NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:02 am**

Loben The 2nd wrote:
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
The Geveva convention applies to whoever signs it. Solemn word of oath. Supposedly the US is bound to it, though you apparently disagree?

do we have to render medical aid to terrorists?

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.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:08 am**

Eitoan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Nice to hear him standing up to Trump and that illegal orders would be refused on his watch.

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.

Posted: **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.

As I said earlier, I think the first filter an order would have to pass is constitutionality. They could simply ignore the order, fight it out in court later, because no other officer is going to execute them on the spot if there's a taint of unconstitutionality. Officers are sworn to two different things, it's very interesting.

War crimes, though I'm sure senior officers are well versed in that, has only the strength of "laws of the land" not of the constitution. So my feeling is that they'd follow an order with no constitutional aspect (eg kill a civilian on foreign soil) and let the commanding officer take whatever blame there is.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:22 am**

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

Posted: **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

Probably no casualties. Iran would have warned them well in advance, and pretending there are no casualties if 50 people will not be coming home is too big a lie to hide.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:45 am**

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Loben The 2nd wrote:

do we have to render medical aid to terrorists?

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.

Except OBL wasn’t captured at that time.

And irc, I’m not sure if espionage is covered under the Geneva convention.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:50 am**

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Loben The 2nd wrote:
does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?

The Geveva convention applies to whoever signs it. Solemn word of oath. Supposedly the US is bound to it, though you apparently disagree?

We have long said it doesn't apply to unlawful combatants or the dreaded franc-tireur. There are a set of carve outs we made for ourselves on the matter. I'm referring to your original post regarding the Obama raid. Uncle Sam probably had bs briefs to excuse what he did with the underlying message being try to stop us. I'm willing to bet nobody gets vaccines in that region anymore tbh. Those kinds of things stick around.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:16 am**

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?

Posted: **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?

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.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

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?

Posted: **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?

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.
Say how much strychnine in your bloodstream is an acceptable dosage for you personally?

Posted: **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.

Gas is inefficient. Be like Uncle Sam and use Willy Pete instead.

Posted: **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.

It didn't matter in Iran-Iraq. It wouldn't have mattered had the Cold War gone hot, why would it matter now?

Posted: **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.

Gas is extrememy efficient vs the civilian populace. As is any amount of epidemic causing agent.

Posted: **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.

It worked well enough in WW1 2: The Electric Smugaloo

Posted: **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.

Treaties to which the US is party are the supreme law of the land.

Posted: **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.

"Osama Bin Laden was unjustly murdered." Steaming hot take fresh from the oven.

Posted: **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.

That's very obviously not what NH is saying.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:49 am**

Loben The 2nd wrote:
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
The Geveva convention applies to whoever signs it. Solemn word of oath. Supposedly the US is bound to it, though you apparently disagree?

do we have to render medical aid to terrorists?

Yes. You cannot deny medical care to anyone. Just like a doctor has to treat anyone who comes in the door of the hospital

Posted: **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

the moment we break the rules of war means other countries can do the same for us. You'd be screaming bloody murder if our soldiers were subject to horrible treatment or illegal weapons.

Posted: **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?

It depends. In a war zone, yes. If terrorists are also combatants, then yes, the laws of war apply to them. If they are not combatants but merely criminals, which you can also claim, then they are protected by due process and human rights law, which is even more strict than the Geneva Conventions are.

Now, you can choose: apply peacetime law, which means that they are civilian targets and cannot be engaged, or apply the laws of war, which says that you have to lay off the poison gas for like five minutes.

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.

Which is why the US is now frantically trying to justify its actions under international law, and why Trumps own administration denies wanting to attack cultural sites because those would be war crimes.

Posted: **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?

As they ars combatants, yes.

Listened to Trump's Iran news update.

Filled to the brim with "Iran deal bad" and "Obama bad" oh and his massive ego.

Strange how he is fine with spending countless billions on a useless ass wall but not fine with the money spent on Iran to make it's self a better place.

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:08 am**

So was Trump actually high during the speech or something?

Posted: **Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:37 am**

Vassenor wrote:So was Trump actually high during the speech or something?

I do sometimes think they slip him half a Valium or something when they need him to stay on point in a speech.

NationStates

MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment