-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Sec State Rubio vows to ‘dismantle’ International Criminal Court
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
- Status
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
When a military is using power plants and bridges, they become military targets.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 49,167
- 51,519
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Not in all cases
AI Overview (Google: "dual use civilian infrastructure international law")
International law does not legally recognize "dual-use" as a distinct category. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), civilian objects are strictly protected unless they become "military objectives". To be targeted legally under Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, an object must make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction must offer a definite military advantage.
The application of IHL to civilian infrastructure involves several critical legal parameters:
Strict Criteria: An object qualifies as a military objective only if its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective military contribution. If a facility (like a power grid or bridge) feeds both civilian and military needs, the military must assess the proportionality of civilian harm against the concrete military advantage.
The Principle of Proportionality: Even if a structure is legally deemed a military target, attacks are prohibited if the incidental loss of civilian life, injury, or damage to civilian objects would be excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage.
Indiscriminate Attacks Prohibited: Attacks on essential life-sustaining objects—such as water, energy, or transportation—cannot treat a broad, interconnected civilian and military network as a single target if it causes disproportionate harm to civilians
Upvote
0
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 5,154
- 4,354
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Less those war crimes enacted that are the exact crimes defined and used as example 1A in the defense department manual.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'm not worried that the USA military is going to intentionally break any of our rules of warfare. It ain't going to happen.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 49,167
- 51,519
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
We should probably remind them they have the obligation to refuse illegal orders.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As a soldier serving in the Army for 29 years, I tell you that it ain't necessary to do so. We already know this.
Upvote
0
The US strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, particularly the follow-up strikes on disabled wrecks with survivors, would offer strong evidence to the contrary.
Top Pentagon Official Admits Boat Strike May Have Killed Victims of Human Trafficking
If this boat was running drugs, why was it loaded with so many people?
theintercept.com
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Nothing illegal at all in destroying those boats belonging to narco terrorists cartels.The US strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, particularly the follow-up strikes on disabled wrecks with survivors, would offer strong evidence to the contrary.
Top Pentagon Official Admits Boat Strike May Have Killed Victims of Human Trafficking
If this boat was running drugs, why was it loaded with so many people?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,350
- 18,929
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
"narco terrorist cartel" is quite the construction you have there. It is nonsense.
Drug smuggling is a legal intervention issue. If militariees are used it is to assist in apprehension in difficult spaces (blue water they still function as arrest agents, not death squads.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,070
- 6,793
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The narco cartels are designated terrorists. Stopping them is a military and legal intervention issue. I'm very thankful for every destruction of narco cartels terrorists boats.
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 19,605
- 7,012
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 19,605
- 7,012
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It's official now, Rubio will 100% have my vote over anybody, should he run for president next.
- Jan 8, 2016
- 19,605
- 7,012
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Why?
Give me a real, legal argument, why the ICC is bad and why it should be a prominent subjecy in US policy.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
