necessary to arrest someone in order to question them, correct?

Correct. I wasn't discussing what was necessary to question someone but what was lawful, appropriate and necessary to instigate proceedings at the ICC when large numbers of civilians are found dead in residential homes.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 01:51 AM

Quote:
Quote:
No, that's not right - in Bala Baluk if it's made of mud it'll be someone's home.

No, that's not right. Once occupied by military or combatants it's no longer a home,

No, that's wrong. In Afghanistan if someone trespasses in your home it's still your home.

Quote:
... it's a target.

Ah, I'm with you - yeah it might be a target but it's an illegal one because it's someone's home.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 02:09 AM

Quote:
Here its called wrongful arrest and coercion

No, in Hawaii the police can a arrest a person without warrant for probable cause based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence.

Quote:
I suspect you are a terrorist "km" but I don't have any evidence at all just a suspicion.

Well obviously your suspicion has to be reasonable which is clearly not the case.

Quote:
No autopsies but they had photo evidence plus many eyewitness and thousands of Nazi documents

Yeah, I think Bala Baluk will be similar - photos, eye-witness accounts and Nazi doc... US documents about the JTAC system.

Quote:
Here what you said again: (The killing of civilians by US pilots is a fact, not speculation, and that's enough to justify arrest.) - Where is your facts ?

If you go through the thread clicking my links you'll find reports of first hand accounts of what happened sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion for arrest.

km

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 03:21 AM

Quote:
No that's wrong - I looked it up. Generally in the United States an officer can arrest a person without warrant for probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a felony has been or will be committed.

Incorrect. An officer cannot make an arrest for reasonable suspicion, but can make an investigatory stop based on that suspicion. For an arrest, you need probable cause, which requires a greater evidentiary threshold.

Quote:
No, that's wrong. For genocide liability is founded on intent not knowledge.

Correct. That means there would have to be evidence that the pilot intended to kill civilians as opposed to a legitimate military objective. You haven't provided any evidence such intent existed.

To establish a probable cause of intent in this case, you would have to ignore that the pilot was following direction and information indicating he was targeting a military objective with the intent of subduing enemy forces within ...

To establish reasonable cause of intent you would have to have enough facts at hand to overcome a reasonable person's belief that this was a mistake vs an intentional attack targeting civilians ...

Quote:
On the contrary an intent to kill members of the Taliban is transferable to the actual victims under the principle of transferred malice

Transfer of Malice requires that there be a criminal act being committed in the first place. In active combat, attempting/intending to kill the enemy is not itself a criminal act. There is no crime able to transfer to any civilians that may have been killed/injured ...

It' a nice try, but:

Wartime
A pilot intends to bomb the enemy
The bomb kills civilians instead/as well
Therefore (transfer of malice), the pilot intended to kill civilians
Therefore the pilot is guilty of genocide

probably wouldn't make it past a prosecutor's desk much less a pre-trial hearing ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 07:40 AM

Quote:
An officer cannot make an arrest for reasonable suspicion...

Well probable cause means reasonable belief - I'd accept your distinction between 'belief' and 'suspicion' in the US although it has no significance in international law.

Quote:
there would have to be evidence that the pilot intended to kill civilians as opposed to a legitimate military objective.

No, you're confusing war crimes where military objectives are relevant and genocide and crimes against humanity where they're not.

Quote:
You haven't provided any evidence such intent existed.

Personally I don't need the evidence - the prosecutor does.

Quote:
To establish a probable cause of intent in this case, you would have to ignore that the pilot was following direction...

I don't agree with that but in any event probable cause is US law and not a requirement for arrest in Afghanistan or internationally.

Quote:
To establish reasonable cause of intent

Intent doesn't need a cause it's just a state of mind.

Quote:
Transfer of Malice requires that there be a criminal act being committed in the first place.

Firing rockets and flesh-eating chemical white phosphorus at human beings in a grossly disproportionate use of force breaks so many provisions of international law it would be difficult to list them all. So yes the principle of transferred malice applies.

Quote:
Wartime
A pilot intends to bomb the enemy...

First of all there are two routes to liability of which transferred malice is only one. The first is intent to kill founded on the virtual certainty and knowledge thereof that civilians would be killed by rocket fire aimed at residential homes.

