Fair Warning

Fair warning is needed on many fronts. It's been well publicized by Israel that they would be attacking in the south of Lebanon. Fliers were dropped, broadcasts were made - so how is it that up to sixty "civilians," many said to be children were killed from an air strike in Qana? But we won't hear anymore about the warnings, that the area was identified as launching rocket strikes into Israel - and we'll probably never know how many of the so-called civilians were actually that, or how many were forced to remain there by Hezbollah.

Rice is said to have put off a planned trip to Lebanon after the attack. No doubt all the useful idiots will get tremendous mileage out of this. But Israel had better be careful. If they get backed down from this and leave Hezbollah armed, depending upon some international force for their security, they're crazy. Even the UN forces were prone to bribes and collusion. An international force likely won't be much better. In a few years Hezbollah will be able to target anything they want in Israel with munitions that can only be imagined right now.

It already disgusts me that so much of the free world appears to lack the nerve and the will to stand up to terrorist scum. I hope Israel doesn't follow suit. They might survive it for now. But down the road they will pay an incredible price.

Here's the war news: Pajamas Media, or read a few regional blogs. I like to check the JP headlines, as well.

Comments

[Heavy Weather]

Your reasoning is incontrovertable, if I give you warning that I'm going to blow up your house and you don't leave (perhaps you didn't have enough petrol in your car, or were too frightened, or lost your car keys, or one of your children was missing - whatever) then it's your fault if you die. It must be wonderful to exist in a world in which all moral responsibilty for your actions can be conveniently displaced to those you perform them on. For God's sake you would think they would at least have the guts to accept responsiblity for the act they so vehemently believe is morally just.

Forgetting all the repulsive squirming attempts to absolve themselves of any moral responsibility for their actions, the stupidest element of this whole business is that the stated military objective of Israel can not be achieved by the methods they are currently employing, i.e. air power with small troop deployments. Furthermore they have already tried for (18+ years) the alternative of large scale ground force intervention - that didn't work either.

While the IRA was still bombing the UK, Sinn Fein politicians sat (though they didn't take up the right) in the British parliament. Britain did not launch bombing raids on southern Ireland to root out IRA hideouts or bomb sympathisers in Dublin (many Americans were supporting the IRA financially during their "struggle" at this point by the way). Britain used the carrot of political respectability, financial security, etc. to negotiate short ceasefires which became longer and have led the country to its current state - where it seems more difficult to imagine the conflict restarting than to imagine its cessation - what a bunch of thickos should have just broken out the nukes!

[@]

Fair warning?? Shees...... Give me a break.
So if someone wants to bom miami it is ok if there will be a flyer first?? Yeah right.

[Gary Maxwell]

If Miami were sending out rockets at your house and your neighbors house on a regular basis and had declared war on you, then I would say flyers are not to even be expected. Actions have consequences and sometimes collartel damage occurs. Sorry that messes with both your karma.

[Phoenix]

I was watching this coverage and it occurred to me that Hezbollah probably gassed those poor women and children to keep them in that place. No autopsies are done on the dead, and they are buried immediately. Hezbollah's use of "killed" women and children to turn world opinion against the 'murderous' Israelis would have failed had the bodies been hauled out with handcuffs and ankle chains.

[Phoenix]

Oh, yeah.... No men were found there. Only the old, infirm, women and children were there. Useless human fodder. Can't be wasting any men who could possibly fight.

[xxx]

Look Dan, Israel is not going to eliminate Hezbollah, the best they can hope for is to either bomb or find and destroy their stockpile of missles and kill as many of them as possible.

I don't think even the Israelis are so foolhardy as to intend to go house to house in Lebanon trying to kill every member of Hezbollah, since they already tried that for about 20 years and failed, not only would it most likely be impossible but would result in a huge loss of life for Israel as well as many more Lebanese civilians.

The continued blaming of Lebanse civilians for getting themselves killed is simply offensive.

Let's look at the actual result of Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

-Innocent Lebanese civilians killed.
-Lebanese public opinion turning away from blaming Hezbollah to blaming Israel.
-Billions in infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands of homeless civilians.
-Arabs across the middle east are now praying for the head of Hezbollah, even those who previously did NOT support Hezbollah.
-Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab states that did initially blame Hezbollah for this debacle have changed their tune, and are now condemming Israeli aggression.
-Israel looks like a crazy, aggressive militaristic state to the rest of the world
-The United States has shown itself as utterly powerless to do anything.

Is this really the outcome that US and Israel wanted?

NOTE TO BUSH: When you 'refuse' to negotiate with the other side you have taken away both the carrot and the stick, and thus, are powerless to get anything accomplished, all you can do is sit on the sidelines with your fingers crossed and hope it all works out okay. As a foreign policy strategy, that is pretty pathetic.

[splashtc]

Why doesn't the "other side" give up. ? instead of being hell bent on destroying Israel at any cost to them.

[xxx]

The entire problem with labeling the "other side" as simply terrorists is that it doesn't deal with the fact that they have some very valid claims.

The parallel to the IRA was quite a good one from whomever posted it. The IRA was a "terrorist" organization, they killed civilians, they killed soldiers, they enjoyed significant support among the civilian population in Catholic Ireland and Northern Ireland, they got money from around the world by many other who also felt they had some valid points about the division of Ireland and NOrthern Ireland.

This is the same thing with Hamas and Hezbollah. They are more than just simple criminals and to treat them as criminals and to devalue the many valid points that their side does have makes it impossible for any rational solution.

