Assassinations are OK

[judy]

Not according to the good old days, when International Law in effect, even in a time of war:

Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV (18 October 1907) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land states that in addition to the prohibitions by Special Conventions, it is especially forbidden to:
(a) employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) kill or wound individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered;
(d) declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.

Ah, this sounds so quaint and outdated...as do the Treaty of San Francisco that established the UN, and the Judgement at Nuremberg...with our actions, we have joyously blown up that good old bridge to the 21st Century!

These actions encourage terrorism, like pouring gasoline on a fire. In a country that has lost its moral fiber, it makes sense that people like Scott Roeder, would think that Dr.Tiller is someone who definitely should be killed. Where is the difference? It's all a matter of point of view. Once it becomes OK to assassinate, just pick your victim: kill Obama because he is bringing Socialism to the US (I wish he would!), kill whomever you think is a danger to whatever you hold dear for whatever reason.

I was against state sanctioned killing before. But now that we have adopted the Code of Conduct that was in effect under Attila the Hun, I am at a loss as to how to get out from under this cloud of shame :(

[YellowCosmicSun]

1. Where is the context for that quote?

It makes no sense that in war you're not allowed to kill or wound enemies.

Where is the section that came before this quote that details when these rules apply?

You can't just pick and choose.

[judy]

2. Jason D. Soderblom

Director of the World-ICE Group, and an Analyst at the Terrorism Intelligence Centre, in Canberra Australia.
This is a quote from 1907...it applies to individual soldiers, such as isolated soldiers and prisoners. You were only supposed to kill in a battle situation.

Here's a link to the article:
http://world-ice.com/Articles/Assassinations.pdf

[YellowCosmicSun]

5. In 1907, they didn't have airplanes. The times have changed.

[Jamastiene]

9. Ever heard of a Wright Model A?

It was already built in 1906 and the U.S. military had one custom built. The custom version of it was called the Military Flyer.

So, your whole airplane argument is ridiculous.

[YellowCosmicSun]

12. Airplanes for War. Nobody was dropping bombs from the Wright model A.

[Shining Jack]

23. B.S. Your quote:

"In 1907, they didn't have airplanes." Period. Really?

And yes bombs were dropped from anything that could go above ground as soon as it was invented:

"In the nineteenth century, the military used balloons for three purposes. One was for aerial bombing of military targets. The second was for aerial reconnaissance by captive balloons. The third was for communications and to transport personnel, mail, and equipment."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/military_balloons_in_Europe/LTA4.htm

Please read a little before making a fool of yourself.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Like "Dumpster Diving through the Bible"

Picking and choosing the parts you want to keep and those you throw out

Sorry - Democracy (nor religion) doesn't work that way

[Jamastiene]

4. Here is a direct link to the text...all of it.

CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION II
HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I
Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardments
Art. 22.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Link to full text here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

[YellowCosmicSun]

6. sorry. I was taking you seriously until I saw this came from 1907.

Do you want everybody to line up across from each other in a field and shoot, too?

[Jamastiene]

7. It is a treaty that the US signed

Read Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. We are bound by that treaty, whether planes exist or not nowadays.

[YellowCosmicSun]

8. Al Qaeda is not a Nation. That treaty doesn't apply.

Terrorists like this weren't around in 1907.

I get what your trying to do, but the US is not bound to live in a 1907 mindset just because they signed a treaty in 1907.

Times change. War does, too.

[Jamastiene]

10. Unless the treaty had an expiration date on it, and it does not,

the U.S. is bound by it. Simple as that.

Treaties don't work that way. You can't just re-write the rules midway though something because it is inconvenient for you. Well, you seem to be ok with that, but many of us are not ok with that.

[YellowCosmicSun]

11. The treaty defines the type of war it applies to. Wars between Nations.

You're not accomplishing anything by bandying this about.

There have been many War treaties passed since then that supersede this.

And, like I said, most of those don't even apply because they were written for war between Nations.

