Sharon says Pledge on Arafat is off.

[Xon]

Er, hold up a sec, why the fuck did Afghanistan get invaded then?

The USA's definition of a state is flexible?

That is correct. And doesn't our judical system dsay if someone is guilty of a crime? Aren't courts supposed to charge folks (including, last time I opened my law book, polititians?) on crimes (including terrorism).

The Court's reach only extense as far outside the USA as other countries allow it. If a country denies an extraction request or doesn’t have an extraction treaty with the USA, tough shit. The USA courts cant do a thing.

Now if what they teach you at high school, primary school, college and uni is correct (as I presume)

The American primary school, high school and posible college system are notorious for thier shittiness. And you interpretation of it is probably flawed somehow to make matters worse.

how the hell can somebody such as Bush or Sharon decide to punish people by death!?!? Isn't that what the War Crimes Tribunal is for?

War Crimes Tribunal comes after you have gained control of the countries legal system, or the country with said person in willingly gives them up, which generally requires a militray victory.

[Keevan_Colton]

Murderers get due process.
People conspiring to commit murder get assasinated.

Right, got you.

[MKSheppard]

Er, hold up a sec, why the fuck did Afghanistan get invaded then?

We told them to give up Al Quaeda, they refused, and paid the price. And
this was already in the works Pre 9/11; telling the Taliban to give up
Al Quaeda or else. 9/11 merely moved it to the front of the burner.

[MKSheppard]

Right, got you.

So you're saying that it would have been better to arrest Osama for
a trial, rather than try your damndest to put a JDAM down his cave?

[Keevan_Colton]

So you're saying that it would have been better to arrest Osama for
a trial, rather than try your damndest to put a JDAM down his cave?

In a word, YES you dippy little shit. Put him on trial and show the world what an evil loony he is then put him in a box to rot till the heat death of the universe. Blowing him up just inspires those that think blowing things up is a good way of getting shit done...

[MKSheppard]

In a word, YES you dippy little shit. Put him on trial and show the world what an evil loony he is then put him in a box to rot till the heat death of the universe. Blowing him up just inspires those that think blowing things up is a good way of getting shit done...

But if you put him on trial, you then have terorists taking hostages and the
like, demanding the release of Osama or else they start shooting hostages.

[Keevan_Colton]

But if you put him on trial, you then have terorists taking hostages and the
like, demanding the release of Osama or else they start shooting hostages.

Then you arrest them too and so on...at least the ones taking hostages are busy doing that and not blowing things up eh?

Kill him and he's a holy fucking martyr, its loose loose on that front. Using the rule of law at least puts you one up moral wise...

[Joe]

Kill him and he's a holy fucking martyr, its loose loose on that front. Using the rule of law at least puts you one up moral wise...

So they have another martyr, who cares. Everyone's a goddamn martyr with those people.

[Knife]

Kill him and he's a holy fucking martyr, its loose loose on that front. Using the rule of law at least puts you one up moral wise...

So they have another martyr, who cares. Everyone's a goddamn martyr with those people.

Agreed. I'm not against capturing and trial of fuckheads when applicable but for those who put themselves up in semi-quasi paramilitary leaderships, they're legitimet military targets then. Not everything can be handled as a 'criminal case' and put into a court. Some times there are just a threat to national security and don't need a court.

The fuzzy grey area come when they are civilian leadership as well, such as Arafat. Technically, when he has his little uniform on, he's a legitimat target in so much as practicle ROE's usually go. Granted, Isreal likes to have its cake and eat it to when it comes to declaring war/occupying/putting down rebellions and such.

[Plekhanov]

Not everything can be handled as a 'criminal case' and put into a court. Some times there are just a threat to national security and don't need a court.

Yes but who decides when you don’t need a court? Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld?

The fuzzy grey area come when they are civilian leadership as well, such as Arafat. Technically, when he has his little uniform on, he's a legitimat target in so much as practicle ROE's usually go. Granted, Isreal likes to have its cake and eat it to when it comes to declaring war/occupying/putting down rebellions and such.