To play devils advoate on Israel for a moment, being a country for 60 years isn't that long a time. Yugoslavia no longer exists, East Germany no longer exists, Latvia and Serbia which ceased to appear on any map for 70 years are back again. THere is plenty of historical precedent to believe that Israel is not necessarily here to stay FOREVER..I don't believe that is true, I don't think the world would allow Israel to be destroyed no matter how much anti Israel sentiment there is, but the fact remains, that history shows that 60 years just ain't that long and there are plenty of examples of countries that did cease to exist, so, from the Arab world's perspective, why should they recognize Israel? What's in it for them?

And that is the central problem, we have painted ourselves into such a corner by painting all of these groups as simple terrorists who we don't negotiate with, that we have eliminated the option of giving something to get something, just like the Brits did with the IRA.

The world is not black and white and until we understand that Israel is not right in every single action and that the "terrorists' are not wrong in every single action there is no hope for anything but continued violence and hate.

[Rick]

"NOTE TO BUSH: When you 'refuse' to negotiate with the other side you have taken away both the carrot and the stick, and thus, are powerless to get anything accomplished, all you can do is sit on the sidelines with your fingers crossed and hope it all works out okay. As a foreign policy strategy, that is pretty pathetic."

Negotiating with the people who want to murder everyone who does not believe as they do, i.e the islamos, has worked exceedingly well over the last 58 years hasn't it? Let historic fact be your guide; Once they murder enough jews and push the rest into the sea.....they will turn on each other. These are born murderers with a lust for blood that you cannot understand.

[Rick]

"While the IRA was still bombing the UK, Sinn Fein politicians sat (though they didn't take up the right) in the British parliament."
Which they had been doing for nearly 800 years before Sinn Fein was ALLOWED to sit in Parliment.

Israel has also attempted a coalition govt...which worked as well as it is currently in Iraq.

[xxx]

These are born murderers with a lust for blood that you cannot understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is simply ridiculous and is an example of the black/white thinking that gets us nowhere.

The entire Islamic world is not filled with millions of "BORN MURDERERS" with a lust for blood, that is a disgusting and totally racist attitude, and is exactly why nobody in the Arab world trusts us or believes that we, the US, wants to be an honest broker.

[Rick]

"And that is the central problem, we have painted ourselves into such a corner by painting all of these groups as simple terrorists who we don't negotiate with, that we have eliminated the option of giving something to get something, just like the Brits did with the IRA.

The world is not black and white and until we understand that Israel is not right in every single action and that the "terrorists' are not wrong in every single action there is no hope for anything but continued violence and hate."

This is almost inarguable. How unfair of Israel to keep 25% of the Brit mandated area known as Palestine. Total assholes too for giving back "conquered" lands right up until the Clinton administration. And worst yet putting up a wall to try to get their school children on a bus w/o being machine gunned to death. You are correct that Israeli over reaction has created further animosity though. But how does one avoid over reacting when elementary school girls are being beheaded......for being Christian? Gold Mier said it best. It will end when the "palestinians" love their children more than they hate Israel.

[xxx]

Simple. Don't over react.

Didn't Golda also say there was no such thing as a Palestinian? Sounds kinda confrontational and zenophobic to me.

The Palestinians appear to believe that the only thing that Israel does react to is violence and that the only bargaining chip they have is violence and death, the only thing they can do is sacrifice their own children to the cause of what they believe is justice.

[Rick]

"The entire Islamic world is not filled with millions of "BORN MURDERERS" with a lust for blood, that is a disgusting and totally racist attitude,"

First, YOU are far too intelligent to throw the term "racist" around so freely. Especially when you've no idea whom you're throwing it at. You are also certainly aware that islam is a religion, not a race, and that it is a world wide religion therefore encompassing all the races of mankind.It is also quite bigoted to assume that everyone in the mideast is a muslim. There are millions of Christians, Jews, hindus and by George even non-believers among them. You aren't stupid, so dont act like it.

Yes, "born murderers" may have been a poor choice, (though we are all born with that ability). They have special schools set up to create murderers. It is also true that the vast majority of Muslims, worldwide, just want to be left alone to live their lives. However they appear to refuse to do anything about the minority. The Lebanese wanted and were building a democracy, yet would not...with the world's (UN) help disarm the hezzies. Then you have the Iraqi civil war...Shiites vs Sunnis vs Kurds. How does that relate to the terr dream of Israeli bodies floating out to sea?

[oldtimer]

Carrot and stick? Negotiate? Are people that stupid or do they have their heads stuck in the sand, or one of their orafices? These are islamofacist who want to kill us, end of story. They are using the media, and the media just laps up this garbage about the poor innocents getting killed,anyone who believes that is living in an alternate universe. Those who think this is not part of the global war on terror, and that the goal is to kill the infidels are doomed, or they are the enemy.

[Crazy Politico]

I personally have begun to believe that large amounts of Napalm are the solutions to Israels problems. Like the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings of 1943-45 they shoudl just burn out Lebanon completely. It would then be much easier to enforce security.

If the Lebanese don't like the idea, they could always kick Hezbollah out of the country.

[xxx]

Not sure if there are "millions" of Christians and Jews in the muslim world, but your point is taken.

Who is to say that if given time Lebanon would not have come to a point where they would have either disarmed Hezbollah, or BETTER, simply rendered them pointless, an anachronism, a group that might have lost its support from Lebanese, and their foreign backers, not gotten anyone elected or gotten any support? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, it seems to me that it was up to Lebanon and not Israel.

