[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Army rules Fort Hood shooting victims eligible for Purple Heart Source: Dallas Morning News URL Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca ... -eligible-for-purple-heart.ece Published: Feb 9, 2015 Author: Aubree Abril Post Date: 2015-02-09 14:51:44 by redleghunter Keywords: None Views: 40096 Comments: 101 WASHINGTON — The Army announced Friday that it will award the Purple Heart to victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, after years of resistance. Texas lawmakers welcomed news that the shooting spree, which left 13 people dead and more than 30 wounded, would no longer be classified as an act of “workplace violence,” given the shooter proclaimed himself a jihadi. “This has been a long, hard fight. The victims of this attack have struggled, suffered and been abandoned by this administration. No more,” said Rep. John Carter, the Round Rock Republican whose district includes Fort Hood, the nation’s largest military installation. “Today is a day of victory, and I am honored to have fought on their behalf.” The decision, Carter said, would “provide the victims their due benefits” and “finally give closure to the families.” Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: About time. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43. #3. To: redleghunter (#0) Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was found guilty this month on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder after opening fire Nov. 5, 2009, at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where troops were getting medical checkups before deploying to Afghanistan. Hasan, who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan a few weeks later, shouted “Allahu ­akbar!” meaning “God is great,” before targeting soldiers with a high-powered, high-capacity handgun he had fitted with laser sights. He was apprehended by military police officers after firing more than 200 shots. www.washingtonpost.com/wo...6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html Some firearms would be more useful, but a Purple Heart is better than nothing. Maybe next time the bullets will bounce off of their Purple Hearts? Hondo68  posted on  2015-02-09   15:16:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: hondo68 (#3) Some firearms would be more useful, but a Purple Heart is better than nothing. They'll get more benefits this way which had been denied to them and their families because it was declared "workplace violence". So it makes a big difference to the survivors and families, I think. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-09   17:25:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: TooConservative (#5) So it makes a big difference to the survivors and families, I think. I'm sure it does,but military members that are murdered by a traitor in their own unit shouldn't be getting a Purple Heart. Next thing you know they will be handing them out to clerks and cooks that get hurt in a car accident while driving to work at the base/ sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-09   18:20:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: sneakypete (#8) Next thing you know they will be handing them out to clerks and cooks that get hurt in a car accident while driving to work at the base The more they give out... the less special they are. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-02-09   18:52:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: GrandIsland (#9) The more they give out... the less special they are. Exactly! There were designed to honor the military members who willing go into battle and put their lives at risk that get wounded or killed. Now they want to give them out to everybody. sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-09   18:55:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: sneakypete (#10) Exactly! There were designed to honor the military members who willing go into battle and put their lives at risk that get wounded or killed. Now they want to give them out to everybody. Not really. These were soldiers doing their medical SRP prior to deployment. They were unarmed and shot by a self proclaimed Jihadist at war with the USA. Even REMFs in Vietnam got the PH for enemy indirect fire. We shouldn't confuse the PH with a valor award or the CIB for infantrymen. The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the armed forces of the U.S. who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. http://www.purpleheart.org/HistoryOrder.aspx You may want to save your energy for what happened in 2002. An Airmen was awarded a Bronze Star for service as a ground crew member at Whiteman AFB in MO. The BSM is reserved for designated combat zones. However it was argued the crew serviced the B2 squadron flying from MO to drop bombs in Afghanistan and later in 2003 in Iraq. Have to check what became of that. redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   0:01:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: redleghunter, sneakypete, TooConservative (#15) [redleghunter #15] These were soldiers doing their medical SRP prior to deployment. They were unarmed and shot by a self proclaimed Jihadist at war with the USA. A technical quibble. A war would require two state actors. A lone individual actor cannot create a state of war with a nation. Nor can a non-state actor such as al Qaeda. al Qaeda and the USA can engage in an armed conflict of a non-international character. The "War on Terrorism" is not a war in the sense of Geneva Convention common Article 2, although that view would not be shared by the widow or husband of a soldier killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gary D. Solis, U.S. Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press, 2010, at 21. Also, "There are no longer the statuses of 'quasi-combatant' or 'semi-civilian.'" Id. at 188. Also, "Recall that POW status arises only in common Article 2 international armed conflicts, and in such conflicts the 1949 Geneva Conventions apply in toto, along with the 1977 Additional Protocol I." Id. at 195. