On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:21:12 -0400, Celejar wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:14:40 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> Actually, the war itself is a "war of aggression", which is a > >> war crime. Other actions which may be war crimes: > >> > >> Torturing prisoners. > >> Using white phosphorus against combatants and civilians > >> (as opposed to its legal use for battlefield illumination). > > > > Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [0] > > clearly allows combat use of incendiary weapons against enemy forces > > (i.e. to kill them, not just illuminate them), except in certain cases > > involving civilians. It is also quite probable that such use isn't > > banned by the agreements against chemical weapons; according to the > > (London?) Times [1], the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical > > Weapons agrees with the US administration that it isn't. C.f. Wikipedia > > [2] and the references there. > > ..one argument against using Wikipedia here, is a not too recent case of > somebody editing a page to suit his argument, and then make use of that > edit to win his flame war, I understand it was spotted fairly quickly but > I dunno the details. ;o) Absolutely right, but I just used wikipedia for a helpful primer. See my other 2 footnotes. > > Celejar > > > > [0] http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html [1] > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article591095.ece [2] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > White_phosphorus#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations > > ..as a commander or combattant, you will here wanna make fully sure, that > the full 4 Geneva Conventions does not in any way override your "right" > to use these weapons, even against mercenaries, such as for _excessive_ > collateral damage. Fair enough. > ..nukes will often (but not always) be illegal for precisely that reason, > _excessive_ collateral damage, "a little is ok", a few other kindsa > weapons are banned for more, I'd say moralistic reasons, e.g. poison gas, > dum-dum bullets etc, as are mercenaries. > > ..arguing how they _should_ be, is completely different to arguing > against or for the language or the spirit in the Conventions. ;o) Fair enough. My point still stands, though, that using WP to kill enemy soldiers is not, per se, illegal. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
