Sigh. This is going to be just the first of a series of dumb questions, to find a way out of or perhaps lead away from, the horrible mistake you made … isn't it?
Yes. If you have captured a terrorist you have to render them medical aid.
Advertisement
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:02 am
by Seangoli » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:08 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:25 am
Seangoli wrote:Eitoan wrote:
Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?
I imagine most top brass are accutely aware of the Geneva conventions and what constitutes a war crime. They also understand that "following orders" is not a defense in and of itself, as seen in things as the Nuremberg trials. Just because the President gives nanorder does not mean it is legal.
by Nazariles » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:22 am
by The Grims » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:51 am
Nazariles wrote:When will Trump deliver his statement on TV today? Trump either declares war or gives Iran a chance to avoid a full-scale war. And I what I find a bit worrying is that we haven't got a significant overview of the situation in the American bases in Iraq. According to Reuters, some U.S. officials have denied giving a comment about whether casualties have taken place or not in the American side
by Loben The 2nd » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:45 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Sigh. This is going to be just the first of a series of dumb questions, to find a way out of or perhaps lead away from, the horrible mistake you made … isn't it?
Yes. If you have captured a terrorist you have to render them medical aid.
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:50 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:16 am
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:18 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:So if terrorists haven't got rights... does it mean Iran can ignore the conventions in le futur war since they just declared all American combatants terrorists?
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:21 am
The East Marches II wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:So if terrorists haven't got rights... does it mean Iran can ignore the conventions in le futur war since they just declared all American combatants terrorists?
Yes, its just a piece of paper. Why would they follow it? These are the same guys that thought sending kids over minefields was a good idea. No airy ideal of so called international law is going to stop them.
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:23 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
Yes, its just a piece of paper. Why would they follow it? These are the same guys that thought sending kids over minefields was a good idea. No airy ideal of so called international law is going to stop them.
Wonder if you would say the same if some country would just happen to accidentally misplace 20 kg's of mustard gas in your neighbourhood.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:25 am
The East Marches II wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Wonder if you would say the same if some country would just happen to accidentally misplace 20 kg's of mustard gas in your neighbourhood.
What does that have to with Uncle Sam the mob boss and the guys sending kids over minefields? Is that what passes for a clever reply these days if one doesn't like the reality of the situation?
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:26 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
What does that have to with Uncle Sam the mob boss and the guys sending kids over minefields? Is that what passes for a clever reply these days if one doesn't like the reality of the situation?
Since you evidently declared that international laws of war means jack and shit let's start exploding people's faces with exploding bullets and gas the survivors, the grass and the corpses. Oh and throw in some largeish tonnages of strychnine as well.
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:27 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
What does that have to with Uncle Sam the mob boss and the guys sending kids over minefields? Is that what passes for a clever reply these days if one doesn't like the reality of the situation?
Since you evidently declared that international laws of war means jack and shit let's start exploding people's faces with exploding bullets and gas the survivors, the grass and the corpses. Oh and throw in some largeish tonnages of strychnine as well.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:27 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Since you evidently declared that international laws of war means jack and shit let's start exploding people's faces with exploding bullets and gas the survivors, the grass and the corpses. Oh and throw in some largeish tonnages of strychnine as well.
Gas is inefficient. Be like Uncle Sam and use Willy Pete instead.
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:29 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Since you evidently declared that international laws of war means jack and shit let's start exploding people's faces with exploding bullets and gas the survivors, the grass and the corpses. Oh and throw in some largeish tonnages of strychnine as well.
Gas is inefficient. Be like Uncle Sam and use Willy Pete instead.
by Ifreann » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:35 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.
As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.
by Gormwood » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:35 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.
The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.
The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.
by Ifreann » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:43 am
Gormwood wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.
The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.
The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.
"Osama Bin Laden was unjustly murdered." Steaming hot take fresh from the oven.
by San Lumen » Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:51 am
The East Marches II wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Gas is inefficient. Be like Uncle Sam and use Willy Pete instead.
It worked well enough in WW1 2: The Electric Smugaloo
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:14 am
Loben The 2nd wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.
The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.
The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.
does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?
Washington Resistance Army wrote:San Lumen wrote:
There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.
When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries
International law only applies to small countries without the power to back up whatever they do.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:55 am
Loben The 2nd wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.
The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.
The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.
does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?
by Vassenor » Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:08 am
by Farnhamia » Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:37 am
Vassenor wrote:So was Trump actually high during the speech or something?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bilancorn, Durius, Duvniask, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Landorom, Lysset
Advertisement