What so the legality of killing him is dependent upon what clothes he’s wearing? Does this mean that it’s ok for people who don’t like Bush to take a shot at him as long as he’s doing yet another photo op in military stuff at the time? Basically what the hell has the kind of jacket Arafat’s got on to do with anything?

[MKSheppard]

What so the legality of killing him is dependent upon what clothes he’s wearing?

Yes. If you're not wearing a uniform you can be shot as an illegal combatant
or spy on todays' battlefield legally according to Geneva.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yes. If you're not wearing a uniform you can be shot as an illegal combatant
or spy on todays' battlefield legally according to Geneva.

Shep the Stupid Shithead.
Didnt you just say a few posts ago that those things dont apply to them?

[MKSheppard]

Didnt you just say a few posts ago that those things dont apply to them?

I didn't know that "rags" constituted a uniform, you fucktool.

[Plekhanov]

What so the legality of killing him is dependent upon what clothes he’s wearing?

Yes. If you're not wearing a uniform you can be shot as an illegal combatant
or spy on todays' battlefield legally according to Geneva.

And this applies to Arafat how exactly? There’s been no declaration of war so he isn’t on a battlefield.
You also missed the rather important point that you have to not only be on the battlefield in civilian clothing but also be engaged in fighting the war. The Geneva Convention does distinguish combatants from civilians something Israeli and US forces sometimes seem to have difficulty doing.

[MKSheppard]

The Geneva Convention does distinguish combatants from civilians something Arabs sometimes seem to have difficulty doing.

Fixed your quote. Teh New Arab Way of War doesn't discriminate
between Civilians and Combatants, instead choiseing to kill as many
civilians as possible indiscriminately.

[Plekhanov]

Fixed your quote. Teh New Arab Way of War doesn't discriminate
between Civilians and Combatants, instead choiseing to kill as many
civilians as possible indiscriminately.

I never said that Arabs did or didn't discriminate simply that the forces supposedly upon the side or morality, law and democracy sometimes don’t. How about addressing that statement instead of pointing to some other group and saying they may be as bad/worse.

[Knife]

Not everything can be handled as a 'criminal case' and put into a court. Some times there are just a threat to national security and don't need a court.

Yes but who decides when you don’t need a court? Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld?

Actually, yes. Though as usual, there are checks and balences in there. Bush, as the Commander and Chief is suppost to make the decision that one is a national security threat and another is a law enforcement thing. You may not like bushy but that is part of his job.

The fuzzy grey area come when they are civilian leadership as well, such as Arafat. Technically, when he has his little uniform on, he's a legitimat target in so much as practicle ROE's usually go. Granted, Isreal likes to have its cake and eat it to when it comes to declaring war/occupying/putting down rebellions and such.

What so the legality of killing him is dependent upon what clothes he’s wearing? Does this mean that it’s ok for people who don’t like Bush to take a shot at him as long as he’s doing yet another photo op in military stuff at the time? Basically what the hell has the kind of jacket Arafat’s got on to do with anything?[/quote]

Gererally your basic ROE's in conection with GC and other treaties stipulate that a legal combatent (in this case a legitemate target) is some one in a uniform of the enemy, holding a weapon is just a cherry on top.

So if Arafat is in uniform and Isreal is in a 'state of war' then Arafat is a legitemate target. If, persay in a combat scene, Arafat is in his civies and has NO weapon, then he's a civie and its murder. If Arafat is in his civies and he has a weapon, then he is a illegal combatent and has little protections under the law of war.

So what he is wearing is very relevant as to how he is treated in a combat area. I'm not saying that politically, killing Arafat weather in uniform or not is 'right' in such a way as you mean it but rather that in a combat zone and according to GC and Law of War, if he's in uniform, he's a legitemate target for military personel, weather it be rockets, rifleman, or a sniper.

[Plekhanov]

Yes but who decides when you don’t need a court? Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld?

Actually, yes. Though as usual, there are checks and balences in there. Bush, as the Commander and Chief is suppost to make the decision that one is a national security threat and another is a law enforcement thing. You may not like bushy but that is part of his job.

