Yon Reports, Waiting For The MSM Take

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with you completely. According to the Geneva Conventions deliberate attacks on civilians is murder.

Unfortunately the US is not at liberty to pick and chose when it wants to apply international law to this "war on terror" though.

Think about it.

I guess you missed the DELIBERATE part of that statement.

 

[Annie]

Ah yes, the MSM and reporting/non-reporting:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/232536.php

When Does a Massacre Matter?


...

I would like for the Associated Press to formally explain why they are willing to run thinly and falsely sourced insurgent propaganda as unquestioned fact without any independent verification, but refuses to publish a freely offered account by a noted combat corespondent that some consider this generation's Ernie Pyle.

Is it because the massacre documented by Yon was conducted by alleged al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists, and could not be ascribed to sectarian violence? It certainly could not be because of cost, as Yon has offered both his text and pictures to any and all media outlets free of charge. It could not be because of a question of validity, as his account was photographed, videotaped, and witnessed by dozens of American and Iraqi soldiers, some of them named, who could easily be contacted by the Associated Press for independent, on the record confirmation.

Why is the Associated Press willing to run the claimed of a false massacre on June 28, but unwilling to report a well-documented and freely-offered account of a massacre that was discovered just one day later?

I await your response with interest.

Actually, I don't expect a response at all, but if they should respond, I'll be sure to publish it.

Sadly, I think Glenn's source is correct.

 

[Annie]

another update, more good news than bad:

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007

Today marks “D +16” of Operation “Arrowhead Ripper,” the Battle for Baqubah. Arrowhead Ripper kicked off on 19 June 07. I have several dispatches in the works about the major events since that time. Although the serious fighting seems to be over, there remains a possibility for some sharp fighting in the near future. The morning of 06 July began with the sounds of American cannons firing, shells whizzing through the air, while they checked systems and aiming for combat. Apache helicopters orbited Baqubah as the orange sun crested into view.

Media coverage went from a near monopoly (Michael Gordon from New York Times and me) to a nearly capsized boat as journalists flooded in from other parts of Iraq to see the fight. They managed to miss most of it. Today, I’m told, there are now only 3 journalists remaining, including one writer (me.)

As with the Battle for Mosul, which I held in near monopoly for about five months during 2005, the most interesting parts of the Battle for Baqubah are unfolding after the major fighting ends. But as the guns cool, the media stops raining and starts evaporating, or begins making only short visits of a week or so.

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

...

 

[Larkinn]

I guess you missed the DELIBERATE part of that statement.

Domino is advocating DELIBERATE attacks on civilians.

When did the terrorists sign the GC?

Do a little bit of research before spewing your idiocy on numerous threads.

 

[Annie]

..,

Do a little bit of research before spewing your idiocy on numerous threads.

What research would that be? Lawful combatants?

 

[Larkinn]

What research would that be? Lawful combatants?

No. Rsr's point is that the terrorists did not sign the GC and hence we do not need to abide by the rules of it when dealing with them. This is obviously incorrect.

 

[Annie]

No. Rsr's point is that the terrorists did not sign the GC and hence we do not need to abide by the rules of it when dealing with them. This is obviously incorrect.

Yes or no.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes or no.

What?

 

[Annie]

What?

Your opinion and why off his post.

 

[Larkinn]

Your opinion and why off his post.

Try full sentences. This is incoherent.

 

[Annie]

Try full sentences. This is incoherent.

Try reading the links.

 

[red states rule]

Domino is advocating DELIBERATE attacks on civilians.



Do a little bit of research before spewing your idiocy on numerous threads.

Is it idiocy to ask when the terrorists siad they would follow the GC? They are NOT covered by the GC and should be tried before military tribunals. For some reason libs think the US can fight and win a PC war with terrorists who do not care about anything but killing Americans and Jews

 

[red states rule]

I agree with you completely. According to the Geneva Conventions deliberate attacks on civilians is murder.

Unfortunately the US is not at liberty to pick and chose when it wants to apply international law to this "war on terror" though.

Think about it.

Since when are terrorists covered by the GC?

Did I miss the newsflash when they agreed to follow the terms and conditions?

To be covered the terrorists must :

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

 

[onedomino]

Domino is advocating DELIBERATE attacks on civilians.

