Into the Night
Verified User
He's playing word games again.
Rules of Armed Conflict, Rule 47
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
The boat still existed. It never wrecked.
Into the Night
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
On the other hand...
Since these boat operators are considered terrorists and conducting irregular warfare, they fall under Article 29 and 39 more closely than Article 47.
That is, they are using ruses, dressed in civilian clothes, and engaged in "perfidious" activities to include under Article 37 poisoning the enemy. I think that last fits given the deaths involving fentanyl and its toxicity.
All-in-all, they most likely are "unprivileged belligerents" and pretty much open season targets as a result.
I Spy: Espionage, Perfidy, and Fighting in the Shadows - Lieber Institute West Point
Assessing the role espionage plays during conflict raises important and challenging legal issues, particularly given its role in targeting.
lieber.westpoint.edu
What about terrorists? They can be detained without due process and without being treated as prisoners of war. The law is unclear as to their long-term status, but certain factors are beyond dispute.
To put it bluntly, a terrorist is an “outlaw” in the literal sense of that term, unprotected by the ordinary rules of international law, because terrorists don’t abide by these rules themselves.
So, they ain't got nothin' comin'.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Violatio of 47 are not excused by 29 and 39 willy nilly. Stop your scroll bys.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Actually, they are. International law, as Dershowitz points out, is largely suspended when dealing with terrorists. Or are you really going to try and argue that Osama bin Laden was illegally killed in the raid on his home in Pakistan? It amounts to the same thing.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Fallacy of false equivalency. The raid was to kill Osama. He was legitimate goods. Those clinging to a shipwreck were not under international law.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The people on those boats were declared terrorists too. No difference except in their methods and intended targets.
Tbird19482
Verified User
And IF they were " clinging to the boat " for 41 Min. before the second " TAP " that IS against the Geneva Convention.
And IF Trump and his people did the second " TAP " after these guys were in the water for that 41 min. they SHOULD be put up on charges of MURDER and breaking the Geneva Convention .
And I would ask everybody , YES everybody ( MAGAS INCLUDED ) on this forum to ask their Senators and Congressmen to have in-depth investigation ( like I have ) and IF they find their actions broke the Geneva Convention or any other law Trump and his people should be put up on charges , and MURDER charges if fit.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Trump, DUI Pete and the Admiral clearly committed a war crime with malice aforethought.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Crepitus
Verified User
Yu do realize that's a movie, not real life?
Clint Eastwood is an actor. He doesn't really shoot people.
The GC does not apply to terrorists.
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
BY JEFFREY S. SCHOENWALD AND HENRY I. MILLER - We can hold to our ideals as they pertain to treatment of innocent civilians (theirs and ours); but when terrorists disdain and wantonly violate international norms of law, perhaps we can return the favor.
www.forbes.com
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
All MAGAt cracker retards have a problem with separating fiction from reality. They really believe prices are down, inflation is down, wages are up and that their Orange Messiah can make America white again. Weird! Sick as fuck, but still weird.
Tbird19482
Verified User
And they are ONLY being called terrorists because Trump called them terrorists, what act of terrorism did they commit?The GC does not apply to terrorists.
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
BY JEFFREY S. SCHOENWALD AND HENRY I. MILLER - We can hold to our ideals as they pertain to treatment of innocent civilians (theirs and ours); but when terrorists disdain and wantonly violate international norms of law, perhaps we can return the favor.
NONE.
And NOT going in and picking them up sets up a dangerous set of circumstances that in the future could get Americans killed.
Tbird19482
Verified User
YEP Trump would call a pile of dog shit candy and you and the rest of the MAGAS would be right over there eating it up and saying it taste really good.The GC does not apply to terrorists.
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions
BY JEFFREY S. SCHOENWALD AND HENRY I. MILLER - We can hold to our ideals as they pertain to treatment of innocent civilians (theirs and ours); but when terrorists disdain and wantonly violate international norms of law, perhaps we can return the favor.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
We will keep kicking you when you are down.
