Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2)

[RDKirk]

The Geneva Conventions

Grave breaches as defined in the Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against protected persons or property (as applicable):

• Willful killing;

Do you think the Geneva Conventions are saying that anything other than accidental killing is a war crime?

And....you cut it off far short of its completion.

Which is patently disingenuous of you.

 

[Say it aint so]

Do you think the Geneva Conventions are saying that anything other than accidental killing is a war crime?

And....you cut it off far short of its completion.

Which is patently disingenuous of you.

I provided the applicable part. HERE it is in it's entirety.

Clearly the action that occurred specially since it was reported they were turning back an then bombed is murder.

 

[RDKirk]

I provided the applicable part. HERE it is in it's entirety.

Clearly the action that occurred specially since it was reported they were turning back an then bombed is murder.

You didn't actually read it, did you.

I've read it.

Active duty personnel are trained on it annually.

And I've taught it.

Here is what you ignored:

Grave breaches as defined in the Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against protected persons or property (as applicable):

It was that "protected persons" part you ignored.

Now, if you go into the definition of "willful killing," you find:

The material element of this grave breach is that the alleged perpetrator killed or caused the death of a protected person.

There's that "protected person" again. It's not just "persons," but a specific class of persons. Let's see who it says they are:

Article 4 — Definition of protected persons


"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention."

"Protected persons" are civilians who, in a conflict or occupation, fall into the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals. It does not include "collateral damage"-- civilians who are killed in the process of attacking a legitimate target.

The Trump Administration's contention is that these are terrorists, not civilians, and legitimate targets in either the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs (whichever he settles on...maybe he flips a coin). Unless that contention is overturned by Congress or the Supreme Court (neither of which seems likely), it will stand.

"Turning back and then bombed" has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with the Geneva Conventions. You won't find anything like that prohibited anywhere in them. Retreating forces are completely legitimate targets in combat ("He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day")

 

[Postvieww]

That paperwork does not authorize the use of military force.

Were you upset when Obama did it?

 

[RDKirk]

Were you upset when Obama did it?

That's the other problem. Presidents have been doing this stuff willy-nilly since the 80s.

 

[Postvieww]

That's the other problem. Presidents have been doing this stuff willy-nilly since the 80s.

Maybe the question should have been was it considered to be illegal when Obama did it. Or is it actually within the legitimate power of the President.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Were you upset when Obama did it?

If you're referring to the bin Laden raid, an Authorization of the Use of Military Force was in effect.

 

[Postvieww]

If you're referring to the bin Laden raid, an Authorization of the Use of Military Force was in effect.

Not the only military action Obama took. You should know that.

 

[RDKirk]

Not the only military action Obama took. You should know that.

Presidents have been doing this since the 80s. Most of them you never heard of.

In September, 1981, we were thiiiiiiiiiiiis close to bombing North Korea. I was in the room to hear a general go "Aw, <bleep>" when they failed to give us the context he was hoping for. But such things happened often enough anyway.

You only heard of this one because Trump bragged about it.

 

[Say it aint so]

You didn't actually read it, did you.

I've read it.

Active duty personnel are trained on it annually.

And I've taught it.

Here is what you ignored:



It was that "protected persons" part you ignored.

Now, if you go into the definition of "willful killing," you find:



There's that "protected person" again. It's not just "persons," but a specific class of persons. Let's see who it says they are:



"Protected persons" are civilians who, in a conflict or occupation, fall into the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals. It does not include "collateral damage"-- civilians who are killed in the process of attacking a legitimate target.

The Trump Administration's contention is that these are terrorists, not civilians, and legitimate targets in either the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs (whichever he settles on...maybe he flips a coin). Unless that contention is overturned by Congress or the Supreme Court (neither of which seems likely), it will stand.

"Turning back and then bombed" has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with the Geneva Conventions. You won't find anything like that prohibited anywhere in them. Retreating forces are completely legitimate targets in combat ("He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day")

Protected persons"; civilians not participating in hostilities. You just can't see a group of people. These people were not collateral damage. They simply declared the target by a admin who has a habit of labeling people out of whole clothe, and targeting them. Again, reports are the boat was turned around. And btw, these hostilities in reality are about regime change.

 

[RDKirk]

Protected persons"; civilians not participating in hostilities. You just can't see a group of people. These people were not collateral damage. They simply declared the target by a admin who has a habit of labeling people out of whole clothe, and targeting them. Again, reports are the boat was turned around. And btw, these hostilities in reality are about regime change.

That's not what "protected persons" means in the Geneva Conventions. Sorry.

It's more complex that because, remember, it's not the purpose of the Geneva Conventions to prevent warfare...or even to hamper warfare.

I can understand your ire, but, sorry, the Geneva Conventions do not make the argument you want.

 

[Say it aint so]

That's not what "protected persons" means in the Geneva Conventions. Sorry.

It's more complex that because, remember, it's not the purpose of the Geneva Conventions to prevent warfare...or even to hamper warfare.

I can understand your ire, but, sorry, the Geneva Conventions do not make the argument you want.

protected person​

(2) The term “protected person” means any person entitled to protection under one or more of the Geneva Conventions, including civilians not taking an active part in hostilities, military personnel placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, or detention, and military medical or religious personnel. Cornell Law

 

[RDKirk]

protected person​

(2) The term “protected person” means any person entitled to protection under one or more of the Geneva Conventions, including civilians not taking an active part in hostilities, military personnel placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, or detention, and military medical or religious personnel. Cornell Law

That's a wrong understanding of what it's saying with regard to civilians.