The point is that "civilians" who support enemy combatants are not civilians and should be attacked. Moreover, enemy combatants in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. Are they "civilians?" An Iraqi "civilian" truck driver transporting Iranian made EFPs from the border to enemy combatants must be attacked. Iraqis who house, feed, and finance enemy combatants must be attacked. Or maybe harsh language will get them to never give aid and comfort to the enemy again, right? I am not referring to civilians playing no part in the conflict. But you already knew that. If America had fought the Iraqi insurgency the way it fought WW2, the war would have been over a long time ago. As it is now, the "civilian" supporters of Iraqi enemy combatants are not engaged militarily and continue to provide the support that fuels the insurgency and kills Americans.

 

[red states rule]

The point is that "civilians" who support enemy combatants are not civilians and should be attacked. Moreover, enemy combatants in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. Are they "civilians?" An Iraqi "civilian" truck driver transporting Iranian made EFPs from the border to enemy combatants must be attacked. Iraqis who house, feed, and finance enemy combatants must be attacked. Or maybe harsh language will get them to never give aid and comfort to the enemy again, right? I am not referring to civilians playing no part in the conflict. But you already knew that. If America had fought the Iraqi insurgency the way it fought WW2, the war would have been over a long time ago. As it is now, the "civilian" supporters of Iraqi enemy combatants are not engaged militarily and continue to provide the support that fuels the insurgency and kills Americans.

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

Terrorists are not covered by the GC - libs however think if they make nice to them all will be right in the world

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

Terrorists are not covered by the GC - libs however think if they make nice to them all will be right in the world

Technically the Convention STATES that signators MUST follow the Conventions even when fighting a Nation that does NOT follow them.

But there in is the rub. Terrorists ARE NOT part of a Nation.

 

[red states rule]

Technically the Convention STATES that signators MUST follow the Conventions even when fighting a Nation that does NOT follow them.

But there in is the rub. Terrorists ARE NOT part of a Nation.

and they do not represent a branch of the military, they dot wear uniforms, they do not wear insignias, and they use civilians as human shields

These are the pigs the left wants GC protection (and US Constitutioanl rights) given to?

 

[Larkinn]

Is it idiocy to ask when the terrorists siad they would follow the GC? They are NOT covered by the GC and should be tried before military tribunals. For some reason libs think the US can fight and win a PC war with terrorists who do not care about anything but killing Americans and Jews

YES, it is idiocy to ask when the terrorists said they would follow the GC. You can, legimately (wrongly...but legitimately) question whether terrorists are covered by the GC. But if they are not covered it is obviously 100% NOT because they didn't sign the GC. Whether they signed or not is completely irrelevant.

This has NOTHING to do with PC, it has to do with respecting human rights. We all know you don't give a fuck about humans, but some of us do.

The point is that "civilians" who support enemy combatants are not civilians and should be attacked.

Yes, they are civilians. Unless you want to say that those who died on 9/11 were not civilians since they supported US troops. Which is completely asinine.

An Iraqi "civilian" truck driver transporting Iranian made EFPs from the border to enemy combatants must be attacked.

NO. They must be stopped and arrested.

Or maybe harsh language will get them to never give aid and comfort to the enemy again, right? I am not referring to civilians playing no part in the conflict. But you already knew that.

I am not saying we ignore them, but treating them the same as enemies who are bearing weapons is unethical, immoral, and goes against international law.

If America had fought the Iraqi insurgency the way it fought WW2, the war would have been over a long time ago. As it is now, the "civilian" supporters of Iraqi enemy combatants are not engaged militarily and continue to provide the support that fuels the insurgency and kills Americans.

Yup, and in WWII it was justified and here it is not.

Technically the Convention STATES that signators MUST follow the Conventions even when fighting a Nation that does NOT follow them.

But there in is the rub. Terrorists ARE NOT part of a Nation.

No, actually it says signators must follow the conventions when fighting anyone. However it defines POW's as a specific subset of people which some claim that terrorists don't fall under. I, along with most IL scholars, disagree.

 

[red states rule]

So you are a liberal peace nik appeaser - what else is new?

 

[Larkinn]

So you are a liberal peace nik appeaser - what else is new?

And you are an advocate of illegal actions. So much for the rule of law, eh?