Collective punishment
- Thread starter moono
- Start date
You're distorting reality.bluestreak said:
The Geneva Convention articles you all cited are the jus in bello; "the rules of war"... If you are claiming that the article doesn't apply to Palestine because it isn't a legally recognised nation then how can the rules of war be enforced on Israel?
Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention is applied to warring nations - if you claim that Palestine is exmpet then by proxy Israel is also exempt.
The Zionists must bear all of the responsibilities of an occupying power within an occupied territory. As an occupying power, all of the Geneva Conventions apply. The Zionists occupy Palestine as a result of war.
Their crimes, in this instance 'collective punishment' are compounded by the illegal nature of their occupation.
In legal terms the Zionists are in deep shit.
Their crimes, in this instance 'collective punishment' are compounded by the illegal nature of their occupation.
In legal terms the Zionists are in deep shit.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Fullyplumped said:
are palestinian terrorists signatories to geneva now?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Joe said:
this is where geneva gets difficult. technical language. israel is committing an act that in all ways corresponds to the strict definition of collective punishment, but they're not at war with a nation state. are they still committing collective punishment legally? you say no, we say yes.
was saddam committing collective punishment against the kurds? the un and america and iraq certainly think so. but the kurds don't have a state.
I wasn't stating Israel are exempt as they are engaged in a belligerent occupation, I was saying if you exclude Palestine then you also exclude Israel.moono said:
In reality the Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas and all of the other terrorist groups that hide amongst civilian populations; Part 3, Article 1, Section 28 reads:
"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
International law is a complex beast and can be twisted and manipulated to suit whichever cause you chose to side with... But to suggest Palestine are exempt from international law because they are not a legally recognised state is one of the most comical suggestions i have read on this site
moono said:
Not that well protected - Israel is kicking the shit out of them.
moono said:
In real terms the arabs are in deep shit.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Joe said:International law is a complex beast and can be twisted and manipulated to suit whichever cause you chose to side with... But to suggest Palestine are exempt from international law because they are not a legally recognised state is one of the most comical suggestions i have read on this site
really? then your understanding of international law is a damn sight different from much of the world.
in terms of international law you could no more prosecute palestine for war crimes than essex.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
big footed fred said:
and regardless of opinion, law, morality or viewpoint, this is the truth. whatever side you're own, however you argue from. this is the truth.
What are you talking about?!?!?bluestreak said:
You don't try a nation you prosecute individuals, when we learnt of the horrors Abu Ghraib it was Lynndie England that was prosecuted - not America.
Palestinian terrorists are bound by international law to suggest otherwise is plain idiotic.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Joe said:
lynddie england was prosecuted by who?
you are a pillock.
http://www.insidejustice.com/resources/un_courts.php
from that page:
Jurisdiction: Cases before the court involve UN member states, not individuals (Statute Article 34). States must provide their consent by agreement, declaration, or a clause in a treaty.
Description: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations. The ICJ is also referred to as the "World Court." By signing and accepting the UN Charter, States become ipso facto (Latin for "by the fact itself") parties to the Court's Statute, and thus, the Court (UN Charter Article 93). That is to say, if a country belongs to the UN, that country must recognize and accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. States can become party to the Statute of the ICJ without joining the UN.
-----------
happy now?
lol again you don't understand what you're reading.bluestreak said:
Lyndie England would of been prosecuted under the ICC had the US not prosecuted her, the ICC runs parallel to a nations judicial system; it tends to exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes... This doesn't mean that Lyndie England isn't considered an international war criminal.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Palestinians are free of international law and technically aren't required to follow the rules of war
Bigdavalad
New Member
Joe said:
Is there a terrorist Geneva Convention then? (Bekka Valley Convention maybe?)
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
as i understand it the so-called rules of war only cover nation states. therefore acts by palestinians acting as units, are only acts of terrorism and not covered by the rules of war.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Bigdavalad said:
stormont? *scarpers*
then you understand wrong.bluestreak said:
Terrorism isn't covered by the rules of war as it is difficult to define and considered to be less serious than the crimes international courts were created to handle... However I think they are due (or it may of been passed) an ammendment which includes "aggression" under which I think the more serious acts of terror could fall (but someone with a greater legal knowledge than my own could clarify this point).
Individuals are covered by the rules of war; take Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo and Dominic Ongwen of the Lords Resistance Army... All of whom are being investigated by the ICC for war crimes.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
but all of those groups represent unified armed forces don't they, rather than cells or small terrorist organisations.
this is all very complex. my research suggests that individuals can't be tried in the world courts, but they can be tried in the hague.
which leads us back to the difference of opinion again. except without the same confidence i had before.
it seems to me that international justice is what happens to the losers of any given disagreement...
i still think there is a difference between "collective punishment" as committed by a state and acts of terrorism by a stateless entity, but now i'm not so sure as to the legal status. it seems that i'm right if i follow one set of UN directives and one interpretation of geneva but others are right if you follow another.
perhaps someone with wider legal knowledge would like to step in, as you suggested Joe.
this is all very complex. my research suggests that individuals can't be tried in the world courts, but they can be tried in the hague.
which leads us back to the difference of opinion again. except without the same confidence i had before.
it seems to me that international justice is what happens to the losers of any given disagreement...
i still think there is a difference between "collective punishment" as committed by a state and acts of terrorism by a stateless entity, but now i'm not so sure as to the legal status. it seems that i'm right if i follow one set of UN directives and one interpretation of geneva but others are right if you follow another.
perhaps someone with wider legal knowledge would like to step in, as you suggested Joe.