[StarsInHerHair]

27. Supremacy Clause also trumps Obama/Bush Doctrine too many fools around

here just won't comprehend until THEY get hurt, I hadn't realized how plain stupid so many here are until now. They can throw away their liberty for themselves, me I'm sticking to the US Constitution

[tblue]

15. Face it, my friend, this party is just as bloodthirsty and unprincipled

as anybody else. We've finally ceded what was left of our moral authority. Congratulations, y'all, for proving Democrats, too, believe treaties, civil & human rights, and principles are for sissies.

Good post, Jamastiene!

[Jamastiene]

18. I cannot believe some of the crap I am hearing on this board nowadays.

It is beyond depressing. It is sickening, downright sickening. It is good to know others feel the same way I do about this. :hug:

[L. Coyote]

33. I cannot believe what passes for a Democrat today, so small wonder

One blue hair on a red dog does not a Dem make :rofl:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[judy]

13. None of these details matter

Again, killing individuals without due process does not do anything to end terrorism. If anything it only creates a climate of hate. Doesn't anyone want some kind of peace anymore?
BTW, if you read that article, it is from 2004.
The quote I chose is from 1907. I guess it was a better time then...as Leonard Woolf said, World War I marked the end of an era of innocence for the world, when wars were battles and not massacres.

[Jamastiene]

21. I want peace.

I want due process. I want every American to have that. I want everyone to have that. Too bad that right is gone.

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. I have a whole hell of a lot less respect

for a government (and, by default, it's leaders) if they choose to assassinate one of it's own citizens in a foreign land rather than capture them and put them on trial. It reeks of vigilante justice - and something far less than the rule of law.

Color me unimpressed.

[tblue]

16. Color me

rethinking everything. After those GOP debate cheers, Troy Davis, and now this, I can't stomach what this country has become.

Oh no! Will Obama put a contract on me for saying that?

[Jamastiene]

19. Will he? I don't know.

Can he? Yes, he can. It is sickening AND scary. Just think when a Tea Party president comes along. Will they do it for disagreeing with them? I wouldn't put it past them. This is a bad bad precedent.

[dana_b]

22. it's a horrifying precedent

I still can't see the good in this. "It was a military action" - so fucking what? Do we not hold the military to the same standard? Just because the President is allowed to do this does not make it right. All of this makes me sick. Can you imagine if another country came here with their drones to kill someone who came to the U.S. and that person was doing them harm?? No chance in hell!!

[tblue]

30. I know. I don't understand why people are celebrating. And it was TWO Americans!

There was a second one in the vehicle or whatever it was.

[tblue]

29. From an airplane they might. And they'd have precedent.

I heard Bush did one of these assassinations, too. Did you hear that? Read it somewhere this week. This wasn't the first...maybe.

[judy]

37. Yes, Bush did it a bunch of times...

Does that make it OK?

[Amonester]

36. No, but if you'd try to organize a mass-murder using underwear shit...

on passenger planes, I hope you wouldn't be surprised.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. John Wilkes Booth, Al-Queda, and the American government think thye're swell.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[Jamastiene]

20. The Nietzche quote perfectly describes what is happening.

To bad the pro-assassination people refuse to read it or try to understand it.

[ZombieHorde]

25. What is the difference between targeting Al-Awlaki and targeting an Al-Qaeda training camp?

Is it simply a matter flags?

[KoKo]

26. I recommended but the "Unrecs are Strong." Thanks for this post! n/t

[unkachuck]

28. K&R....n/t

[L. Coyote]

31. "declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible ...the rights and actions of the nationals of the hos

(h) declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.

The USA is piling shame upon shame and inciting more attacks.

[L. Coyote]

32. And I rec'ed too

[Melinda]

35. K&R. We've too many sad times anymore.

The loss of due process for American citizens is startling, constant wars destroy everything good in this world.

I do not know this Amerika. I do not know this pro-assassination DU. :(