New Law of War

[Big Guy]

Two months ago, the United States released a manual delineating the rules and laws of war;

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf

I guess that the nation which seems to be involved in most of the wars should unilaterally impose its own rules on the rest of the world. I assume that the Geneva Conventions are now history or for the rest of the world only.

Critics of this self serving document point out some concerns:

This manual authorizes the following (which had been considered war crimes) ;

(1) Warfare with nuclear weapons. Specifically, the manual states:

There is no general prohibition in treaty or customary international law on the use of nuclear weapons.

This flies in the face of the United Nations Charter, which – as noted by the World Court in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons – makes even threatening to use nuclear weapons a war crime.

(2) Depleted uranium. The use of depleted uranium can cause cancer and birth defects for decades.

(3) Landmines.

(4) Cluster bombs.

(5) Napalm, which is banned under Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

(6) Expanding hollow-point bullets, banned under the 1868 St. Petersburg declaration.

(7) Herbicides, like Agent Orange in Vietnam.

The media outlets are concerned: Journalists are to be considered “unprivileged belligerents” putting them into the same category as spies.

Most disconcerting, critics claim the Manual allows massacres of civilian populations. The most comprehensive previous such document – the 1956 Pentagon field manual – assumed that any deliberate targeting of civilians was illegal and a war crime.

Might is right.

And we are learning that the end justifies the means – for Americans.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...Might is right.

And we are learning that the end justifies the means – for Americans.

Always has...always will.

The Americans get the raw materials for enriched and depleted uranium from the usual place.....Canada....which knows exactly how it will be used. Canada made a bundle on the Vietnam War.

Edited August 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Might is right.

And we are learning that the end justifies the means for Americans.

No, I think it's pretty clear the ethos is a universal option applicable to or by all.

[Signals.Cpl]

The media outlets are concerned: Journalists are to be considered “unprivileged belligerents” putting them into the same category as spies.

Journalists fall into several categories depending on their actions...

4.24 JOURNALISTS

In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.

…….

4.24.2 Other Journalists. In general, independent journalists and other media representatives are regarded as civilians;471 i.e., journalism does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities such that such a person would be deprived of protection from being made the object of attack.472

…….

…….

4.24.4 Journalists and Spying. Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying.481 A journalist who acts as a spy may be subject to security measures and punished if captured.482 To avoid being mistaken for spies, journalists should act openly and with the permission of relevant authorities. Presenting identification documents, such as the identification card issued to authorized war correspondents or other appropriate identification, may help journalists avoid being mistaken as spies.

Seems to me that a Journalist would only be considered a spy if (s)he is caught in the act of spying or some similar activity… so basically a journalist falls in a number of categories only based on their position and/or actions.

[Freddy]

No, I think it's pretty clear the ethos is a universal option applicable to or by all.

Might has always been right, and will always be. Anyone who has forgotten that has lived a very peaceful soft life, backed on our ability to wage nuclear war. And is as smart as a two by four because they are oblivious to that fact.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Freddy

[eyeball]

Embracing and celebrating it is perverted. Besides which, the bigger you are the harder you fall.

[Freddy]

Embracing and celebrating it is perverted. Besides which, the bigger you are the harder you fall.

We celebrate it everyday with the beautiful peaceful soft life we enjoy, because of our capacity to dominate the whole world.

If you want to feel guilty about it go ahead, I'm won't waist my time.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Freddy

[eyeball]

How on Earth can you tell people what it is they're feeling? Is it Psi or something.

Guilty? And we dominate the whole world?

Hmmmm. That's just plain weird.

[Shady]

What's new here?

[Derek 2.0]

A few clarifications to the OP:

(1) Warfare with nuclear weapons. Specifically, the manual states:

There is no general prohibition in treaty or customary international law on the use of nuclear weapons.

This flies in the face of the United Nations Charter, which – as noted by the World Court in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons – makes even threatening to use nuclear weapons a war crime.

From section 6.18.1 of the policy manual:

The United States has developed national policy on the use of nuclear weapons. For example, the United States has stated that it would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.413 In addition, the United States has stated that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

This portion of the manual has likely been updated from the Cold War era in which the United States considered nuclear weapons as likely response to an aggressor that used chemical or biological weapons against US forces, allies, or populations.

Next up:

(2) Depleted uranium. The use of depleted uranium can cause cancer and birth defects for decades.

From section 6.5.7:

The U.S. armed forces have fielded and used depleted uranium munitions. Extensive efforts have been made to study whether there are harmful health effects from exposure to depleted uranium from weapons that use it, but no such effects have been found.

Not surprised, but then if your vehicle has been attacked by an A-10 performing a gun-run with DU munitions, long term cancer risk is the least of your worries…..

(3) Landmines.