Please remember this did not start with Hezbollah bombing Israel, but with Hezbollah kidnapping two soldiers. In my world, the lives of two soldiers, however much their kidnapping is to be deplored is simply not worth wrecking an ENTIRE COUNTRY over. It doesn't compute, it's crazy, kind of like when the ex husband stabs his wife 125 times, it reads like a frenzy of pure hate.

My opinion is that "Islam" as it is practiced or perhaps better, as it is employed by the Arab states has about as much to do with what the prophet Muhammed intended as I believe the crusades, the inquisition, the English civil war and witch burning had to do with what Jesus Christ was preaching about, which is ZERO, NOTHING.

Like just about every other religion on the planet, Islam has mutated into a 'rationale' for everything from keeping women from driving cars, 4 muslims to witness a real rape to the destruction of Israel and killing of whomever the resident Mullah decides is no good.

All I can tell you is that I believe just saying "Hamas is a terrorist organization, the PLO is a terrorist organization, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization" and so we won't listen to anything they say, or give credence to any position they take is totally fucking stupid.

Why can't we admit that some of what they say is not only legitimate but correct while AT THE SAME TIME saying that killing civilians is immoral, wrong and criminal?

Why can't it be just as wrong for an Israeli soldier to kill an innocent Arab civilian as it is for an Arab terrorist group to kill an innocent Israeli? Just because the Israeli guy is wearing a uniform he gets a pass for whatever he does? That isn't justice, its prejudice.

[Rick]

X
You're coming closer and closer to the light..keep thinking, keep moving.

[xxx]

Rick,

My position isn't changing, I have and will always maintain that the answer is balance and fairness to all sides.

An atrocity is an atrocity, whether it is committed by an Israeli soldier, a Hamas bomber, a U.S. soldier, a Shia militia, a jewish settler.

All innocent life is to be equally valued. The life of the jewish kid as his barmitzvah is just as valuable as the life of the 13 year old arab girl walking across a field.

My problem with Bush, the neocons, the conservatives in general and Israel is that we do not react this way. Instead, just like Dan's initial post, it is to be explained away, the Lebanese should have gotten out [HUH?], they were probably Hez supporters anway [says who?], anything our troops do or the Israeli troops do was an 'accident' or 'bad apples' or an anomally. Oh please, fuck that.

Matter of fact, attrocities by those in uniform should be the least excused not the most since those in uniform are trained and ostensibly total loonies have been weeded out so when a solider in uniform purposefully kills a civilian it cannot be justified.

[rwilymz]

First reality, 'x': you cannot negotiate outside your peer group. For the US or Israel to "negotiate" with Hezbollah, you are granting Hezbollah that which they do not have: sovereignty. You are equating them to a sovereign nation with something to lose. But since they are NOT a sovereign nation they do not have something to lose, but only something to gain. Congratulations; you've just lost the negotiation without a word being spoken.

"The entire problem with labeling the "other side" as simply terrorists is that it doesn't deal with the fact that they have some very valid claims."

Such as?

They were dispossessed of their lands, perhaps? Stand in line, buckos. The East Prussian were dispossessed of their lands as well, yet I don't see many German Poles bombing Gdansk cafes to punctuate their petulant point.

The Pal-Arabs had land until they mortgaged it by starting a war against Israel -- which they lost. The way it works is: if you fight a war and lose, your land is up for grabs. If you START the war and lose, ... do you honestly think that "do-overs" is a valid concept outside the grade school playground?

They don't get do-overs, 'x'. If the Pal-Arabs get a do-over, they'll be the first in the history of the world. The Israelis have been incredibly patient and tolerant. Pal-Arabs want Israel to remove settlements from Gaza? Will that make them happy? Okay, Israel will piss off their OWN PEOPLE to give the Pal-Arabs what they want: land. What do the pal-Arabs do? raid Israel, kill IDF and capture another, and demonstrate that they cannot be trusted at their word.

And you want to NEGOTIATE?

Rick is giving you far too much credit calling you "too intelligent" to make the facile arguments you're making. Facile arguments are the result of a facile mentality. Your brains aren't ear-padding, 'x'. Use them for their intended purpose.

Explain what "valid claim" these people have.

Now I'll agree that "terrorist" is a loaded term that has ceased being functional in our current world situation; these people are paramilitaries trying to play war with the big boys, i.e., real nations with real militaries. And since they are, they have an obligation under the rules of war to play war according to the rules. They are uniformly failing in that obligation, largely by deliberately attacking from civilian quarters while looking like civilians.

The Lebanese know who Hezbollah are, and they stay -- or are forced to stay -- so that when "civilians" are killed it suddenly becomes Israel's fault. Wrong.

You need to read the rules of war, 'x'.

[xxx]

You can't have it both ways dumbass. If it is a "war" then both sides are held to the same standards and are equally protected, thus, the whole enemy combatant bullshit has to be jetisoned. They are doing what disposed people throughout history have done, they are fighting a gurilla war...and um, isn't that what the jews did when Rome took over back in the day?

Feel free to give me a history lesson, but I believe Israel is the only country in the modern era created arbitrarily out of whole cloth by uninvolved third parties, i.e. the United Nations, with the added bonus of being, other than Pakistan I think the only country created solely on the basis of RELIGION, which is normally not considered a valid reason for nationhood.

[rwilymz]

"In my world, the lives of two soldiers, however much their kidnapping is to be deplored is simply not worth wrecking an ENTIRE COUNTRY over."

Well, your world is notorious for having a pink sky with green and purple stripes.

Any nation's warships, warplanes or warriors are part of that nation. When you attack any one of them you are attacking that nation's sovereignty. It becomes an act of war.