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are applied to conflicts with not more than one state actor. [TooConservative #24] They should if they were attacked by an enemy combatant, uniformed or not. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-IV.pdf Commentary, IV Geneva Convention, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross (1958), Jean S. Pictet, Ed., Doctor of Laws, Director for General Affairs of the International Committee of the Red Cross, at page 51, italics as in original: In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Application of the term enemy combatant is misleading at best. LINK PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS (PROTOCOL I), OF 8 JUNE 1977 Excerpt, page 260, italics as in original. SECTION II COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS Article 43 — Armed forces 1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. 2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities. 3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict. Excerpt, page 265, italics as in original. CHAPTER II CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN POPULATION Article 50 — Definition of civilians and civilian population 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 1), 2), 3) and 6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. 2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. 3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character. Note the negative definition of civilians. Whoever is not a member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict as defined by Article 43, is a civilian, as defined by Article 50. Between the two articles, coverage is total to include all persons on the planet. Some of them, plus the rest of them, equals all of them. Note Article 43.2 says, "Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities." Every combatant is an enemy combatant in the view of the other party. The question goes not to enemy but to combatant. The terms "detainee," "enemy combatant," and "unlawful enemy combatant" do not appear in 1907 Hague Regulation IV, in any Geneva Convention, or in the 1977 Additional Protocols. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of any of the three terms, yet they are commonly used in the war on terrorism. Each suggests a variation on unlawful combatant status and, upon capture, each may determine the treatment of an individual so labeled. Solis at 224-25. Basically, the terminology used by the U.S. government, in terms of international law, is legal gibberish. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/terrorism-ihl-210705.htm The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 01-01-2011 FAQ Events in recent years have increased interest in the issue of how international humanitarian law is applied in today's context of violent confrontation. In a new paper, the ICRC provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about international humanitarian law and terrorism. 1. Is there legal significance to the term "global war on terror?" [...] When armed violence is used outside the context of an armed conflict in the legal sense or when a person suspected of terrorist activities is not detained in connection with any armed conflict, humanitarian law does not apply. Instead, domestic laws, as well as international criminal law and human rights govern. [...] 2. Who is a combatant? International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status. If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy. 3. Who is an "enemy combatant?" In its generic sense, an "enemy combatant" is a person who, either lawfully or unlawfully, engages in hostilities for the opposing side in an international armed conflict. The term is currently used — by those who view the fight against terrorism as including a transnational armed conflict against certain terrorist groups — to denote persons believed to belong to, or believed to be associated with terrorist groups, regardless of the circumstances of their capture. As mentioned above, a member of the armed forces of a State engaged in an international armed conflict or of an associated militia that fulfils the requisite criteria is a combatant, and, as such, entitled to POW status upon capture by the enemy. In non-international armed conflict, combatant and prisoner of war status are not provided for, because States are not willing to grant members of armed opposition groups immunity from prosecution under domestic law for taking up arms. From an IHL perspective, the term "combatant" or "enemy combatant" has no legal meaning outside of armed conflict. To the extent that persons designated "enemy combatants" have been captured in international or non-international armed conflict, the provisions and protections of international humanitarian law remain applicable regardless of how such persons are called. Similarly, when individuals are captured outside of armed conflict their actions and protection are governed by domestic law and human rights law, regardless of how they are called. 4. Who is entitled to "prisoner of war" status? What is the consequence of failure to qualify for prisoner of war status? [...] 5. What are the ICRC's role and activities in relation to international humanitarian law? [...] 6. Does Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions treat "terrorists" the same as it does soldiers? [...] nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-10   16:28:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 43. #44. To: nolu chan (#43) There's a job for you at the Pentagon:) There is enough in LOAC to restrict and their is enough to go the other way. That is why proportionality is key to the entire LOAC. redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10 16:38:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 43. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com