My friend, you and I won't see exactly eye to eye on this matter... but I think there is a middle ground we're both likely to accept.
When the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights makes a public statement; it is thoroughly vetted by many technocrats, and sadly, her
objections are sound.
Because of the ferocity of American media manipulation and narrative kidnapping, we cannot expect the average "news" consumer to understand the
gravity of a key phrase she uttered. I start at this perspective because some must eventually resort to 'calling a spade a spade' and recognize that
most replies you have received so far are consistent with the obfuscation (either by deliberate acceptance or by rational acquiescence) which your
establishment AND mine have injected into the debate.
Note the recurrence of the meme of the nature and definition of "terrorism." and the ancillary conversations this spawns because of the idea of
'justification.' This seems to be overlooked by many, but the doctrine of "distinction and proportionality
" are matters of international law
and compliance with treaties regarding the use of military force.
Distinction and proportionality are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property
must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military
We have visited this argument before .."distinction and proportionality" back in the first Gulf war.... (my time).
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable,
does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks
against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional
attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge
that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct
overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the
criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).
Ultimately, this entire question surfaces (again and again) because of one simple fact:
Regardless of the posturing of the politicians and technocrats who are the ultimate "source" of information - it is evident that you cannot
"wage war" on "terrorists" anymore than you can "wage war" on criminals.
We are deploying hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware to stage full-on high explosive attacks on "individuals" ... it is not reasonable to
consider this "proportional" .... as a result (from that premise) the matter of distinctions falls apart...
As example... hyperbolic question (bear with me): "Had it been possible, would it have been proportional to drop a nuclear weapon on the known
whereabouts of Adolph Hitler during World War II?"
The answer to some will be a distinct "no." and for others a distinct "yes." Hence .... in order to address the potential for abusive exploitation
of circumstance the concept became an important legal distinction in the determination of the rules of war. Someone has to justify their actions and
"the ends justifies the means" is a destructive and foolhardy axiom to live by.
Terrorism is a global policing matter... it is not military. Military engagement is about international conflict NOT policing handfuls of sadistic
executors of extremism.
Unfortunately, in America, and every other "western" nation, the leadership culture embraces the 'variable constant' definition game, where they can
say a spade is "not" a spade; the definition of "is" comes into question, and "Fast and Furious" is a synonym for anything but "Fast and Furious."
They use psychological manipulation and social engineering to this end.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)