Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/18/2002 6:26:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2002 6:27:20 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
From the usually liberal "SLATE" (delivered to your mail box by MSNBC) comes an unusually unbiased article. Further, Slate takes both the Defense Department 'AND' the New York Times to task for failing to inform viewers/readers of the facts. ----------------------------------------------- The FOURTH Geneva Convention, Article 28: The presence of a 'protected person' (read civilian/or any other noncombatant) may NOT be used to render certain points or areas immune for military operation. Slate goes on to say: "You cannot inoculate what would otherwise be a legitimate military target by the introduction of non-combatants." Let's say a truck with both civilians and combatants was destroyed by US forces. Slate attacks the Defense Department for not simply quoting and standing behind the Fourth Convention instead of attempting to explain each situation. (Defense should certainly consider using this argument at least in their final summary.) Slate then chastises the New York Times for their attacks on our government concerning civilian casualties while completely disregarding the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28, which 'LEGITIMIZES' (however horrible these deaths may be)civilian casualties while in pursuit of legitimate military targets. ------------------------------------------------ Both the United States and Afghanistan are signatories to the "Geneva Accords."
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 7:20:11 AM EDT
Gonna run this puppy btt just one time.
Top Top