From section 6.12.4:

Prohibited Classes of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices. Certain types of mines, booby-traps, and other devices are prohibited. These types include:

• mines, booby-traps, and other devices calculated to cause superfluous injury;252

• mines, booby-traps, and other devices specifically designed to detonate during detection operations;253

• self-deactivating mines with anti-handling devices designed to function after the mine’s operation; 254

• non-detectable anti-personnel mines;255

• remotely delivered mines without compliant self-destruction and self-deactivation mechanisms;2

So the mines still used by the United States are those that either self-deactivate (a battery dies and the munition no longer functions), are command detonated (exploded by an operator), self-destruct, are not remotely delivered, allowing for the fields to be mapped and marked or are in use along the Korean DMZ

(4) Cluster bombs.

Section 6.13.3:

DoD has developed policies to minimize the negative humanitarian consequences that can sometimes be associated with cluster munitions.346 Under a 2008 policy, the U.S. armed forces will, after 2018, only employ cluster munitions containing submunitions that, after arming, do not result in more than 1% unexploded ordnance

(5) Napalm, which is banned under Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Section 6.14.3:

As with other weapons, it is prohibited to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians, or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.369 In addition, it is specifically prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons, except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal, or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.370

Napalm wasn't banned, its use against civilians was.......

(6) Expanding hollow-point bullets, banned under the 1868 St. Petersburg declaration.

First, there wasn't hollow-point cased ammo in 1868.........That said, hollow points are used by military police (like civilian police forces) and special forces around the world.....There use by regular troops is ineffective (outside perhaps a sidearm) as they have less penetrating power than full metal jacketed, steel core, ammo. Furthermore repeated use of hollow points in most modern firearms will result in both excessive barrel fouling and failures to feed..........there is a reason for the mantra, for over hundred years, that ".45 ball stops them all".......

(7) Herbicides, like Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Section 6.17:

The United States has renounced, as a matter of national policy, first use of herbicides in war except use, under regulations applicable to their domestic use, for control of vegetation within U.S. bases and installations or around their immediate defensive perimeters.

The media outlets are concerned: Journalists are to be considered “unprivileged belligerents” putting them into the same category as spies.

Section 4.24.4

Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying.481 A journalist who acts as a spy may be subject to security measures and punished if captured.482 To avoid being mistaken for spies, journalists should act openly and with the permission of relevant authorities. Presenting identification documents, such as the identification card issued to authorized war correspondents or other appropriate identification, may help journalists avoid being mistaken as spies.4

Anderson Cooper need not worry as long as he's got his wallet.......

Most disconcerting, critics claim the Manual allows massacres of civilian populations. The most comprehensive previous such document – the 1956 Pentagon field manual – assumed that any deliberate targeting of civilians was illegal and a war crime.

Section 4.8

Like combatants, members of the civilian population also have certain rights, duties, and liabilities under the law of war. Civilians may not be made the object of attack. If detained, civilians are entitled to humane treatment and a variety of additional protections. Civilians lack the combatant’s privilege, and may be punished, after a fair trial, by an enemy State for engaging in hostilities against it.

------------------

I'm forced to ask, Big Guy, did you read the Law of war manual? Or was the intent of this topic just another thread of baseless anti-American rants?

[Moonlight Graham]

Might has always been right, and will always be. Anyone who has forgotten that has lived a very peaceful soft life, backed on our ability to wage nuclear war. And is as smart as a two by four because they are oblivious to that fact.

You are a social Darwinist.

If you believe "might = right", then you have no problem with the actions of Hitler and Stalin because, well, might = right. You have no problems with rape, genocide, murder, theft, and child sexual molestation because might = right. You've been reading too much Nietzsche, your "master morality" is a race straight to the bottom.

Might = power and the ability to achieve one's desired outcomes, it doesn't necessarily = "right".

[Big Guy]

Journalists fall into several categories depending on their actions...

Seems to me that a Journalist would only be considered a spy if (s)he is caught in the act of spying or some similar activity… so basically a journalist falls in a number of categories only based on their position and/or actions.

I agree - but a dead journalist seldom gets a chance to explain his/her actions.

To Derek 2.0 - May I assume from your post that you consider the new Law of War as appropriate parameters of conflict?

Should other nations who have signed on to the Geneva Conventions now adopt these Laws of War to supersede the Conventions?

I am surprised that you feel this to be a "rant". The Pentagon has decided to retroactively change accepted conditions of conflict to satisfy its actions of the recent past. Now napalm, cluster bombs (anti-personnel), herbicides (chemicals) are OK. Everything the USA used in that debacle in Vietnam is now OK.

I also suggest that your "clarifications" are your interpretation of the written word - like "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually cover torture.

