Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

originally posted by: ch40snh4rm0ny
I would like to declare the editors and program directors at CNN and MSNBC as unprivileged belligerents. Drone strikes will suffice, although a snipers bullet would be much more precise. The Pentagon made the rules, not me.

a reply to: newsaddict

Journalists can be and have demonstrated that in various countries, including the middle east.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Didnt you know that civilians who take certain actions are not considered protected classes during times of war / conflict.

Or you just don't care so long as you can bash the us for something that's been an issue since WWII?

Lets never forget this incident where these journalists were considered "terrorists" with RPG's and AK's . The ground troops even ran over a body in the full video after showing up.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Didnt you know that civilians who take certain actions are not considered protected classes during times of war / conflict.

Or you just don't care so long as you can bash the us for something that's been an issue since WWII?

If they become true militants, okay.

But anything else is a war crime..

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Nope.. read the Geneva conventions and rules of war dealing with civilians and what actions change their status from protected to combatants.


Having the term press on your flakjacket doesn't automatically mean protected. It never has dating back to world war I and II as current examples.

Journalists are not guaranteed safety in a war zone and have never been. If you are going to setup your reporting position one balcony below a heavy weapons position in the middle of an engagement your presence and the word media doesn't trump the threat directly above you.

If you are going to use your broadcast GPS to detail locations of troops to the enemy you aren't protected.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Nope.. read the Geneva conventions and rules of war dealing with civilians and what actions change their status from protected to combatants.


Having the term press on your flakjacket doesn't automatically mean protected. It never has dating back to world war I and II as current examples.

Journalists are not guaranteed safety in a war zone and have never been. If you are going to setup your reporting position one balcony below a heavy weapons position in the middle of an engagement your presence and the word media doesn't trump the threat directly above you.

If you are going to use your broadcast GPS to detail locations of troops to the enemy you aren't protected.

I get that. But you have to also look at the other situations.

For example, in the film "Collateral Damage" we see Reuters reports simply targeted and wiped out. There was no evidence of what you are proposing nor were they next to prime targets.

During the Iraq War there were other reports of journalists being targeted even within the designated press hotels.

Don't ever give governments license to abuse such things. They have in the past. What you never want to support is governments targeting journalists to stop freedom of the press and to stop citizens from knowing the real scoop.

a reply to: newsaddict

Just as people who have never read the US Constitution are the first to declare something "unconstitutional," so people unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions are the first to exclaim that something "violates the Geneva Convention."

Here is a link to the Department of Defense Law of War Manual:

www.defense.gov...

Here is a link to a summary of anf full text of the Geneva Conventions:

www.icrc.org...

Please go through these two documents and find explicit examples of how the one violates the other. They do not. On the other hand, both Russia and Iran, the two nations making the claim that this DoD summary of the Conventions somehow violates them, are guilty of violating the Conventions themselves! Putin's "little green men" did not wear insignia identifying their nation of origin, and Iran has been known to use chemical warfare. (Let's not even get into their friend Assad!)

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

"collatorral damage was a "film" and not based on real life though. Also We normally dont shoot AMERICAN reporters because they have the intelligence to know where to go and who to associate with.

originally posted by: newsaddict

The US Department of Defense has released a book of instructions on the rules of war, detailing acceptable ways of killing the enemy and says that journalists also can be terrorists.

Legalising war crimes: USA has gone too far

This blatantly breaks the Geneva convention protocols and as a result is a war crime.

Where does it violate the Geneva conventions?

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

"collatorral damage was a "film" and not based on real life though. Also We normally dont shoot AMERICAN reporters because they have the intelligence to know where to go and who to associate with.

No, what I am referring to is a video tape of actual American soldiers firing a cannon from a helicopter and killing a bunch of reporters.

I apologize, the correct name is Collateral Murder.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: newsaddict

journalists also can be terrorists.

Americans seem to go mad when peeps talk about taking away guns.. Fredoom of speech and no one cares. Once the freedom of speech has been removed its easy to take the guns.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Where does it violate the Geneva conventions?

Would you consider torture and using delpeted uranium to be in contention with the geneva convention

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: NavyDoc

Where does it violate the Geneva conventions?

Would you consider torture and using delpeted uranium to be in contention with the geneva convention

Can you show me where the Geneva convention outlaws depleted uranium and can you show me some real science (not hysterical stuff) that depleted uranium is any more "evil" than any other hyper dense material?

Can you show me in this DOD document where torture is approved?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, what I am referring to is a video tape of actual American soldiers firing a cannon from a helicopter and killing a bunch of reporters.

A bunch of reporters in a war zone characterized by what the Geneva Conventions would call "Partisan actions." The reporters were carrying equipment that looked like a MANPAD in an area where MANPADs were being used and, most importantly, they did not think to wear a vest with the letters TV on them. Mistakes happen: it's called "the fog of war."

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: NavyDoc

Where does it violate the Geneva conventions?

Would you consider torture and using delpeted uranium to be in contention with the geneva convention

Well since terrorist/illegal combatants have no rights under the geneva conventions its perfectly legal to torture them in actuality. Distasteful yes,but not against the conventions since they are not legal combatants.

It has always been the same savagery... People steal and kill for money or pleasure. The strong and smart always prey on the weak and ignorant. It is no different in the modern days just because a few people have been mapping stars from outer space, solving math problems, trying to cure diseases or inventing new fancy gadgets.

The truth is, all of that may make it seem like the world has evolved. But it has not, and it never will.

a reply to: yuppa

Ironically enough it has nothing to do with the media accusation put forward in the op.

Don't get sidetracked with their fall back accusations.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

"collatorral damage was a "film" and not based on real life though. Also We normally dont shoot AMERICAN reporters because they have the intelligence to know where to go and who to associate with.

No, what I am referring to is a video tape of actual American soldiers firing a cannon from a helicopter and killing a bunch of reporters.

I apologize, the correct name is Collateral Murder.

www.youtube.com...

One mans murder is another mans Righteous kill. They were embedded with terrorist they get what was coming to them. They knew the risk going there and ignored it if anything they need a darwin award.