To respond to acts of war with ... nothing ... tends to invite more acts of war.

It was not a coincidence that as soon as the US changed presidents from Bush I to Clinton, and from Clinton to Bush II, that Iraq attacked US aircraft in increased frequency. "Can I attack this nation and get away with it?"

Uh, no, Mr Hussein, you cannot. Both presidents responded with military action.

It was not a coincidence that as soon as Sharon was removed from office and Olmert [whatever] took over that both Hamas and Hezbollah did the same. Acts of war invite war.

Don't want the war? Don't invite one.

[xxx]

There is a vast array of 'responses' between nothing and invading and destroying another country that didn't attack you.

That's like saying if some idiot from the Aryan Nation lobbed a bomb over to Mexico that the Mexican government would be justified in invading the U.S. to 'take them out'

With your attitude the cold war would have turned hot and nucleur in the 1950's, cause ya know, we woulda had to show them commies we werent' soft.

In the actual real world, countries use a variety of strategies to deal with their enemies and there are generally accepted levels and actions that are not done, certainly when dealing with unofficial radical elements who happen to reside in a country that you aren't at war with, that happens to be minding its own business.

I'm done here...people who think napalming Lebanon is a good idea are an embarrassment to America and the human race.

[Rick]

"With your attitude the cold war would have turned hot and nucleur in the 1950's, cause ya know, we woulda had to show them commies we werent' soft."

Probably it would have been better to wait until the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba, then bockade the whole island while building an invasion force in Florida and Georgia..........opps, wait a minute, that's zackly what we did. Was it before or after we helped invade Cuba though?

'X' in a perfect world, better a more mature world, your opinion is sound. It IS better to negotiate through a situation. However this is not the Brits and the modern IRA who are tired of dying for nothing. We are dealing with people whose stated goals include the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of the world. Blowing up buses in Manilla has nothing to do with killing people in Haifa. Every president since Truman, including Bush, has tried to negotiate a peace. Maybe in another fifty years but now our best hope is to contain them.

[rwilymz]

"There is a vast array of 'responses' between nothing and invading and destroying another country that didn't attack you."

A'stan didn't attack the US ... were we justified in invading A'stan?

"That's like saying if some idiot from the Aryan Nation lobbed a bomb over to Mexico that the Mexican government would be justified in invading the U.S. to 'take them out'"

They would be.

The way it works is this: if Paramilitary Group X is residing in Country A and perpetrate acts of war against Country B and Country A doesn't do anything substantive about Paramilitary Group X, then the rules of international protocol assume that Country A is responsible for the actions and conduct of Paramilitary Group X.

That's why international law justified the US invading A'stan when it wasn't A]stan who attacked us ... just a group of paramilitaries living IN A'stan; and why international law justified the US invading Mexico in 1913 [?] when Pancho Villa crossed the border and attacked a New Mexico town and Mexico did nothing about it.

Hezbollah uses Lebanon as a military base for conducting war against Israel and Lebanon doesn't do anything about it? Israel gets to invade Lebanon.

Sorry.

"With your attitude the cold war would have turned hot and nucleur in the 1950's, cause ya know, we woulda had to show them commies we werent' soft"

If you don't discren a difference between a world superpower and a penny ante pissant nation like Lebanon, you've got a huge problem with scale and depth perception.

"...dealing with unofficial radical elements who happen to reside in a country that you aren't at war with, that happens to be minding its own business"

You want to claim that Lebanon was 'minding its own business' then you need to support the claim that they were attempting to do something about Hezbollah, because the responsibility of controlling "unofficial radical elements' within your own borders is required under the most basic pact between nations.

[xxx]

RIck,

I am 99% sure that Hamas doesn't want to subjugate the entire world, they want to destroy Israel, that is true, but don't ascribe to them motives they don't have. Again, not all Arab/Islamic groups/terrorists/countries are alike. They pretty much all want Israel gone, but they don't all want women in head to toe black,uneducated, they don't all want to destroy America and they don't all hate and detest everything that is "western"...I feel the need to restate that Lebanon, which Israel has now reduced to rubble was the perfect example of what WE WANT IN THE MIDDLE EAST: a relatively sectarian state where 'national' values outweigh religious ones, where democracy and freedom and a rising standard of living are all increasing. Lebanon could have been the poster child for where the Arab states need to go, what they should aspire to, NOT Iran, not a theocracy [forget the fact that our own country is practically a theocracy at this point], not ruled by religious zealots.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp??

I am sticking to my belief that you need both a carrot and a stick.

[rwilymz]

"If it is a "war" then both sides are held to the same standards and are equally protected"

Bingo!

So when we have to fight while wearing uniforms and are prohibited from deliberately concealing ourselves among civilian populations or else run the risk of causing disproportionate civilians harm and removing ourselves from considerations under the GenCons, So.Do.They.

Stop quibbledicking.

"isn't that what the jews did when Rome took over back in the day?"

In 77AD?

Roughly 1550 years before Westphalia?

Roughly 1800 years before the first GenCon?

Yes.

Frankly, tough noogies. It is now NOT before Westphalia and the GenCons, and to pretend it is is to either:
1] claim to own a Wayback machine by which you can travel backward and forward throughout the historical timeline to whatever period is necessary to rationalize your poison position, or
2] to advertise yourself as a grasping twit who does not understand the issue but insists on running his fingers over his keyboard anyway.

[xxx]

if Paramilitary Group X is residing in Country A and perpetrate acts of war against Country B and Country A doesn't do anything substantive about Paramilitary Group X, then the rules of international protocol assume that Country A is responsible for the actions and conduct of Paramilitary Group X.
--------------------------------------

You are an idiot. Maybe you need to read up on international law and what it says about civlians, civilian targets, guerilla warfare and invading sovereign nations.

