DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ChicasCams** · 09-05-2011, 02:12 PM

This makes no difference. Unless you want to suggest that as soon as a war or an arrest warrant lasts 10 years, it gives you the right to shoot the enemy unlike before.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. His options would be to surrender or remain a target. :: shrug ::

Are you referring to the "war on Terror(ism)"? No.

There have been many criminals and terrorists who called their actions part of a "war". They were still criminals and treated as such. Indeed. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts; hence, the term "war crimes." Ordinarily, combatants in war have what's called combat immunity, which means that their combat actions normally incident to war (like killing, bombing, etc.) are not punishable as crimes. One can lose this protection by exceeding the scope of normal combat and committing war crimes. It would be absurd to suggest that by taking combat to the level where one commits war crimes (e.g. genocide, rape, etc.) he has achieved protected status such that he must be arrested rather than shot. It would have the effect of incentivizing crimes against humanity. This is nowhere near the prevalent view, but you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Splendid material for certain conviction of being guilty of crimes against humanity. I hardly think popping off in an interview about one's murderous intentions, alone, would lead to certain conviction for crimes against humanity. It's a niece piece of evidence though, to be sure. And, by the way, Mr. bin Laden has been under indictment in New York since 1998 (fat lot of good it did).

09-05-2011, 02:12 PM	#39
ChicasCams Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 478 Senior Member	This makes no difference. Unless you want to suggest that as soon as a war or an arrest warrant lasts 10 years, it gives you the right to shoot the enemy unlike before. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. His options would be to surrender or remain a target. :: shrug :: Are you referring to the "war on Terror(ism)"? No. There have been many criminals and terrorists who called their actions part of a "war". They were still criminals and treated as such. Indeed. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts; hence, the term "war crimes." Ordinarily, combatants in war have what's called combat immunity, which means that their combat actions normally incident to war (like killing, bombing, etc.) are not punishable as crimes. One can lose this protection by exceeding the scope of normal combat and committing war crimes. It would be absurd to suggest that by taking combat to the level where one commits war crimes (e.g. genocide, rape, etc.) he has achieved protected status such that he must be arrested rather than shot. It would have the effect of incentivizing crimes against humanity. This is nowhere near the prevalent view, but you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Splendid material for certain conviction of being guilty of crimes against humanity. I hardly think popping off in an interview about one's murderous intentions, alone, would lead to certain conviction for crimes against humanity. It's a niece piece of evidence though, to be sure. And, by the way, Mr. bin Laden has been under indictment in New York since 1998 (fat lot of good it did).
	Quote