Bush administration arrests former human shields. - Page 2

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:02

and sanctions are un-american and *****-like

we should not have sancitons on countries like Cuba.

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah che... be sickened that criminals are arrested...

Do the crime, do the time... as it should be.

pathetic troll

These prosecutions are politically motivated. It has nothing to do with justice

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

I did not see them giving plans to Saddam Hussein.

I did not see them driving any tanks or becoming soldiers for Saddam Hussein.

All I saw was them forming human shields. They didn't aid the military of Saddam Hussein, they attempted to form a "moral block" that if US troops wanted to get past, they would have to kill the shields first.
And that is about as much treason as critisizing the government in a time of war.

This isn't "aiding" them? They are INTENTIONALLY HINDERING THE OPERATION OF THE US MILITARY IN A TIME OF WAR. If they want to protest, fine - but the war was legally declared. Once we are actually at war, they can try to stop it, but they can't actually HINDER it. Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

The Mad Monk · September 21, 2003, 17:07

Which countries should we have sanctions on?

KrazyHorse · September 21, 2003, 17:07

When did Dissident start posting serious ****?

Ned · September 21, 2003, 17:07

Whatever happened to "Congress shall pass no laws abridging freedom of speech." This definitely was exactly the kind of speech the framers intended to protect - political protest. However much one disagrees with the protesters, they have a right to protest even if it technically is against a law that appears neutral on its face regarding expression.

These guys will walk eventually. I think Bush really screwed up having them arrested.

KrazyHorse · September 21, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Which countries should we have sanctions on?

Duh? Canada.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:08

This isn't freedom of speech! This is people going into a war zone and hindering the workings of the military! You can protest a law, but you can't break it!

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

This isn't "aiding" them? They are INTENTIONALLY HINDERING THE OPERATION OF THE US MILITARY IN A TIME OF WAR. If they want to protest, fine - but the war was legally declared. Once we are actually at war, they can try to stop it, but they can't actually HINDER it. Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

people aren't allowed to peacefully protest anymore?

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:10

They aren't peacefully protesting! They are in a WAR ZONE!

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When did Dissident start posting serious ****?

I occasionally do. I am allowed, right?

I did not even support the anti-war movement. And at one time I was pro-war.

But I do stick up for the rights of others when being unfairly prosecuted for their political beliefs.

KrazyHorse · September 21, 2003, 17:10

How so?

a) They all left early because they're pussies
b) Does it really hinder the effectiveness of a bomb if there's a human shield around?

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident

another reason to hate the current U.S. goverment

In case you didn't realize, in 1997 it was the PREVIOUS administration

try harder next time

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They aren't peacefully protesting! They are in a WAR ZONE!

I believe they left when the bombs started falling. They may be stupid, but they weren't crazy

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How so?

a) They all left early because they're pussies
b) Does it really hinder the effectiveness of a bomb if there's a human shield around?

Well, personally I think that it's fine dropping the bomb anyway - but most of the people who don't want to try the human shields would also view dropping the bomb on them as immoral and illegal.

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

In case you didn't realize, in 1997 it was the PREVIOUS administration

try harder next time

I hated the Clinton goverment too after he sold secrets to China.

KrazyHorse · September 21, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Well, personally I think that it's fine dropping the bomb anyway - but most of the people who don't want to try the human shields would also view dropping the bomb on them as immoral and illegal.

So making the military feel bad about doing what they're told is treason? Interesting.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:15

No.

My point is they can't have their cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

DinoDoc · September 21, 2003, 17:36

They violated the law but I don't see wfy the government would bother with them. Prosecuting the blatantly stupid smacks of overkill.

Nubclear · September 21, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

Whoa. Forming a human line around something and shooting US soldiers is pretty different.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:40

They don't differ, however, in that they both INTENTIONALLY HINDER US forces IN A WAR ZONE.

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They don't differ, however, in that they both INTENTIONALLY HINDER US forces IN A WAR ZONE.

if you can explain exactly how they hindered us, then you might have a point.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 17:59

Let's assume that it is also wrong (in the sense that you would protest the same) to bomb the target if there are (willing) human shields there. Thus, if they are their we can't bomb there (or at least, you would complain about it). Thus, they have hindered us. My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

Nubclear · September 21, 2003, 17:59

Nevermind. I misread. And I mgiht as well spare people that grusome picture.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 18:03

I didn't say they were the same; I said they didn't differ in a certain aspect.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
This isn't "aiding" them?

