Release the tape!!!

Personally I would advise against calling cartels "terrorist" organizations. Though I somewhat understand, as they use threats to cause whole governments to change their actions, not for ideology, but to make more money...
 
AProudLefty said:
Lol you got her there. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Ya but make no mistake as @TOP will not get that post by me.

She reads that reply and all she gets again is...

DuH9Rd-W4AE9IWj.jpg
 
Damocles said:
Personally I would advise against calling cartels "terrorist" organizations. Though I somewhat understand, as they use threats to cause whole governments to change their actions, not for ideology, but to make more money...
Click to expand...
They are criminal enterprises, not terrorists.

There really is no terror involved, those killed are choosing to participate.
 
QP! said:
What you are asking is the incorrect question or issue.

To avoid 'discretion' being used by each and every military leader of soldier, some of which might say or think a disabled opponent is 'trying to turn the capsized and burning boat over to put it out', or the 'parachuting pilot will land on the ground and start fighting on the ground', they made the RULES CRYSTAL CLEAR and NOT up to discretion and the example cited is SPECIFIC to boats and this situation that played out.

The below states clearly and undeniable that if the boat is disable, the people are NOT to be considered a threat and to be considered 'out of combat'.

So if you want to get around that you MUST explain by what authority any soldier can ignore it while substituting their own judgement.




----------


From the U.S. Military Code of Conduct
  • personnel who are disabled and no longer a threat
  • and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction



  • Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
  • They may not be intentionally attacked unless they take hostile action or present a threat
  • There is a duty to render assistance if feasible, consistent with mission requirements


These rules come primarily from:


  1. Law of Armed Conflict
    (also called the Law of War — the core legal standard the U.S. military must follow)
  2. DoD Directive 2311.01
    which makes compliance with the Law of War mandatory for the U.S. military.
  3. Geneva Conventions
    which the U.S. adheres to and trains under as part of LOAC.
  4. U.S. Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations
    which does explicitly address people in the water after a ship is destroyed.
Click to expand...
It was the second " TAP " that is against the Geneva Convention and that is where I think Trump and his people should be charged.
I am pretty sure if Argentina would have attacked an American boat and disabled it and didn't render Help to the survivors As it says they have to do in the Geneva Convention the MAGAS on here would be all up in arms saying they broke the Geneva Convention.
But they aren't saying a word about the Geneva Convention because their orange GOD is involved in this one.
 
Jarod said:
They are criminal enterprises, not terrorists.

There really is no terror involved, those killed are choosing to participate.
Click to expand...
The US code is rather vague. Coercion is used as an option other than political ideation. It seems a "letter" and literal interpretation of the law over the meaning that was meant when it was passed.

It engages in "terrorist activity" listed as: premeditated, politically motivated violence against non-combatants, per 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2), but interpreted expansively to include intimidation for coercive purposes.

The "political motivation" element is key here: traditional terrorism (e.g., ISIS) aims for ideological change, but U.S. law allows designations based on de facto coercive impact, such as destabilizing governments or economies through violence. Cartels' brutality, (e.g. assassinations, bombings, and control of territories) is framed as "terrorism" because it coerces compliance and sows fear, even if the end goal is profit. Additionally, Executive Order 13224 (as amended) enables Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) labels under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), focusing on threats to U.S. security without needing a strict political intent test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top