Checks and balances? Like the ones which stopped Bush throwing all the guys in Guantanamo Bay into a legal black hole, at the moment checks, balances and legal oversight hardly seem to get a look if as long as “security” is used as a justification.

So if Arafat is in uniform and Isreal is in a 'state of war' then Arafat is a legitemate target.

But didn’t the 6 Day War end back in 1967? Exactly which war can he be legitimately killed in? If Israel is fighting a war against Palestine does this mean that Arafat has no duty to “crack down on Hamas” and the like as they are not terrorists but resistance fighters to be lauded as heroes alongside the Greek and Yugoslav Partisans, the Heroes of Telemark and the Maqui?

I'm not saying that politically, killing Arafat weather in uniform or not is 'right' in such a way as you mean it but rather that in a combat zone and according to GC and Law of War, if he's in uniform, he's a legitemate target for military personel, weather it be rockets, rifleman, or a sniper.

You obviously know more about the detail of ROE than I do but you seem to have lost the big picture by concerning yourself with technically justifying Arafat’s assassination. How can you cite the Law of War and Geneva Conventions to justify an Israeli assassination when practically everything Israel has done in the occupied territories since 1967 (collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, building colonies…..) has been in flagrant violation of the very treaties you refer to?

[Knife]

Checks and balances? Like the ones which stopped Bush throwing all the guys in Guantanamo Bay into a legal black hole, at the moment checks, balances and legal oversight hardly seem to get a look if as long as “security” is used as a justification.

Well lets see. So far the Congress given Bushy a pass by passing the authorization bill in the first place and by funding it. So that check and balence has been passed though they could still do something one way or another.

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case about the Gitmo guys, plus has heard or is going to hear cases about 'War on Terror' any way so there's the other C&B.

Again, you might not like the results, but the system is in effect.

But didn’t the 6 Day War end back in 1967? Exactly which war can he be legitimately killed in? If Israel is fighting a war against Palestine does this mean that Arafat has no duty to “crack down on Hamas” and the like as they are not terrorists but resistance fighters to be lauded as heroes alongside the Greek and Yugoslav Partisans, the Heroes of Telemark and the Maqui?

Look, your lumping alot together. I do not like nor condone Isreals little 'lets have it both ways' war/non war with Palestine. I don't particularly care for Isreals current goverment nor their view of secondary citizens, when looking at the Palestinians.

That being said, killing the civilian leader of a enemy is different from killing the military leader of an enemy in any type of combat. This is what I was commenting on, not the PC view of Arafat. In purely technical terms, Arafat is a military target when he wears his uniform because he is then a legal combatent in the eyes of the Law of War.

You obviously know more about the detail of ROE than I do but you seem to have lost the big picture by concerning yourself with technically justifying Arafat’s assassination. How can you cite the Law of War and Geneva Conventions to justify an Israeli assassination when practically everything Israel has done in the occupied territories since 1967 (collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, building colonies…..) has been in flagrant violation of the very treaties you refer to?

Again, your lumping too much together. I can comment on the technicalities while still not supportive of Isreal. Hell, in my view, their both wrong (Isreal and Palenstinians). If Hamas killed a Isreali general, then I'd see that as a legetimate target since they're at war with Isreal. If Isreal kills a uniformed member of the Palistine security forces, then thats a legitimate target.

I don't have to agree with either ones over all strategy or political concerns to point out that 'hey, that was a fair move, as far as these things go.'

[Illuminatus Primus]

So you're saying that it would have been better to arrest Osama for
a trial, rather than try your damndest to put a JDAM down his cave?

In a word, YES you dippy little shit. Put him on trial and show the world what an evil loony he is then put him in a box to rot till the heat death of the universe. Blowing him up just inspires those that think blowing things up is a good way of getting shit done...

Who cares about appeasing or not appeasing these assholes?

In war, would you argue a sniper cannot attempt to eliminate enemy officers?

[Keevan_Colton]

So you're saying that it would have been better to arrest Osama for
a trial, rather than try your damndest to put a JDAM down his cave?