Aid has been defined in treason and related cases in the US in both military and civil law as some form of direct material support.

Quote:

They are INTENTIONALLY HINDERING THE OPERATION OF THE US MILITARY IN A TIME OF WAR.

How so? As I posted earlier, before the war started, if I was there again for this war, and was given orders to do something to a valid target, I'd do it. Do you think anyone in the US military was going to say "Oooooh, we have to leave those AAA installations in place because some leftist frootloop peacenik chained his dumb ass to the radar vehicle."

Quote:

If they want to protest, fine - but the war was legally declared.

Without getting into David Floyd semantics, was it? The President was authorized by Congress to take military action. That is not necessarily equivalent to a formal state of war, and not necessarily a legal basis for finding a combatant entity to be an "enemy" for purposes of treason.

Quote:

Once we are actually at war, they can try to stop it, but they can't actually HINDER it.

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

Quote:

Or would you consider them shooting US soldiers just "protesting" too?

That's a really lame troll. Do you have any evidence, or has any party reported, that any of the US citizens arrested as "human shields" ever carried a weapon, let alone fired on, let alone hit, any US personnel?

Or did you just decide you had nothing more than a lame emotional argument so you had to make up additional claims that have no basis in fact?

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

How so? As I posted earlier, before the war started, if I was there again for this war, and was given orders to do something to a valid target, I'd do it. Do you think anyone in the US military was going to say "Oooooh, we have to leave those AAA installations in place because some leftist frootloop peacenik chained his dumb ass to the radar vehicle."

MtG, as I've said before:

Quote:

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

I'm working on the assumption that there is something "wrong" with bombing a target that is protected by a willing human shield. Remove that assumption and I'm fine.

Quote:

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

If I shoot at a US soldier and miss, is it OK?

Quote:

Without getting into David Floyd semantics, was it? The President was authorized by Congress to take military action. That is not necessarily equivalent to a formal state of war, and not necessarily a legal basis for finding a combatant entity to be an "enemy" for purposes of treason.

I'd say that Congress authorizing the President to go to war, and then the President going to war, makes the war pretty legal

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
No.

My point is they can't have their cake and eat it too.

If it there's no problem dropping a bomb on willing human shields, being a human shield shouldn't be a crime.

Nothing in the UCMJ or laws and customs of war require any party to avoid attacking a military target when there are civilians around, regardless of their status or circumstance. The only positive requirement is to minimize, to the extent practical, given the nature of the situation unnecessary civilian casualties. Civilian workers in a military target are not "unnecessary casualties" nor would be any other civilians who are voluntarily there with knowledge that they are at a potential target during a time of war.

Quote:

If there is a problem with it, then it should be a crime.

Not a problem to me - I wouldn't hesitate carrying out my orders.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Nothing in the UCMJ or laws and customs of war require any party to avoid attacking a military target when there are civilians around, regardless of their status or circumstance. The only positive requirement is to minimize, to the extent practical, given the nature of the situation unnecessary civilian casualties. Civilian workers in a military target are not "unnecessary casualties" nor would be any other civilians who are voluntarily there with knowledge that they are at a potential target during a time of war.

OK then, we are completely in agreement then.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

They didn't. We kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Can you name a single target which was previously on a frag list but was avoided due to the presence of these so-called "human shields?" Most of them started leaving once the war began, and most of them never "shielded" anything, not that it would have made any legal or actual difference to US conduct of the invasion.

If I shoot at a US soldier and miss, is it OK?

You don't even have to shoot. Merely carrying a weapon for the enemy makes you an (unlawful) enemy combatant. That's in a totally different category than an unarmed protestor in terms of their legal status, their rights if captured, and for purposes of both civilian criminal law and military law.

Quote:

I'd say that Congress authorizing the President to go to war, and then the President going to war, makes the war pretty legal

Congress never used the terms "war" nor did the President. Authorizing unspecified military action doesn't create a state of war. Were we at war with Sudan when we cruise missiled a target there? Were we at war continuously with Iraq when we enforced the No-fly zones ever since the end of the gulf war, under UN authority? A legal state of war for purposes of determining a party as an "enemy" for a treason prosecution is distinct from whether Bush's actions were authorized by Congress, and therefore legal.