[rwilymz]

"You are an idiot."

But I'm still correct.

"Maybe you need to read up on international law and what it says about civlians, civilian targets, guerilla warfare and invading sovereign nations."

Read it, went through the training, I work in it on a daily basis and have for a quarter century.

Civilians cannnot be "deliberately" targetted.

Civilian "objects" cannot be "deliberately" targetted unless they are
a] being used by an enemy force
b] might be used by an enemy force or
c] provide an enemy force with sustanence

Guerilla warfare is allowed by
1] militias which set themselves apart from civilians by wearing a uniform or other "identifying badge"
2] spontaneously-formed militias without uniforms or badges provided they follow a military command structure, carry their arms openly and follow all the other rules of war

Hezbollah is neither, by the way, since they are a pre-existant paramilitary force which does not separate themselves from the civilians population in a visually identifiable manner. Even if you were to use the same facile logic that the USSC did in the Hamdan monstrosity, they do not follow the other rules of war.

Nor does Hamas.

Nor does al Qaida.

Nor does Islamic Jihad.

Nor do any of the other splinter groups and feeder groups.

When a sovereign nation does nothing to control its "unofficial" hotheads, then international law assume that the sovereign nation is granting the hotheads some measure of "officialness" and thereupon become the responsibility of that sovereign nation.

Calling me an idiot doesn't change roughly 500 years of nation-state paradigm.

[splashtc]

"That's like saying if some idiot from the Aryan Nation lobbed a bomb over to Mexico that the Mexican government would be justified in invading the U.S. to 'take them out'"
I believe the big difference is that the US would be relentless in capturing and prosecuting the bomb throwers. This is what is lacking in Lebanon, Afghanistan....

[rwilymz]

"not all Arab/Islamic groups/terrorists/countries are alike"

Then why do they refer to themselves as the "Islamic Nation" singular?

Do you not pay attention to what they people say and the words they use to say it?

We in the west are nationalists; they are tribalists used to a black-white worldview. They have tribal grievances amongst themselves, but they're like any group of squabbling hillbillies: brother will fight brother all day long, until brother is blind-sided by someone from town, then the brothers join together to fight the town.

To their way of thinking, Israel is the 51st state in America. But warfare being what it is, it's easier to attack targets in your own neighborhood than to travel halfway around the world to attack someone.

Even so, Hamas was caught trying to bomb the NYC subway system in 1997, and they were caught recruiting in Idaho. ...among the hillbilly militia-ists.

[@]

rwilymz saving the planet.......as usual......sigh

[xxx]

I pay attention when the President of the United States says that our military no longer needs to abide by the Geneva Conventions and then when those self-same Bush supporters [that's you] start yapping about how the "terrorists" don't conform to the Geneva Convention.

How many times do I have to say YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

You can't blast Hamas and Hezbollah for not following the rules, if in fact what you say is true and Hezbollah don't differentiate themselves or openly carry their weapons and then say it is okay for us not to follow the rules.

Any reasonable interpretation of the Geneva Conventions strictures on bombing civilian targets, allowing for safe pasage and medical treatment of civilian casualtiess, and on and on would clearly show that Israel is in violation of said convention articles.

I am sure you think the 'enemy combatant' nonsense was a fine idea, just like detaining so called terrorists ad infinitum without lawyers or any showing of evidence to ANYONE not even a military judge is also a fine way to act...same as I am sure you think the idea of redefining 'torture' so that what a normal rational person would consider torture isn't "officially" torture is another great legacy of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't. I think they are a stain on American honor and everything that our country and the civilized world stand for.

And oh yeah,the little fact that all military personnel will tell you that torture yields shit information anyway and is basically a bad idea that isn't worth the demoralizing effect it has on your own people.

Again, you are an idiot...which probably means you hold a cabinet level post in Dubya's administration.

[Rick]

"I pay attention when the President of the United States says that our military no longer needs to abide by the Geneva Conventions"

Here I was going to bow out lest I feel I am ganging up on you but pray tell; WHEN THE HELL DID GWB *EVER* SAY THAT?

[xxx]

You're kidding, right?

[Gary Maxwell]

There is an idiot on this board all right. But most folks can pick him out without it being necessary to hurl invectives in his direction. Just sayin".

[Rick]

No, I am not kidding. When did GW EVER say that?

[xxx]

An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant US personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if US-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that said international conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such protections, according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield was needed for actions taken by US personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

Language in the administration's draft, which was prepared by officials in the Justice and Defense departments, seeks to protect US personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by making US enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to US -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.

The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of US legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that ``shocks the conscience." This phrase allows the courts to consider the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/shield_sought_for_us_personnel_from_1996_war_crimes_act/

Other articles and memos on the Bush Administration's flouting of the Geneva Convention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5169600.stm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071306K.shtml

http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1113-21.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/16/opinion/edbush.php

[Rick]

X that was pretty boring..."he said he said". Where is the exact quote? Here are a few directly from the convention. It was also interesting to read that prisoners can only be held if country a can also expect that their prisoners would be held......You DO know what they do with our guys don't you?

terrorism
Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)
Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)
torture
Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).
combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

[conservativetothecore]

Any hard core conservative be interested in giving blogs for bush a try?

Come on!, Don't be bashful, they'd be glad to have ya!!

Don't delay!! Go NOW!! to: www.blogsforbush.com

:)

Thanks,

Conservativetothecore

[Rick]

Sorry, but this one hardly considers the president a conservative.