In a word, YES you dippy little shit. Put him on trial and show the world what an evil loony he is then put him in a box to rot till the heat death of the universe. Blowing him up just inspires those that think blowing things up is a good way of getting shit done...

Who cares about appeasing or not appeasing these assholes?

In war, would you argue a sniper cannot attempt to eliminate enemy officers?

And can you not see the fucking difference between a war and this shit?

[Illuminatus Primus]

And can you not see the fucking difference between a war and this shit?

How the fuck is the action in Afghanistan more applicable to a law enforcement operation than a war?

It is you who appears to not grasp what the law dictating what these things are is. Sheppard's entirely correct. Terrorists can even be executed with impunity as spies or illegal combatants since they lack uniforms and that's against the GC.

On the contrary, when we're landing troops, dropping bombs from aircraft, and fast-roping from a Pave Hawk, well, I think you should tell me why in such a war-analogous situation, we shouldn't send the self-same snipers to knock-off terrorist leaders if it is prohibitive to capture them.

[0.1]

Let's take a bit more of a roundabout view of this. Is Arafat good for Israel? Believe it or not, the answer is yes. Deep down inside, the last thing Sharon would want is someone new to replace Arafat. Arafat is a known quantity, he doesn't like Israel, he wants to line his own pockets, he'd put himself above his own people despite the rhetoric. All of this give a nice framework to keep the Palestinians in check.

So, while they may make noise about putting Arafat down, odds are, it will never happen. Believe it or not, the whole point of threatening Arafat is to ensure that the man gets attention and some credibility and keep them in power. The only thorny issue is governments like the U.S., who doesn't understand that having a predictable and "stand up" enemy is about one of the best thing anyone can ask for.

There, the U.S. have to take a cue from the Europeans who understands such things a little better, Arafat need to be the legitimate head of the PLO and the Palestinians. It would put maintain the status quo better than anything else. Like it or not, in the Gaza strip and West Bank, Arafat is still law.

[Keevan_Colton]

And can you not see the fucking difference between a war and this shit?

How the fuck is the action in Afghanistan more applicable to a law enforcement operation than a war?

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

It is you who appears to not grasp what the law dictating what these things are is. Sheppard's entirely correct. Terrorists can even be executed with impunity as spies or illegal combatants since they lack uniforms and that's against the GC.

Well done, we put fucking spies on trial you shithead. We dont just walk up and use the old 9mm solution, we have laws, which is something you lot seem to think apply only when convenient.
Why should someone who commits murder be entitled to more due process than someone who conspires to commit murder.

On the contrary, when we're landing troops, dropping bombs from aircraft, and fast-roping from a Pave Hawk, well, I think you should tell me why in such a war-analogous situation, we shouldn't send the self-same snipers to knock-off terrorist leaders if it is prohibitive to capture them.

If it is?
Did we just shoot all the nazi heriarchy dead come the end of WW2 when we controlled the ground...no, we had the trials at Nuremburg. We afforded hitlers fucking henchmen more rights than we do those who conspire to commit terrorism. Sure, we can execute them at the end of the trial rather than put them in a box, but have the fucking trial.

Jebus H. Frelling Crimbo, it's like talking to the fucking Special Needs people...

[Howedar]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

Ah, always appeal to "common sense" definitions when you don't like the actual legal definition.

Well done, we put fucking spies on trial you shithead. We dont just walk up and use the old 9mm solution, we have laws, which is something you lot seem to think apply only when convenient.
Why should someone who commits murder be entitled to more due process than someone who conspires to commit murder.

Hi Osama, we're here to arrest you and put you on trial. In fact, we'd like to arrest you and all of your cronies. So if you'll just walk this way, we'll go ahead and put the cuffs on and ship you off to US prisons.

If it is?
Did we just shoot all the nazi heriarchy dead come the end of WW2 when we controlled the ground...no, we had the trials at Nuremburg. We afforded hitlers fucking henchmen more rights than we do those who conspire to commit terrorism. Sure, we can execute them at the end of the trial rather than put them in a box, but have the fucking trial.

I don't know if you're aware of this moron, but we fucking DON'T control the ground in Afghanistan, and we never have.