The transferred malice route is not quite how you framed it but:

Wartime irrelevant for genocide and crimes against humanity
A pilot intends to bomb (the enemy) human beings
The bomb kills (civilians instead/as well) different human beings
Therefore the pilot intended to kill (civilians) the victims
Therefore the pilot is guilty of genocide
And crimes against humanity.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 12:48 PM

Quote:
No, in Hawaii the police can a arrest a person without warrant for probable cause based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence.


Your wrong , probable cause is based on week evidence but its still evidence of sorts . You cannot arrest anyone here based on suspicion alone - You may hold someone for questioning with their attorney present but you cannot arrest them

Quote:
If you go through the thread clicking my links you'll find reports of first hand accounts of what happened sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion for arrest.


I already provided links did you read them even the Aljazeera link concurs
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 12:55 PM

Quote:
Ah, I'm with you - yeah it might be a target but it's an illegal one because it's someone's home.


Not true - The home turned into a military target once operations are conducted from the home , It is no longer a private residence

So by your understanding is that the Taliban needs to do is run into a private residence and they now become safe and secure and can still shoot at police and Afghan forces - LOL
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 01:59 PM

Well you started off by demanding an arrest under Article 7, "Crimes Against Humanity"; then you made several references to Article 8 "War Crimes" under which you believed the pilot should be arrested and prosecuted, and which I have been using as the basis of that discussion ... now, apparently you wish to switch to "Genocide", Article 6 ...

So lets try this:

For Article 6, Genocide, there has to be evidence of large-scale, systematic efforts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" ...

So far, you haven't provided any evidence of a large-scale effort with such intent ... the mere fact that a relatively large number of civilians may have been killed does not in and of itself go to intent -- although it may raise a reasonable suspicion to initiate investigations ...

For Article 7, Crimes Against Humanity, there again has to be evidence of "multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack" ... again, you have yet to provide evidence that such a policy exists and that this incident was a furtherance of that policy ...

For Article 8, War Crimes, there are numerous exceptions for conduct against a legitimate military target -- so you'd have to prove intent to go beyond military advantage and intentionally put civilian lives at disproportionate risk. You might have a cause for investigation on the disproportionate aspect (although the use of phosphor in this incident is news to me -- do you have a link indicating this is the case?), but I doubt there would be cause to arrest a specific individual right off the bat ...

Which brings us to:

Quote:
Personally I don't need the evidence - the prosecutor does.

Then who are you to demand anybody's arrest? And if you have no evidence to back up those demands, why should anybody listen to you?

---

Quote:
Wartime ...
And crimes against humanity.

As I said -- good luck getting that through to a hearing much less to court ...

Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 02:24 PM

Quote:
probable cause is based on week evidence but its still evidence of sorts .

As I said to six probable cause in the US requires reasonable belief. Internationally no distinction is drawn between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion so the pilots can be arrested on that ground. Proof of guilt is not required, of course, until the matter gets to court.

Quote:
I already provided links did you read them even the Aljazeera link concurs

Your links are irrelevant as to why I mentioned my links - namely because you asked for the "facts" I was relying on in saying that US pilots had killed civilians.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 03:41 PM

Quote:
you started off by demanding an arrest under Article 7, "Crimes Against Humanity"... now, apparently you wish to switch to "Genocide", Article 6 ...

It's not switching because all three articles are arguable on the facts and the same event can invoke more than one article at the same time.

Quote:
So far, you haven't provided any evidence of a large-scale effort

Evidence is for the court. What I've done is refer to reports of large numbers of civilians being killed on successive occasions through the organised JTAC system.

Quote:
the mere fact that a relatively large number of civilians may have been killed does not in and of itself go to intent -- although it may raise a rreasonable suspicion to initiate investigations ...

As I've said before reasonable belief that a person has committed an offence is sufficient for arrest with a view to prosecution at the ICC.

Quote:
Crimes Against Humanity, there again has to be evidence of "multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack" ... again, you have yet to provide evidence that such a policy exists

Evidence is for the court. What I've done is refer to reports that raise a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify arrest.

Quote:
the use of phosphor in this incident is news to me -- do you have a link indicating this is the case?

linky <---.

Quote:
Then who are you to demand anybody's arrest?

I could equally ask who are you to insist on suspects not being arrested.

Quote:
And if you have no evidence to back up those demands, why should anybody listen to you?

Evidence is for the court - why would I have any evidence? What I have done though is provide several links that refer to credible accounts of eye-witnesses sufficient to justify arrest of the culprits on reasonable suspicion of an offence.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
probable cause is based on week evidence but its still evidence of sorts .

