Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

oxsan mentioned a question put to Ari Fleischer about the attempt to take out Saddam Hussein in the first attack of the war. Essentially the question was about whether the US in doing so had broken international law and whether it made Bush a legitimate target. Ari's repsonse was to say, as oxsan said 'show me an international law', now here's the question.

Was Ari answering yes to the second part of the question by saying this? Do you consider Bush and the Queen for that matter legitimate targets?

My answer is yes.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 222

i agree. the whole idea that a leader is off limits when at war is assinine. It's ok to send thousands to die, kill many civilians who happen to get in the way, but not to kill the people who could end the war? It seems like some rediculous hold over from chivalry when the life of nobles were sacred but you could slaughter peasants to your hearts consent.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

As Commander in Chief of the armed services Bush is definitely a legally and morally justified target. I am not aware whether Her Majesty , the Queen , is considered the Chief Military Commander of UK, although I suspect that she is, in which case she would also be a justifiable target. In any war I believe the Chief executive of the country can be considered a target because loss of the Chief executive disrupts Command and Control. Blair is a civilian but I would consider him a reasonable target also. You will note that all of Saddam's cabinet is now dressed in military garb which emphasizes that they are targets--including Saddam.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

i agree oxsan. I just wondered if Ari was implying that by his 'non-answer answer'

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 222

i heard some pundit on tv, just before the war started saying that now that saddam had shown up in a military uniform, after not wearing one for several years, this made him a legitimate target. Perhaps that was only in reference to american assassination laws though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I heard the same comment, Gulik. However I consider that an important government official of ministerial level or above is a valid target in war whether in uniform or not and I consider the Presidential executive order against assassinationj to be be designed to prevent covert assassination in peacetime. I am not sure that Bush has revoked it anyway--no announcement is required to do so.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

The grenade attack on the command tent of the 101st squadron is being labelled a "terrorist attack" by CNN, I would imagine uniforms were being worn by those that were injured.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Agreed...the grenade attack isn't "terrorism" in any sense except that the perpetrators probably weren't uniformed combatants.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Agreed...the grenade attack isn't "terrorism" in any sense except that the perpetrators probably weren't uniformed combatants.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

They think it was done by al queda, not Iraqis. Therefore, it's terrorism.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

Ok, now fox news is saying it's not terrorism, because the attackers were not with al quedsa. Apparently, they were translators working for the army. Although, if they're not with the iraqi army, wouldn't it still be a terrorist attack?

I'm confuzzled.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

Ok, I think I've got it worked out.

If you're in the military and fighting on behalf of your own government, then it's a military action.
If you're not in the military and fighting against the government of your own country, it's resistance.
If you're not in the military and you attack another government, military, or specifically target any civilians, then it's terrorism.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

Terrorism specifically targets non-combatants. An attack on the 101st is not terrorism.

Interestingly, it has been reported that it may have been a Kuwaiti translator, but they say Sky News is also reporting a missing soldier. I have figured out if they mean a US or Kuwati soldier.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

A US soldier is missing, he was guarding the grenades.

If I go kill a soldier, then that would be an attack? It's about more than who you're attacking, it also has to do with who you are.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I'm proud of you Nymbus, you get your degree in Modern Political Nomenclature but I agree with Smug. The people killed were themselves combatants in uniform fighting in a combaqt zone. We have jno idea what the perps were wearing whether a uniform or no but even if they wore a dhobi they could be considered irregular troops or guerrillas. It was just an irregular enemy action. We don't really know that the missing US soldier didn't do it. All we know about him is that he was missing. Lets say he had a grudge against the Commander and decided to settle it with a grenade and the two translator types saw him do it and said " We better skuip or they will blame this on us." Far-fetched? Of course it is but it is possible.We don't have enough fact to draw a conclusion.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: US
Posts: 3547

Definitely not Terrorism.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Turns out the missing soldier did it and has been captured after shooting him in the foot. He is a US Muslim soldier. There is yet another soldier missing.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Van Diemen's Land.
Posts: 3607

guilty until proven innocent I guess.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

From the reports I heard I am not sure but I don't believe that any one was killed but 13 were injured and 11 of them seriously. This fellow better hope that none of them die if he is guilty because he might end up being the first soldier since WWII to stand in front of a firing squad if one of them dies and he is found guilty. And there was only one in WWII--for cowardice.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
This fellow better hope that none of them die if he is guilty because he might end up being the first soldier since WWII to stand in front of a firing squad if one of them dies and he is found guilty. And there was only one in WWII--for cowardice.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Bet he is wishing he could face a firing squad, spending the rest of his life in a military prison after carrying out that act isn't going to be pleasant.

(assuming they got the right guy)

Does one of the victims really have to die for a death sentence? Hasn't he committed an act of treason or something?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.D.H.D
guilty until proven innocent I guess.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8821

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
And there was only one in WWII--for cowardice.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by mmmsivart
Is there a story that goes along with that one? I wanna hear.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged