The next step in US assassination policy - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T15:10:04Zhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-next-step-in-us?feed=yes&xn_auth=noHere's one article questionin…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-13:5301756:Comment:157452011-05-13T01:53:52.019ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Here's <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-killing-legal-international-law/story?id=13538365" target="_blank">one article</a> questioning the law in bin Laden's case, although it seems the majority of the article is concerned with providing much more legal justification for it rather than question it. Here's <a href="http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2010/12/07/al-awlaki-decision-leaves-key-questions-unanswered/" target="_blank">another one</a> on the legal issues with…</p>
<p>Here's <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-killing-legal-international-law/story?id=13538365" target="_blank">one article</a> questioning the law in bin Laden's case, although it seems the majority of the article is concerned with providing much more legal justification for it rather than question it. Here's <a href="http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2010/12/07/al-awlaki-decision-leaves-key-questions-unanswered/" target="_blank">another one</a> on the legal issues with al-Alawki. From the latter:</p>
<p>"According to international law, in an armed conflict only someone 'directly participating in hostilities' against the United States is a legitimate target for U.S. assassination. But the United States has neither said whether it is abiding by that principle in its targeting, nor how it defines 'direct participation.'"</p> Hi Ed
"There are rules that t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-12:5301756:Comment:159112011-05-12T22:04:46.182ZJames Barrowhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JamesBarrow
<p>Hi Ed</p>
<p>"<em>There are rules that the US signed on to and the question is did we violate those rules?"</em></p>
<p>Yes of course, the Geneva Convention for a start. Is there anything in particular you had in mind when asking the question about whether the US violated them? I mean, do you have a more detailed knowledge of the this convention, or others? I don't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Upon first glance, albeit on Wiki, I was surprised to see this:…</p>
<p>Hi Ed</p>
<p>"<em>There are rules that the US signed on to and the question is did we violate those rules?"</em></p>
<p>Yes of course, the Geneva Convention for a start. Is there anything in particular you had in mind when asking the question about whether the US violated them? I mean, do you have a more detailed knowledge of the this convention, or others? I don't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Upon first glance, albeit on Wiki, I was surprised to see this:</p>
<h3><em><span class="mw-headline" id="Grave_breaches">Grave breaches</span></em></h3>
<p><em>Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime" title="War crime">war crime</a>. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><em>willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments</em></li>
<li><em>willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health</em></li>
<li><em>compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power</em></li>
<li><em>willfully depriving someone of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial" title="Right to a fair trial">right to a fair trial</a></em></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>Well presumably shooting an unarmed person in the head at close range certainly deprives them of a fair trial! Presumably therefore if Bin Laden was protected by the convention ( a massive "if" which I have never seen debated, perhaps because the US' term "enemy combatant" was created in order to avoid such legalities?) then the US could now be tried for war crimes. But so could have Bin Laden if there was any evidence connecting him to 9-11 or other crimes?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I suspect the issue of exceptions these laws is a bit like the process whereby history is written by the victors...in other words international law and its exceptions are being currently written by the big powers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
“I want him to fail…”The c…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-12:5301756:Comment:156502011-05-12T15:52:41.253Zxibalbahttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/xibalba
<p> …</p>
<span class="Apple" style="word-spacing: 0px; font: medium 'Times New Roman'; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple" style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;"><br />
</span></span><p style="font-weight: normal; margin: 10px 5px 10px 0px;"></p>
<p> </p>
<span style="word-spacing: 0px; font: medium 'Times New Roman'; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="Apple"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;" class="Apple"><br />
</span></span><p style="font-weight: normal; margin: 10px 5px 10px 0px;"><span style="word-spacing: 0px; font: medium 'Times New Roman'; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="Apple">“I want him to fail…”<br/>The chronicles of Arrakis. The manuscripts of the face dancer high priest Rush limbaughullah, of the Bene Teabagxu brotherhood</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin: 10px 5px 10px 0px;"><span style="word-spacing: 0px; font: medium 'Times New Roman'; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="Apple">hahahhahahhha</span></p>
<br />
<p> </p> It is war but all is not fair…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-12:5301756:Comment:157252011-05-12T02:14:35.513ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
It is war but all is not fair in war. There are rules that the US signed on to and the question is did we violate those rules? (See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention" target="_blank">Geneva Convention</a>, for one.) So are there exceptions to the law?