Apparently you have trust in the American Pentagon and war machine to maintain human rights during conflicts. I respect your opinion but disagree completely. I have no intent of trying to convince you of my position but it is based on my interpretation of the actions of the American military in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria et al.

How many other countries will sign on to this "new world order for conflicts".

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - May I assume from your post that you consider the new Law of War as appropriate parameters of conflict?

From an American perspective, yes I do.

Should other nations who have signed on to the Geneva Conventions now adopt these Laws of War to supersede the Conventions?

I feel that most countries embroiled within a conflict, ever more so if they were losing or in stalemate, would use any such means they felt would contribute to reversing such tide, despite being a past signatory of various International Convention.

I am surprised that you feel this to be a "rant". The Pentagon has decided to retroactively change accepted conditions of conflict to satisfy its actions of the recent past. Now napalm, cluster bombs (anti-personnel), herbicides (chemicals) are OK. Everything the USA used in that debacle in Vietnam is now OK.

Firstly the Pentagon hasn’t changed such things retroactively, as in the majority of such examples, the United States isn’t a signatory nation to most of said international conventions.

As to my feeling of this as a rant, based on actually reading (most of) the document, versus your points in the OP, it is clear that either you haven’t read the document and are just basing your opinions off of someone else’s interpretation……or that you have read it, and you choose to embellish the truth.

I also suggest that your "clarifications" are your interpretation of the written word - like "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually cover torture.

No, as I actually cited the passages of said rules and provided said passages verbatim………you passages are either intentionally misleading or regurgitated from another incorrect source……for example, your citing of an international convention on the use of hollow points, with the only problem, hollow points had yet to be developed at the time, as such, there is no inclusion of them in said convention.

Apparently you have trust in the American Pentagon and war machine to maintain human rights during conflicts. I respect your opinion but disagree completely. I have no intent of trying to convince you of my position but it is based on my interpretation of the actions of the American military in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria et al.

I didn't really offer my opinion, but clarify and correct the opening post of errors, fostering the grounds for a factual and honest discussion.

How many other countries will sign on to this "new world order for conflicts".

The better question, since many of those points brought forth aren’t new, is how many countries embroiled in armed conflict wouldn’t use any means necessary to win? War after all isn’t a game with rules and officials, and looking at it as such only ensures its continued use.

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree - but a dead journalist seldom gets a chance to explain his/her actions.

Are you saying that the US will kill every journalist on sight?

I posted relevant parts from your source that states when journalists MIGHT be considered an unprivileged belligerents and its not 100% of the time but in very specific circumstances. I suspect the rest of the points might be equally false but I have neither the time nor the interest to read the entire document.

[Freddy]

You are a social Darwinist.

If you believe "might = right", then you have no problem with the actions of Hitler and Stalin because, well, might = right. You have no problems with rape, genocide, murder, theft, and child sexual molestation because might = right. You've been reading too much Nietzsche, your "master morality" is a race straight to the bottom.

Might = power and the ability to achieve one's desired outcomes, it doesn't necessarily = "right".

In nature, Might is right.

In religion your right.

The lion kills his pray without guilt... Why because he can.

[On Guard for Thee]

In nature, Might is right.

In religion your right.

The lion kills his pray without guilt... Why because he can.

No, he kills his prey because the lion needs to eat. That's why we kill cows and chickens. Lion's don't usually kill other lions.

[Moonlight Graham]

In nature, Might is right.

In religion your right.

The lion kills his pray without guilt... Why because he can.

Then you don't deny there's anything morally wrong with Hitler, a rapist, or a child molester, and none should have guilt, because for you might = right. People of MLW, let the record show!

I completely understand your way of thinking by the way, I've even been there myself, I just think it's very dangerous and leads to very, very bad deeds.

[Freddy]

Then you don't deny there's anything morally wrong with Hitler, a rapist, or a child molester, and none should have guilt, because for you might = right. People of MLW, let the record show!

I completely understand your way of thinking by the way, I've even been there myself, I just think it's very dangerous and leads to very, very bad deeds.

You are missing relativity in your attempt to understand. I wouldn't have a problem killing Hitler or his soldiers as he wanted to kill my allies. I wouldn't have a problem killing a person attempting to molest my children, and I'm not at all surprised that others would try to accomplish those things. So I'm always ready. Because if my might is not mightier then there's at that given moment, They will have Their way.

Your just trying to make me sound like a psycho killer. When all I'm saying is we mustn't let our guard down. Ever.

Because when two worlds collide might will always decide who will make up the rules once the dust settles from the fight.

I'm intelligent enough to recognize that I'd rather end up on the winning side rather then on the losers. So I'm always as prepared as I can be to deal with emergency situations where someone is trying to dominate through use of force.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Freddy