Let's put this in context. Let's say the enemy force takes over a hospital and is using that hospital for its base of operations, even though there are civilian patients and caregivers in the hospital. Those civilians are not "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions, and that hospital with all the civilians in it (even though they are not participating in hostilities) has been made a valid target.

Striking that hospital under that circumstance is not a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, although using it for military purposes in the first place is the war crime.

Let me say that again: Under the Geneva Conventions, the war crime is committed by the force that is using civilians as a shield, not by the force that subsequently attacks them.

In this case, as I've said before, the question is whether that boat can be considered a target under any of the various reasons US presidents have struck boats, trucks, buildings, tents, et cetera, over the past 50 years. Whether they're wearing military uniforms hasn't been an issue for US policy since the Vietnam war.

If that's the case--and that's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to either contest or roll over--then the fact that the boat was heading back to shore (instead of any other direction) is irrelevant. If it's a valid target under the vagaries of US policy of the moment, the direction it's heading is irrelevant.

And it's also irrelevant under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Say it aint so]

That's a wrong understanding of what it's saying with regard to civilians.

Let's put this in context. Let's say the enemy force takes over a hospital and is using that hospital for its base of operations, even though there are civilian patients and caregivers in the hospital. Those civilians are not "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions, and that hospital with all the civilians in it (even though they are not participating in hostilities) has been made a valid target.

Striking that hospital under that circumstance is not a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, although using it for military purposes in the first place is the war crime.

Let me say that again: Under the Geneva Conventions, the war crime is committed by the force that is using civilians as a shield, not by the force that subsequently attacks them.

In this case, as I've said before, the question is whether that boat can be considered a target under any of the various reasons US presidents have struck boats, trucks, buildings, tents, et cetera, over the past 50 years. Whether they're wearing military uniforms hasn't been an issue for US policy since the Vietnam war.

If that's the case--and that's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to either contest or roll over--then the fact that the boat was heading back to shore (instead of any other direction) is irrelevant. If it's a valid target under the vagaries of US policy of the moment, the direction it's heading is irrelevant.

And it's also irrelevant under the Geneva Conventions.

How about a better context. Shooting citizens on a boat that is of no threat and is actually retreating.

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[Pommer]

View attachment 370077

Outdoing Duterte at being Duterte, will surely be noticed by whatever various Peace Prize committees there may be!

 

[RDKirk]

How about a better context. Shooting citizens on a boat that is of no threat and is actually retreating.

As I've said before, the question is whether that boat can be considered a target under any of the various reasons US presidents have struck boats, trucks, buildings, tents, et cetera, over the past 50 years. Whether they're wearing military uniforms hasn't been an issue for US policy since the Vietnam war.

If that's the case--and that's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to either contest or roll over--then the fact that the boat was "retreating" is irrelevant. If it's a valid target under the vagaries of US policy of the moment, the direction it's heading is irrelevant.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fox News host criticizes Trump's bombing of boats in the Caribbean​

LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY (CO-HOST): I don't like it. I don't like it because of the nuns. Because all it takes is one fishing boat with a broken radio or people who don't speak English and you're killing innocent civilians and I do not like that.

... So, you know, I do agree with Rand Paul here that if there are people we want to go after, instead of just killing them without any due process, put them on trial.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Former GOP officials fear US strikes on alleged drug smugglers aren't legal​

“There has to be a line between crime and war,” said John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. “We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California Berkeley, authored the Bush administration’s legal justification for enhanced interrogation techniques against suspected al Qaeda terrorists in the early years of Bush’s war on terror.

Legal experts have called on the administration to release a formal legal opinion justifying the strikes. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Monday when asked whether DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion.

A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s view, said recently that the president thinks the politics of the matter are favorable and thus paramount to any legal quibbles from experts at think tanks, lawmakers or online commentators.

“What separates the U.S. military from a death squad is the law,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney who advised the Barack Obama and first Trump administration on legal and policy issues related to counterterrorism. “I’m very concerned that the American public does not grasp the stakes here: The President is asserting a license to kill without due process and outside the context of armed conflict.”

Taking a similar view, Ed Whelan, a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, wrote in a post on X: “There is a line between legitimate acts of war (or of self-defense) and murder. It would be good for government officials to care about staying on the right side of that line.”

 

[RDKirk]

Former GOP officials fear US strikes on alleged drug smugglers aren't legal​

“There has to be a line between crime and war,” said John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. “We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California Berkeley, authored the Bush administration’s legal justification for enhanced interrogation techniques against suspected al Qaeda terrorists in the early years of Bush’s war on terror.

Legal experts have called on the administration to release a formal legal opinion justifying the strikes. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Monday when asked whether DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion.

A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s view, said recently that the president thinks the politics of the matter are favorable and thus paramount to any legal quibbles from experts at think tanks, lawmakers or online commentators.

“What separates the U.S. military from a death squad is the law,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney who advised the Barack Obama and first Trump administration on legal and policy issues related to counterterrorism. “I’m very concerned that the American public does not grasp the stakes here: The President is asserting a license to kill without due process and outside the context of armed conflict.”

Taking a similar view, Ed Whelan, a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, wrote in a post on X: “There is a line between legitimate acts of war (or of self-defense) and murder. It would be good for government officials to care about staying on the right side of that line.”

I keep saying: That's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to either contest or roll over.

Everyone else is just a nattering nabob of nurgatoriness.