It is war but all is not fair in war. There are rules that the US signed on to and the question is did we violate those rules? (See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention" target="_blank">Geneva Convention</a>, for one.) So are there exceptions to the law? Hi GuysI find myself vacillat…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-11:5301756:Comment:160022011-05-11T21:37:33.756ZJames Barrowhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JamesBarrow
<p>Hi Guys<br></br><br></br>I find myself vacillating between outrage and then comparing these actions to similar instances in, say, WW2.<br></br><br></br>There was a major engagement going on with the Americans attempting to land on one of the Japanese held Pacific Islands (it may have been Iwo Jima, or Guadalcanal or Okinawa - I can find the exact reference later if needed)<br></br><br></br>A US patrol spotted a Japanese General standing out in the open viewing the horizon. They immediately radioed his position to…</p>
<p>Hi Guys<br/><br/>I find myself vacillating between outrage and then comparing these actions to similar instances in, say, WW2.<br/><br/>There was a major engagement going on with the Americans attempting to land on one of the Japanese held Pacific Islands (it may have been Iwo Jima, or Guadalcanal or Okinawa - I can find the exact reference later if needed)<br/><br/>A US patrol spotted a Japanese General standing out in the open viewing the horizon. They immediately radioed his position to US warships off the coast who immediately targeted him, shelling his position and killing him. This robbed the Japanese of a major player in their chain of command and resulted in the speedier defeat and taking of the island by the US.<br/><br/>No due process, no advance warning. The two parties were at war. He was a known leader. Was this action also outrageous? It was an act of war - due process doesn't seem to enter into such occasions, does it?<br/><br/>So, if the two parties, the US and jihadist Islam, are actually at war I am now wondering what the difference is between these 2 scenarios. The crucial question seems to be " are the US and members of jihadist Islam at war or not?" If they are, these actions of Barack Obama's may be less outrageous. <br/><br/>Here are some interesting <a rel="nofollow" href="http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/02/2010271074776870.html" target="_blank">comments from Anwar alAwlaki</a></p>
<p>and some more <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MjCDiSrfsc&feature=related" target="_blank">here:</a><br/><br/>Here are some about Al Qaeda from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/weekly-address-january-2-2009?category=10" target="_blank">Barack Obama:</a></p>
<p><br/>And in case anyone thinks alAwlaki is simply fantasising about US colonialism, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564" target="_blank">check this research out</a> from the Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Quebec. Scary shit. Do you think closing down and then selling off these military bases might help pay off the US national debt?<br/><br/>Right now, I happen to think there is a war going on. I see the US and the UK and other governments invading other lands for natural resources and other strategic reasons, as we have always done. In response I see jihadists attacking back. Given what I see as their pathological Amber moralism maybe they would be attacking the US on religious grounds anyway even if the US and others weren't invading. Either way, it is a war isn't it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>James</p> I agree, as long as the under…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-11:5301756:Comment:159032011-05-11T15:11:06.335ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I agree, as long as the underground economy of hiring illegals is enforced as well*, thereby raising the boat for all who are (dis)affected by illegal under-the-table slave wages. Yes, this will reduce profits but not eliminate them. God forbid should we have any social checks on unlimited profits by capital owners. Much like we should have any legal checks on executive power to kill without legal recourse, eh? Integral autocracy at work...</p>
<p>*<em>Not</em> a conservative talking…</p>
<p>I agree, as long as the underground economy of hiring illegals is enforced as well*, thereby raising the boat for all who are (dis)affected by illegal under-the-table slave wages. Yes, this will reduce profits but not eliminate them. God forbid should we have any social checks on unlimited profits by capital owners. Much like we should have any legal checks on executive power to kill without legal recourse, eh? Integral autocracy at work...</p>
<p>*<em>Not</em> a conservative talking point.</p> This is not good -- downright…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-11:5301756:Comment:157182011-05-11T14:44:55.871ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>This is not good -- downright disturbing. He has to be checked on this, but the repubs aren't going to do it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Obama appears to be trying to appeal to the core conservatives. In a speech in El Paso recently, he told the assembled crowd, "Those who are here illegally have a responsibility. They broke the law and must pay a penalty. They must pay taxes, pay a fine, and learn English." In this case, I actually support this "conservative" message and I am glad he said it. …</p>
<p>This is not good -- downright disturbing. He has to be checked on this, but the repubs aren't going to do it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Obama appears to be trying to appeal to the core conservatives. In a speech in El Paso recently, he told the assembled crowd, "Those who are here illegally have a responsibility. They broke the law and must pay a penalty. They must pay taxes, pay a fine, and learn English." In this case, I actually support this "conservative" message and I am glad he said it. (Whether he will actually do anything about it is a whole 'nother question.) </p>