Bigdavalad
New Member
bluestreak said:
If I remember the lessons on the Geneva Conventions properly, the laws only apply to members of legally recognised armies, although terrorists are entitled to certain protections as illegal combatants in a fight against real soldiers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Joe said:
The nature of terrorism is that it isn't bound by law, whether national or international.
That's why it is called terrorism - the use of fear in promotion of unlawful politics.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
bluestreak said:
BlueStreaK: International Law is a very vague entity and is interprative. In cases like the ones perpertrated by the Israelis, there is no clear and direct violation, hence the lack of indictment.
You are incorrect in your assumption that the PA is no responsibility for the adherence of the PA to International Law. The PA is a de facto government, mandated by its demographic as well as the International Commmunity. As such it MUST abide by the principles of International Law. To date it has summarily ignored them, except when it suits them in their public relations war against Israel.
Udo: "The kidnapped soldier was breaking International Law simply by being in Gaza." Um, he was NOT in Gaza! He was on the Israeli side of a fenced border. The "Palestinians" tunneled under ther fence, emerged and attacked. 2 of his squadmated wewre killed in the rpg attack, a third badly wounded, and he was snatched ands dragged into the hole.
ZAMB: "Gideon Levy 'article'." He equates NCO Shalit's kidnapping [while ignoring the dcold blooded murder of his two squadmates] withthe pre-trial detention of "Palestinians" the day before.
The major, glaring difference is that Israel is a sovereign nation enegaged in counter terror ops. "Palestinians" have no such right or claim. The men taken in the counter terror op will have all rights accorded to them and will not quake with fear knowing that each and every second could very well be their last.
Should those Arab men have the slightest medical need, they wioll be attened to by soem of the world's best physicians in sterile environment. NCO Shalit has no such luxury.
Neither is Levy correct when he opines that the HAMAS legislators and Cabient memebers were taken tyo be used as baragaining chips. They are arrested because they had broken laws.
Moono: "Israel occupies 'Palestine' as the result of an act of war." I thought that Israel maintained a presence in those lands becuae the previous sovereigns relinquished any and all claims to the lands. With no viable leadership available Israel was tasked with administering the lands until such time as viable leadership emerges.
Secondly, you erroneously [yet again] use the word "occupy." To "OCCUPY," there must first be an entity to bear the "occupation." Other than the Jews, there has never been an organic and soivereign government there. To put it simply, if Israel is actually "occupying" anything, it is "occupying" its own land!
You are incorrect in your assumption that the PA is no responsibility for the adherence of the PA to International Law. The PA is a de facto government, mandated by its demographic as well as the International Commmunity. As such it MUST abide by the principles of International Law. To date it has summarily ignored them, except when it suits them in their public relations war against Israel.
Udo: "The kidnapped soldier was breaking International Law simply by being in Gaza." Um, he was NOT in Gaza! He was on the Israeli side of a fenced border. The "Palestinians" tunneled under ther fence, emerged and attacked. 2 of his squadmated wewre killed in the rpg attack, a third badly wounded, and he was snatched ands dragged into the hole.
ZAMB: "Gideon Levy 'article'." He equates NCO Shalit's kidnapping [while ignoring the dcold blooded murder of his two squadmates] withthe pre-trial detention of "Palestinians" the day before.
The major, glaring difference is that Israel is a sovereign nation enegaged in counter terror ops. "Palestinians" have no such right or claim. The men taken in the counter terror op will have all rights accorded to them and will not quake with fear knowing that each and every second could very well be their last.
Should those Arab men have the slightest medical need, they wioll be attened to by soem of the world's best physicians in sterile environment. NCO Shalit has no such luxury.
Neither is Levy correct when he opines that the HAMAS legislators and Cabient memebers were taken tyo be used as baragaining chips. They are arrested because they had broken laws.
Moono: "Israel occupies 'Palestine' as the result of an act of war." I thought that Israel maintained a presence in those lands becuae the previous sovereigns relinquished any and all claims to the lands. With no viable leadership available Israel was tasked with administering the lands until such time as viable leadership emerges.
Secondly, you erroneously [yet again] use the word "occupy." To "OCCUPY," there must first be an entity to bear the "occupation." Other than the Jews, there has never been an organic and soivereign government there. To put it simply, if Israel is actually "occupying" anything, it is "occupying" its own land!
Moono: " 'Palestiner' is a stae in waiting with observer status in the UN." Indeed. Of course who is the LEGAL administrator of said lands?
Similar threads