[rwilymz]

"How many times do I have to say YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS"

Correct. So when the rules of war say that before you can get protections under the GenCons you have to do A, B, C and D, and "terrorists" only do B, why do you believe the "terrorists" deserve GenCon protections?

"You can't blast Hamas and Hezbollah for not following the rules, if in fact what you say is true and Hezbollah don't differentiate themselves or openly carry their weapons and then say it is okay for us not to follow the rules."

Well, ... *we* are fighting al Qaida and the Talibaniacs, but the same thing applies: we ****are**** following the rules. And the rules say that when others *do not* follow the rules, we don't have to follow the rules when we capture them.

Read the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War...

...Section 4.

...who qualifies for POW considerations under the GenCons.

Or you can do what the USSC did and refuse to read a.l.l the applicable law, stopping at Section 3.

"Any reasonable interpretation of the Geneva Conventions strictures on bombing civilian targets...would clearly show that Israel is in violation of said convention articles."

Incorrect. Any such reading of the GenCons would be the first in the history of the GenCons.

You ready to retroactively prosecute the US and Britain for Dresden?

Gotta be consistent, otherwise you're advertising yourself as an anti-semitic doofus.

"I am sure you think the 'enemy combatant' nonsense was a fine idea"

Just like it was in 1944 when the US captured German agents in civvies on Long Island and summarily executed them on the spot.

j"ust like detaining so called terrorists ad infinitum without lawyers or any showing of evidence to ANYONE not even a military judge is also a fine way to act"

Find me the paragraph of the GenCons which declare that that captured combatants, POWs or otherwise, get:
a] charged, or
b] attorneys.

I can show you the one where it says that they get tried by military tribunals if they warrant it. Section 84, if I recall correctly.

Here:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm
look for yourself.

Where I *will* agree with you is that it is phenomenally silly to tribunalize them for "terrorism" when what it amounts to is playing war ... which is not against any law, US, International, or otherwise.

"I am sure you think the idea of redefining 'torture' so that what a normal rational person would consider torture isn't "officially" torture"

Who do you think gets to define "torture"?

Keep in mind: I know the answer, and it seems that the ones who you think get to define it are not those who really do.

"I think they are a stain on American honor and everything that our country and the civilized world stand for."

Well, wuptifrigginding. You get as many votes as those who *do* know what they're talking about.

"all military personnel will tell you that torture yields shit information anyway and is basically a bad idea that isn't worth the demoralizing effect it has on your own people"

I'm a military person, and I won't tell you that at all.

Only parts of what you petulantly wail about is accurate, and then only to a limited degree. It is very very accurate that people undergoing torture will say whatever they think wants to be heard, and so once the torture *starts* you are going to get dubious information at best, particularly if the torturer is asking leading questions and trying to get *a* *particular* answer.

But holding the prospect of torture open, and making the prisoner think about it ... for long hours ... while being kept awake ... with loud music and bright lights ... has a very remarkable ability to get accurate information quite readily.

Torture itself isn't that great a gambit, but the prospect of turture is. ...which is why saying "we will never torture" is foolish in the extreme. We need to make them think we will if we need to.

"Again, you are an idiot"

Yet I'm still correct and you still aren't. Which makes you a potted plant or something.

[Heavy Weather]

-"Carrot and stick? Negotiate? Are people that stupid or do they have their heads stuck in the sand, or one of their orafices? These are islamofacist who want to kill us, end of story. They are using the media, and the media just laps up this garbage about the poor innocents getting killed,anyone who believes that is living in an alternate universe. Those who think this is not part of the global war on terror, and that the goal is to kill the infidels are doomed, or they are the enemy."

Israel has successfully negotiated prisoner exchanges in the past with "islamofacists" - the difference today is the current Israeli administration and the current mouthbreathing "leadership" of the international community by this US administration, which believes the "birth pains" of a new order in the Middle East consists of millions of Arabs (and the rest of the world) watching women and children getting blown up by precision American made missiles. The new shiny democracies (devoid of unpleasant "islamofacist" influences no doubt) will I'm sure be overflowing with their love for the US and it's allies. I'm sure it will work, they've probably run a computer simulation that proves it.

-"If Miami were sending out rockets at your house and your neighbors house on a regular basis and had declared war on you, then I would say flyers are not to even be expected. Actions have consequences and sometimes collartel damage occurs. Sorry that messes with both your karma."

Well reasoned, if your neighbour shoots at me I take it I have the right to blow up his house and yours, "collateral damage" - seems fair, even just, my karma is now... unmessed err... man.

[xxx]

But holding the prospect of torture open, and making the prisoner think about it ... for long hours ... while being kept awake ... with loud music and bright lights ... has a very remarkable ability to get accurate information quite readily.
----------------------------------

That isn't really torture though is it, and it wouldn't warrant a rewrite of the definition of torture, would it? The prospect of torture and torture are about as alike as fire and ice.

Hanging some guy up by his arms for hours on end. Torture.
Beating him until his kneecaps turn to mush. Torture.
Dunking him in a vat of water until he believes he's drowning. Torture.
Sodomizing him with anything. Torture.
Forcing him to masterbate himself or another prisoner. Not torture but dehumanizing and not allowed.

So, call me crazy, but all of these actions have been documented as having occured, having been done to prisoners by American soldiers. You may find that justified and you may find that these were just 'rogue' elements, but I don't.

You don't seek to redefine the term torture to mean just about anything but purposely with intent causing grievous bodily harm unless you intend to make your tactics match the new looser definition of torture.

