Bush administration arrests former human shields.

[Dis]

Originally posted by skywalker


In case you didn't realize, in 1997 it was the PREVIOUS administration

try harder next time

I hated the Clinton goverment too after he sold secrets to China.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: snooze, skywalker

Originally posted by skywalker


Well, personally I think that it's fine dropping the bomb anyway - but most of the people who don't want to try the human shields would also view dropping the bomb on them as immoral and illegal.

So making the military feel bad about doing what they're told is treason? Interesting.

[Kuciwalker]

No.

My point is they can't have their cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

[DinoDoc]

They violated the law but I don't see wfy the government would bother with them. Prosecuting the blatantly stupid smacks of overkill.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker
Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

Whoa. Forming a human line around something and shooting US soldiers is pretty different.

[Kuciwalker]

They don't differ, however, in that they both INTENTIONALLY HINDER US forces IN A WAR ZONE.

[Dis]

Originally posted by skywalker
They don't differ, however, in that they both INTENTIONALLY HINDER US forces IN A WAR ZONE.

if you can explain exactly how they hindered us, then you might have a point.

[Kuciwalker]

Let's assume that it is also wrong (in the sense that you would protest the same) to bomb the target if there are (willing) human shields there. Thus, if they are their we can't bomb there (or at least, you would complain about it). Thus, they have hindered us. My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

[Nubclear]

Nevermind. I misread. And I mgiht as well spare people that grusome picture.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say they were the same; I said they didn't differ in a certain aspect.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker
This isn't "aiding" them?

Aid has been defined in treason and related cases in the US in both military and civil law as some form of direct material support.

They are INTENTIONALLY HINDERING THE OPERATION OF THE US MILITARY IN A TIME OF WAR.

How so? As I posted earlier, before the war started, if I was there again for this war, and was given orders to do something to a valid target, I'd do it. Do you think anyone in the US military was going to say "Oooooh, we have to leave those AAA installations in place because some leftist frootloop peacenik chained his dumb ass to the radar vehicle."

If they want to protest, fine - but the war was legally declared.

Without getting into David Floyd semantics, was it? The President was authorized by Congress to take military action. That is not necessarily equivalent to a formal state of war, and not necessarily a legal basis for finding a combatant entity to be an "enemy" for purposes of treason.

Once we are actually at war, they can try to stop it, but they can't actually HINDER it.

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

That's a really lame troll. Do you have any evidence, or has any party reported, that any of the US citizens arrested as "human shields" ever carried a weapon, let alone fired on, let alone hit, any US personnel?

Or did you just decide you had nothing more than a lame emotional argument so you had to make up additional claims that have no basis in fact?

[Kuciwalker]

How so? As I posted earlier, before the war started, if I was there again for this war, and was given orders to do something to a valid target, I'd do it. Do you think anyone in the US military was going to say "Oooooh, we have to leave those AAA installations in place because some leftist frootloop peacenik chained his dumb ass to the radar vehicle."

MtG, as I've said before:

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

I'm working on the assumption that there is something "wrong" with bombing a target that is protected by a willing human shield. Remove that assumption and I'm fine.

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

If I shoot at a US soldier and miss, is it OK?

Without getting into David Floyd semantics, was it? The President was authorized by Congress to take military action. That is not necessarily equivalent to a formal state of war, and not necessarily a legal basis for finding a combatant entity to be an "enemy" for purposes of treason.

I'd say that Congress authorizing the President to go to war, and then the President going to war, makes the war pretty legal

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker
No.

My point is they can't have their cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

Nothing in the UCMJ or laws and customs of war require any party to avoid attacking a military target when there are civilians around, regardless of their status or circumstance. The only positive requirement is to minimize, to the extent practical, given the nature of the situation unnecessary civilian casualties. Civilian workers in a military target are not "unnecessary casualties" nor would be any other civilians who are voluntarily there with knowledge that they are at a potential target during a time of war.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

Not a problem to me - I wouldn't hesitate carrying out my orders.

[Kuciwalker]

Nothing in the UCMJ or laws and customs of war require any party to avoid attacking a military target when there are civilians around, regardless of their status or circumstance. The only positive requirement is to minimize, to the extent practical, given the nature of the situation unnecessary civilian casualties. Civilian workers in a military target are not "unnecessary casualties" nor would be any other civilians who are voluntarily there with knowledge that they are at a potential target during a time of war.

OK then, we are completely in agreement then.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

If I shoot at a US soldier and miss, is it OK?

You don't even have to shoot. Merely carrying a weapon for the enemy makes you an (unlawful) enemy combatant. That's in a totally different category than an unarmed protestor in terms of their legal status, their rights if captured, and for purposes of both civilian criminal law and military law.

I'd say that Congress authorizing the President to go to war, and then the President going to war, makes the war pretty legal

Congress never used the terms "war" nor did the President. Authorizing unspecified military action doesn't create a state of war. Were we at war with Sudan when we cruise missiled a target there? Were we at war continuously with Iraq when we enforced the No-fly zones ever since the end of the gulf war, under UN authority? A legal state of war for purposes of determining a party as an "enemy" for a treason prosecution is distinct from whether Bush's actions were authorized by Congress, and therefore legal.