Jeff Sessions Comfirmation Hearing

[Speaker to Animals]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

And the people using a hospital to launch attacks can be tried and convicted of war crimes, lined up against a wall, and shot to death.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

And the people using a hospital to launch attacks can be tried and convicted of war crimes, lined up against a wall, and shot to death.

I notice that you didn't say "intentionally bombed from afar". And was that the case here?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

Then did they, in fact, know it was a hospital before they struck?

Notice that I said "if they knew", then they should be war criminals. The doctors have no choice. They are sworn to help.

[Speaker to Animals]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

And the people using a hospital to launch attacks can be tried and convicted of war crimes, lined up against a wall, and shot to death.

I notice that you didn't say "intentionally bombed from afar". And was that the case here?

If combatants launch attacks from said hospital, the hospital becomes a legitimate target, and the combatants who launched the illegal attack become war criminals totally responsible for the collateral damage.

This is the same simple fact many don't seem to grasp with respect to Hamas launching rocket attacks from schools and neighborhoods. The responsibility for the civilian casualties in the retal falls on Hamas.

[Smitty-48]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

Then did they, in fact, know it was a hospital before they struck?

Notice that I said "if they knew", then they should be war criminals. The doctors have no choice. They are sworn to help.

Only if the unit which was engaging the target knew, in real time, to wit, the AC-130 gunship commander and crew, before and as they opened fire, somebody somewhere having the information, not having been passed down to the AC-130 crew engaging the target in the fog of war, would not make the engagement unlawful.

This is why the onus is on the hospital to ensure that it is marked, information does flow freely in the fog of war, failure to mark the hospital and then have it be used as a fighting position by armed elements is actually what is unlawful.

If the hospital staff knew that they were subject to being occupied by armed elements and in that context also failed to mark the hospital? Then it is in fact they, not the US military, who are in breach of the laws of armed conflict, because they essentially made themselves proxies of the enemy, by making themselves into de facto human shields for an unlawful combatant enemy, covertly, by not marking the hospital, which is the actual war crime in play here.

The laws of armed conflict would essentially rule against the doctors, for having, in effect, laid a trap for the US military on behalf of the Taliban and Co.

[clubgop]

As usual GCF is out of his league.

[clubgop]

What a farce, nothing but pointless grandstanding by a bunch of puffed up fops, the outcome is never in question, just gives the pols an excuse to preen themselves on television, as if there's not enough of that already, thank goodness for a Westminster Parliament I say, it's bad enough to have question period, never mind this laborious calvalcade of ignominous blatherskites; the KGB would be doing us a favour, if they "interfered in the American democratic process", by slipping the polonium in their tea.

Nuclear Hitler? Oh my kingdom for a Nuclear Hitler, please Nuclear Hitler, put us out of our misery, and just shoot these useless twats already.

Not a forgone conclusion. The GOP may still have to enact the nuclear option. See if they have the balls.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And the people using a hospital to launch attacks can be tried and convicted of war crimes, lined up against a wall, and shot to death.

I notice that you didn't say "intentionally bombed from afar". And was that the case here?

If combatants launch attacks from said hospital, the hospital becomes a legitimate target, and the combatants who launched the illegal attack become war criminals totally responsible for the collateral damage.

This is the same simple fact many don't seem to grasp with respect to Hamas launching rocket attacks from schools and neighborhoods. The responsibility for the civilian casualties in the retal falls on Hamas.

Again, is that the case here?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The laws of armed conflict allow for a hospital to be targeted, even if marked, if it is being used by the enemy as a fighting position from which to engage you, any hospital which is not clearly marked, forgoes any and all protections under the laws of armed conflict as being a hospital, an unmarked hospital is no hospital at all, for the purposes of the laws of armed conflict.

Then did they, in fact, know it was a hospital before they struck?

Notice that I said "if they knew", then they should be war criminals. The doctors have no choice. They are sworn to help.

Only if the unit which was engaging the target knew, in real time, to wit, the AC-130 gunship commander and crew, before and as they opened fire, somebody somewhere having the information, not having been passed down to the AC-130 crew engaging the target in the fog of war, would not make the engagement unlawful.

This is why the onus is on the hospital to ensure that it is marked, information does flow freely in the fog of war, failure to mark the hospital and then have it be used as a fighting position by armed elements is actually what is unlawful.

If the hospital staff knew that they were subject to being occupied by armed elements and in that context also failed to mark the hospital? Then it is in fact they, not the US military, who are in breach of the laws of armed conflict, because they essentially made themselves proxies of the enemy, by making themselves into de facto human shields for an unlawful combatant enemy, covertly, by not marking the hospital, which is the actual war crime in play here.

The laws of armed conflict would essentially rule against the doctors, for having, in effect, laid a trap for the US military on behalf of the Taliban and Co.

Then surely we would not find dead doctors in that hospital, correct?

[TheReal_ND]

Iirc they were combatants that retreated into the unmarked hospital. Could be wrong. But it wasn't marked and they were combatants.