But wait! There’s more!
Posted on 03/04/2016 10:51:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
The US has a long standing policy of not deliberately targeting non-combatants. This is codified in both treaties and legislation. However, if a legitimate target, which can be person, place, or thing, is occupied by or adjacent to non-combatants, you can legally strike it.
Most civilian casualties over the past 15 years are from either striking a legitimate target when civilians are present (usually when there is no better option), or striking the wrong place due to an error. Hitting a wedding can be either.
He shoots his mouth off without thinking. I can see it now. Some tin horn dictator makes fun of his hair and he orders an attack. Then he changes his mind and orders the military to stop. That sort of thing. We have seen these types before. Think of all of this as a reality show and it makes more sense.
does it cover burning people alive in cages? How about enslaving non-combatants in occupied territories? how about mass beheadings? It sounds like we have a bunch of liberal ISIS lovers around here.
Because last night he was pretty adamant that he'd use water-boarding or whatever else was needed and would target terrorist families (all while repeating that fairy tale about the 9/11 wives fleeing the country the day before). Now he's changing his story. That's where the "reversing his stance" part comes in.
The provisions of the Geneva Convention apply to non-signatories and are respected by signers only insofar as the non-signing party attempts to adhere to them as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
So Trump remains correct that these conventions, which are at best a `gentlemans agreement’ between signatories, do not apply where, to use two examples cited by Trump, the enemy is decapitating prisoners (”slicing their heads off” Trump) as the (non signatory) Japanese did during WWII, as well as an Islamic practice, as well as using women and children as combatants or shields.
IOW, our soldiers should not be punished for returning `kind in kind’. (Particularly if a soldier who deserts in the face of the enemy, causing the deaths of his fellow troopers searching for him, is promoted with back pay.)
As Trump also pointed out, after some heinous beheading or murder bombing by a child they must sit around and laugh at how we agonize over ... washing their faces.
But most American combat soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen observe rules of engagement, not necessarily because they fear punishment but because it’s the right thing to do. It’s what makes us different from the savages. It’s why we fight.
So, in a roundabout way, Trump is, once again in the face of an outraged Uniparty, right while they are politically correct.
Hour by hour his convictions change. But we can trust him . ..
He is a deal maker so no. GOPe is just stupid, this guy would have worked with them constantly.
I forgot about that one. 4 in the past 24 hours. More sure to come.
You know that how? When are we going to see these law suits he’s threatened against Cruz? Face it, Trump is a paper tiger who is nothing but bluster.
That was quick! lol
We have always followed some rules, the issue over the past few years is that we have effectively self-constrained ourselves. Our ROE are generally more restrictive than our treaty obligations.
Yes. Everyone who - unlike you (at least that's what your bio suggests) - is actually serving in the military is a gay, brain-addled incompetent wannabe.
Although if you didn't serve yourself...doesn't that make you the wannabe?
Donald told Megyn in the debate last night he had core principles....right before he told her everything is negotiable, who then flips on his HIB position.
That right there is a man of conviction! John Kerry style.
” I hope he stays to the right of Hillary, but who really knows?”
This will be interesting to watch. Sanders forced Clinton way to the left and she would like to drift back to the middle now. But the only enthusiasm on the dem side is far left while her core support is anemic.
If she moves too far right too fast, she’ll have almost no dependable base as we approach the election. For example, even still today she tweeted a disgusting “in your face” type of pitch to the homo lobby.
——Well the Israelis bomb the homes of terrorists.——
They also go to great lengths trying not to kill innocents....
Of course, We don’t have enemies sworn to the death to kill us either living next door...
Bombing a wedding is killing family members no matter what kind of BS justification you wipe on it. mind you, I think we should target their families. The double standard is what bothers me.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.
That sounds an awful lot like a war crime to me.
But wait! There’s more!
Killing the members of terrorist families isn’t a violation of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention relates to military combatants tied to a country. Terrorists are not applicable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.