You don't seek retroactive immunity for breaches of the Geneva Convention if you didn't breach it.

When you lower the standard and start to make exceptions by order and statute then you get what you got in Afganistan and Iraq, prisoners, some having postumously been proven to be INNOCENT, not terrorists, who are tortured and murdered.

War is hell doesn't cover it for me. I want to be proud of my country and proud of the U.S. military, not ashamed and wondering about what was in the Iraq photos that the media didn't show us? How bad was it? What did we do to the women?

The fundamental difference between you people and me is that I believe in universal human rights. I believe there are some things that civilized countries don't condone, period, under any circumstances. I don't believe that a bunch of legalese crap to redefine torture and due process is the right way to handle terrorists. And yes, Dresden was a war crime, no doubt about it.

[Rick]

Heavy, I've enjoyed sparring with 'X', he/she has the ability to make a point whether I agree or not. You unfortunately are not qualified to be a smartass, tough I love the karma reference it is not enough to make you any fun. Therefore, my patience with this thread is exhausted, my work is done here and I bid the rest of you a fond adieu.

[xxx]

One last jab, why should I believe the Israelis when they say there was Hezbollah fire coming from near where they bombed this building full of civilians? Because they say so? Show me some proof, not some ridiculous flyers telling people to flee on roads that you have already bombed through territory that you continue to bomb and a half hearted apology.

What else are they going to say? Are they going to admit that they don't care whether they are killing innocent women and children and civlians as long as they think they're getting some Hezbollah guys as well, which in my opinion is the truth.

Israel doesn't care about cvilian casualties as long as they are Arabs. They mouth the platitudes that it was a mistake or they were taking fire from surrounding buildings, but, when something happens over and over and over again it stops being a mistake and starts being a strategy.

I don't doubt that if Israel though they could get away with nuking their enemies they would...hmmm, maybe this is why Iran wants nukes, because they believe that if there is ever a nucleur war in the Middle East it will be the Israelis that start it, not the Arabs.

[old trooper]

Note to Hezbollah apologists, Israel Haters and Terrorist Supporters:

*Hezbollah stores munitions, lives in residential areas, wears no uniforms, clings to locales where women and children are present in numbers, fires their rockets from residential areas as well as concealed sites and operates as GUERILLAS.

*Hezbollah reports no MILITARY CASUALTIES, only CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.

*Hezbollah is NOT a Charitable Organization like the Rotary Club, Knights of Columbus or the Shriners. For every 'act of charity' they expect to recruit suicide bombers, agents and foot soldiers from the Community.

*Hezbollah is NOT a Political Party as most Americans think. They are not like Your Democrats or Republicans. The RNC and DNC do not have a Militant wing that threatens Our Neighbors by conducting cross border raids, kidnappings, murder or other mayhem, ie in Mexico or Canada.

*War up close is HELL. Folks get Killed, Property is Destroyed and more likely than not when fighting Guerillas that hide behind and co-mingle with the local populace Real Non-Combatants close to the Guerillas get Killed.

*99% of soft, spoiled and ignorant Americans and Europeans do not comprehend the total effect of War in Your Neighborhood. They are 'shocked and appalled' by the brutal realities of War.
If you have not seen it up close your comments are inapropriate, irrelevent and worthless. Period.

*If YOU have not spent time, in YOUR Adult Life, in the Middle East You are IGNORANT of the Subject. Period. You may take offense on that statement but if You have not seen Islam at Work, first hand, Your Comments are not based in Fact or Common Sense. Period!

*xxx, Grow up, Skippy. If you have not been to Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, the UAE, Qatar, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Uzbeckistan, or any Arab Republic other than on Holiday...Your comments are only Academic. Period! I spent 12 years in the Middle East and after reading your comments I find that your sense of Schoolboy Morality is just Tripe.

*Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Queda and other splinter groups are not the Boy Scouts. They observe No Rules! They play kids like you like a tin horn. Their goal is simple: World Domination, no Constitutional Rights...Sharia is their Law. They give a Fat Rat`s Ass less about Human Rights!

*Lebanon suffers because the UN lacked the balls to enforce Resolution 1559. Palistinians suffer because Arafat did not see the need to build infrastructure, schools, housing, hospitals and an economy. They built bombs, schooled terrorists from their youth and wasted Billions of Dollars from the US, UN, Oil rich Arab States on perpetuating the misery of their people.

* Holding Israel responsible for defending their people, their nation,
their economy and their success in that region is IRRESPONSIBLE and REPREHENSIBLE. Period.

OK?

If you have not lived in the region, you are not honestly knowlegable on the subject.

[old trooper]

As a post script: only Western Civilization Nations observe the Geneva Convention.
Arab Nations, Islamic Republics and Third World Entities generally find the Geneva Convention and UN Resolutions to be Laughable and Non-Applicable to THEM. Period.

[rwilymz]

"Heavy Weather" has run aground in a storm:
"Israel has successfully negotiated prisoner exchanges in the past with "islamofacists""

...and we see how well that has turned out ... since negotiating gets Israel and the rest of the world what both Israel and the rest of the world wants: peace, and for Israel to be left alone.

Right?

Or are you going to parse and redefine reality such that up is down and black is white until you can rationalize that which objectively does not work into something that does?

===========================

'x' continues to wax bereaved:
"Hanging some guy up by his arms for hours on end. Torture."

Nope.

"Beating him until his kneecaps turn to mush. Torture."

That would probably be.

"Dunking him in a vat of water until he believes he's drowning. Torture."

Nope.

"Sodomizing him with anything. Torture."

