It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by eikmun
what the hell are you talking about double tapping? Double tapping is shooting a person twice. Of course you shoot a guy twice, I've put five rounds in a guy clearing a building. You fire to eliminate the threat. You should him on the ground to until he is dead.
International Humanitarian Law, Hague Convention IV, 1907
It is pertinent to reiterate the prohibited use of force involving enemy prisoners of war (EPW). Once an enemy combatant surrenders, is captured, or is wounded beyond further use for resistance, then that EPW is afforded every safeguard that his captors can afford. Under no circumstance can the captor be justified in addition use of force in any manner in which is necessary for the transportation and detention of the prisoner. The use of force against a surrendered enemy combatant is never condoned and is specifically prohibited by Army Regulations and policy.
Originally posted by eikmun
They are illegal combatants so the Geneva convention does not apply to them. None of the insurgents are marked as medics and a van doesn't count as an ambulance. He was correct to light up van because they thought it was an enemy rescuing his buddies.
Several of our experts addressed the problem of what happens when a civilian takes up arms to fight. Generally, if a civilian takes up arms, he can be targeted as if he were a combatant as long as he is fighting. However, as soon as he puts down his weapon, he is a civilian again, which means he can be punished for his acts. Shamas said the thought that this "flip-flopping" between categories allows the Israelis to blur the lines between policing and waging war – to treat the Palestinian as combatants by targeting them and killing them during the fighting, then treating them like civilians and punishing them for their acts afterwards.
With one exception, our experts also agreed that the current fighting is an armed conflict and that the laws of war apply to both sides. "Humanitarian law, it must apply in exactly the same way whether the Palestinians are right or they are wrong. This is difficult for the Palestinians to accept, but it is basic in humanitarian law,"
"The protections to hospitals and medical personnel and women and children all apply to occupied territories. You cannot attack ambulances under any circumstances. It doesn’t make a difference if ambulances have been harboring terrorists or militants. Article 18 and 20 are absolute prohibitions. If someone is using an ambulance as cover to commit acts of war, they would be violating international humanitarian law. So you might be able to take after the fact action against them. But you can’t do it just because they do it. The articles say that civilian hospitals and ambulances ‘may in no circumstances be the object of attack,’" said Doebbler.
sixteen European states, adopted the the First Geneva Convention to save lives, to alleviate the suffering of wounded and sick military personnel, and to protect trained medical personal as civilians, in the act of rendering aid.
Originally posted by eikmun
You know insurgent snipers purposely targeted our corpsman.
The use of force on the battlefield must be proportional to the wrong endured and the potential for a positive outcome. The more excessive the number of civilian deaths incurred the more suspect will be the sincerity of the belligerent nations claim to justness in fighting the war. Simply put, limiting civilian casualties helps legitimize the use of force on the battlefield. This in no way limits any nation in the conduct of war against suitable enemy forces, however, destroying an entire city following a sniper attack would be an example of excessive use of force pursuant to this principle. The excessive civilian deaths also serve to draw more recruits into the conflict when they see family members of close relations killed in the process and the self perpetuating cycle of death and retribution continues to recruit members into the insurgency.
In addition, several of our experts said that crimes committed by one side did not justify crimes on the other side. According to Michel Veuthey, former legal advisor to the International Committee of the Red Cross, "Just because groups on the Palestinian side do not respect the laws of war, that does not give the Israelis the right not to respect the laws of war."
Originally posted by sapien82
Face it your elected government and country is an ecver expanding empire of corporate facism supported by the blood sweat and tears of its brainwashed citizens!
Who owns Citgo?
Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Who owns Shell?
Shell is currently 60% Dutch-owned, 40% English-owned. Provided shareholders approve the plan later this year, the Group will become 100% British, quoted in London, but headquartered in The Hague.
Who owns Exxon?
1,451 institutions hold 3,156,802,560 shares of XOM (Exxon's ticker). That's about half of its total shares outstanding. But out of this handful of institutions, you can be assured that approximately 4 million American's hold shares of the Company's stock, mostly in the form of their pension or 401(k) (the top three holders of the stock (Barclays, State Street, and Vanguard) are titanic mutual fund and index fund providers). What about the other half? Retail investors. Your neighbor, your friend, your co-worker. In fact, Exxon is one of the most widely held stocks, with a very high " float," meaning "insiders" (company directors) own very little compared to their peers.
Who owns Barclays Bank?
Barclays plc is a British financial services firm operating worldwide. It is a holding company that is listed on the London and New York stock exchanges, and was listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange until 2008. It is also a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.
Who owns Amaco?
Amoco announced it would merge with British Petroleum (BP) in the world's largest industrial merger.
Who owns BP?
BP plc (formerly The British Petroleum Company, plc then BP Amoco plc) is a British global energy company that is also the third largest global energy and the 4th largest company in the world.
Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by OverSword
If you like fascist right-wing propaganda that blog is perfect. For all normal people however...
Originally posted by freighttrain
LOVE IT! I always thought, we should throw all the people that want war.. on one huge island... say .. England! and if anyone ever becomes violent towards others (over x amount of times) will be shipped to this island.. if they survive.. after x amount of days.. they can come back! Violence will vanish as it will not serve you directly!
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
No.....what needs to happen is the young, dumb, desperate, naive, brainwashed, indoctrinated, poor, middle class kids that continue to support the US military need to STOP!