As I said to six probable cause in the US requires reasonable belief. Internationally no distinction is drawn between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion so the pilots can be arrested on that ground. Proof of guilt is not required, of course, until the matter gets to court.

Quote:
I already provided links did you read them even the Aljazeera link concurs

Your links are irrelevant as to why I mentioned my links - namely because you asked for the "facts" I was relying on in saying that US pilots had killed civilians.

km


To have reasonable Belief you must have some evidence - Get It
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 04:37 PM

Quote:
To have reasonable Belief you must have some evidence - Get It


Problem is, Taliban/insurgent use of white phosphorus in IEDs and captured weapons caches containing WP is documented back as far as 2003 and might actually cast some doubt on his stance.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/15/09 04:48 PM

Quote:
To have reasonable Belief you must have some evidence - Get It

Well, it was I who called for the pilots to be arrested on a reasonable belief. You demanded proof of guilt which is not required. As I said before reasonable suspicion that the pilots committed an offence is sufficient for their arrest and can be based on information which is inadmissible as evidence.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 11:52 AM

Quote:
Well, it was I who called for the pilots to be arrested on a reasonable belief


Well I have reasonable belief that the Taliban forced those civilians into harms way and murdered them before the bombing - I call for their arrest
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 11:54 AM

Quote:
Well I have reasonable belief that the Taliban forced those civilians into harms way and murdered them before the bombing - I call for their arrest

No, that's an unreasonable belief.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 12:41 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Well I have reasonable belief that the Taliban forced those civilians into harms way and murdered them before the bombing - I call for their arrest

No, that's an unreasonable belief.

km


Why ? my links supports my reasonable beliefs as probable cause - you don't have any support aside that bombs were dropped nor did you even give anything that would support your assuming accusations based on suspicion alone.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 01:00 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have reasonable belief that the Taliban forced those civilians into harms way and murdered them before the bombing - I call for their arrest

No, that's an unreasonable belief.

Why ?

Because you included all the dead as victims of the Taleban when there are overwhelming reasons to believe, including admissions by your own government, that civilians were killed by the air strikes.

Quote:
you don't have any support aside that bombs were dropped

You obviously haven't read my links.

Quote:
nor did you even give anything that would support your assuming accusations based on suspicion alone.

Reasonable suspicion is enough.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 01:54 PM

Quote:
Because you included all the dead as victims of the Taleban when there are overwhelming reasons to believe, including admissions by your own government, that civilians were killed by the air strikes.


Yes the US did say that civilians were killed but by who Taliban maybe ?

Quote:
Reasonable suspicion is enough.


No it is not enough to call for arrest - ever wonder why the ICC and the UN does absolutely nothing
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 02:06 PM

Quote:
Medics told Press TV that some of those wounded in the attack have unusual burns which could have been caused by the flesh-eating chemical -- white phosphorus.


Your assuming again - LOL
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 03:07 PM

Quote:
Quote:
admissions by your own government, that civilians were killed by the air strikes.

by who Taliban maybe ?

No, the air strikes were by the US... the Teleban didn't conduct any air strikes.

Quote:
Quote:
Reasonable suspicion is enough.

No it is not enough to call for arrest

Yes, it's enough:

Statute of Rome, Art 58

"At any time after the initiation of an investigation the Pre-Trial Chamber shall on the application of the Prosecutor issue a warrant of arrest of a person if having examined the application and the evidence or other information submitted by the Prosecutor it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court..."

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, ss24(2) and 24A(2)

"If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

"Where an indictable offence has been committed a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it."

Reasonable grounds under these provisions exist in the weight of eyewitness accounts attributing the loss of life to US air strikes:

"The US military initially claimed that all those killed had been participating in a meeting of Taliban militants. Reports and photographic evidence from the scene, however, exposed this claim as a lie. The civilian death toll was confirmed by the Afghan government, the United Nations and human rights groups."

linky <--- whistle

km
Posted by: carp

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 04:02 PM

Quote:
No, the air strikes were by the US... the Teleban didn't conduct any air strikes.


No the Taliban conducted rounding up civilians for human shields - Why does this go into circles is because you believe in only one thing - LOL
Posted by: keymaker

Re: One too many! - 05/16/09 04:23 PM

Quote:
No the Taliban conducted rounding up civilians for human shields

Sorry, no defence.

Quote:
Why does this go into circles...

Circles? You've been proved wrong over grounds of arrest so there are no circles. smirk

km