Nope.

"Forcing him to masterbate himself or another prisoner. Not torture but dehumanizing and not allowed."

The term is "mistreatment". And both torture and mistreatment are prohibited under the GenCons -- of both POWs or "protected persons".

A POW is someone being detained by a military force for playing war, and who qualifies as a POW under Article 4 of the GenCon Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War I linked at you before.

A "protected person" is someone detained by a military force for anything *other*then* playing war ... say, bank robbery or jaywalking. I.e., basic criminals.

We cannot torture nor mistreat POWs or basic criminals.

Which is why the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was prosecuted. Because under the GenCons each High Contracting Party is required to do their own policing and prosecution.

But the guys in Gitmo ... are not "protected persons" ... nor are they, under the terms of the GenCons, POWs. Only under the orders of the USSC are they POWs. And until the USSC said they were POWs, the rules saying no torture or mistreatment of POWs did not apply -- by international law.

"all of these actions have been documented as having occured, having been done to prisoners by American soldiers"

Except for the one, which you have taken the liberty to wildly exaggerate by the way, none are torture. And you haven't answered who gets to define torture.

"You don't seek to redefine the term torture to mean just about anything but purposely with intent causing grievous bodily harm unless you intend to make your tactics match the new looser definition of torture."

...you haven't answered who gets to define torture.

If the person[s] with the authority to define torture change the definition, then that which *was* torture, but now is *not* ... is not torture. QED.

Your city council has the authority to define the speed limits on Main Street, and if they change the speed limit from 35 to 25 and you're caught going 35 you can't fluster and bluster saying, "But But But ... you changed the speed limit!!" SO WHAT? They have the authority to.

"You don't seek retroactive immunity for breaches of the Geneva Convention if you didn't breach it"

...Like the USSC did in Hamdan? You mean? Cuz that's the only thing I've seen that actively redefines the GenCons.

"When [blah blah blah] then you get what you got in Afganistan and Iraq"

A'stan only.

Iraqi captive were either uniformed soldiers or those who were arguably in "spontaneously formed" militias. Those in A'stan were out of uniform pre-existing militias to whom the GenCons specifically were written to not apply to. Which is why Iraqi captives were held in Iraq and A'stan-war captives were held in Gitmo.

Do not mix-n-match.

"prisoners, some having postumously been proven to be INNOCENT, not terrorists, who are tortured and murdered."

There is no "innocence" or "guilt"; they are -- except for a very small handful -- enemy combatants captured in hostile action. They get no lawyers, they get no trials, they get no charges -- unless we want to try them for a specific *crime*.

Fighting in a war is not a crime. You cannot say they were "innocent" because they have not been tried for anything. We WANTED to try them for things, but the USSC said -- in the one part of Hamdan they got right -- that you have to have a legislated crime for them to be charged with, not merely an administrative desire to label them terrorists. ...at which point they can be charged, provided lawyers, and tried by military tribunal. But there is no crime. ...yet.

And frankly it's silly and a waste of time. The USSC wants us to treat them like POWs even though the law which defines same doesn't, fine. Bang go their lawyers, and bang go any more releases until the Talibaniacs stop fighting in A'stan.

They can, and should, be held until the end of hostilities in A'stan.

and by the way, the only ones in Gitmo who've died were either ill or suicides. The US hasn't killed anyone in captivity.

"I want to be proud of my country and proud of the U.S. military, not ashamed and wondering about what was in the Iraq photos that the media didn't show us?"

I'm surprised you could type so well what with your keyboard filling up with tears and all. I want to know why the media shows only US soldiers stacking up naked Iraqis like a gay pyramid but not Nick Berg's head being sawn off, complete with the sound of gurgling and gasping and muted voiceless screams coming from a raw open throat

That's what I want to know.

Got an answer for that?

Are you going to answer ANY of the questions I've asked you? Or are you simply going to endlessly sermonize and pontificate like some vapid morally superior panty-wetter?

"The fundamental difference between you people and me is that I believe in universal human rights."

How dare you tell me what I believe?

There isn't a soldier in Amrican uniform, or those of us who were and now work with them who do not believe in universal human rights. Why the hell do you think most of these people joined the US military for godsake, you pretentious, self-righteous shitbag?

Universal human rights is NOT what imbeciles like you dream up in your cozy cloistered confines and ***wish*** for; it is what diplomats of the world's nations have gotten together and agreed upon and actually written down and RATIFIED.

And the best we've got right now is the GenCons, which were specifically written to differentiate between those who fight wars fairly and those who don't.

And when the US does what the GenCons say is to be done, it does not serve "universal human rights" for self-righteous toads, long on sentimentality and short on mentality, to cluster together in sanctimonious circles weeping for the US to abandon the universal human rights we DO have.

You DESPERATELY need to grow the hell up, 'x'.

[rhodeymark]

"One last jab, why should I believe the Israelis when they say there was Hezbollah fire coming from near where they bombed this building full of civilians? Because they say so? Show me some proof, not some ridiculous flyers telling people to flee on roads that you have already bombed through territory that you continue to bomb and a half hearted apology."

The photographs have been published. IDF has video, but if you don't see it on the Today Show, it isn't real I suppose? Men in civilian wear aiming heavy artillery right outside a multi-story apartment building. You can see the sheets hanging out to dry. Looks unsurprisingly similar to the building in Qana that came down - several hours after being struck. Someone who spent considerable time in S. Lebanon said it was common knowledge that Hezbollah built housing and even schools on top of entrenchments for their rocket arsenals.
BTW - the IRA anology was most certainly not apt, it was asinine.