Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at various highly regarded universities in the United States.
Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at various highly regarded universities in the United States.
The right wing blogosphere is not a credible source of "news".
a) an intention on some level of command to carpetbomb, or
b) an error of judgement by the pilots dropping the bombs
If Obama is not involved in any of these, he's not legally responsible. The persons that ARE involved, are.
I'm not a lawyer, but I guess that's how it works in international law and the Geneva Convention.
And no, I did not say the things you claim I did. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent me? Such shenanigans are very unbecoming.
did you or did you not say this:
Quote:
But from a legal standpoint: If Obama didn't plan, command or imply that civilians should be carpet-bombed, there's no legal responsibility on him.
so YOU STATED for a LEGAL STANDPOINT that by YOUR OPINION that even though there were civilian casulties, it doesnt matter because it wasnt planned or commanded
when we 'speak' on these forums were are either stating FACT or opinion, but it is still a statement
AND the fact is that the bombing would not happen without AN ORDER from the CiC
Who's Canada impeaching? Their Queen? Who lives in London. Maybe the Governor-General, she's black and wasn't born in Canada-I smell a birther conspiracy.
Wow, and we thought things were bad down here? Imagine if there were conservatives up in Canada. Their confederation would have falled apart a long time ago. the Tea Baggers should go protest up in Toronto-make an example of those free loading, Canadian bums.
Evidently, they take a different view of 'impeachable' up there in Canada. If anything like that was actually legitimate, don't you think impeachment hearings would have started quite a while ago?
On the other hand, ranting and raving is fun...and doesn't require anything resembling thought, common sense, or even legalities!
a) an intention on some level of command to carpetbomb, or
b) an error of judgement by the pilots dropping the bombs
If Obama is not involved in any of these, he's not legally responsible. The persons that ARE involved, are.
I'm not a lawyer, but I guess that's how it works in international law and the Geneva Convention.
And no, I did not say the things you claim I did. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent me? Such shenanigans are very unbecoming.
Sure.
I guess you need to take a look at the Nuremberg trials again. Nazi leaders, who simply were carrying out military orders, and were not involved in genocide, were convicted of crimes against humanity. This was simply from the prosecution of a war. Keitel paid for this with his life. Hess, despite "surrendering" to the Brits in 1941, was imprisoned at Spandau for his lifetime.
Stopped reading at the birth certificate, not that anything before it had any real merit.
Because at there, I knew the rest of the list would stink just as bad.
You knew the list would stink because one suggestion didn't agree with your thinking. Hell, it might have been getting better and better and you will never know because of your bias about a birth place.
did you or did you not say this:
so YOU STATED for a LEGAL STANDPOINT that by YOUR OPINION that even though there were civilian casulties, it doesnt matter because it wasnt planned or commanded
I said Obama wasn't legally responsible if he wasn't involved. I never once belittled civilian casualties, as you seem to imply
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
]when we 'speak' on these forums were are either stating FACT or opinion, but it is still a statement
AND the fact is that the bombing would not happen without AN ORDER from the CiC
The CiC doesn't personally sign off on every bombing raid. If the fault lies within the overall strategy devised by the generals and approved by the Cic, then yes, there might be a legal responsibility. But if the overall strategy is sound, and the fault is on lower levels because of human error or changing circumstances, then the blame rests there, and not on the CiC.
I thought I made that principle clear in my previous post, obviously I was mistaken. Again, why do you feel the need to misrepresent my opinion?
I guess you need to take a look at the Nuremberg trials again. Nazi leaders, who simply were carrying out military orders, and were not involved in genocide, were convicted of crimes against humanity. This was simply from the prosecution of a war. Keitel paid for this with his life. Hess, despite "surrendering" to the Brits in 1941, was imprisoned at Spandau for his lifetime.
I thought you could appreciate the differences. Keitel for example knew that the orders he received were wrong and immoral. He followed through anyway, citing the "Führerprinzip". The IMT rejected that defense, and consequently, he was convicted.
Point being here: Keitel followed (immoral and brutal) orders, that came down a clearly reconstructable command structure. The exact orders came as is from above. The orders per se were a war crime, hence the obedience to said orders (in spite of existing personal rationale against it) were treated as a war crime. (important part boldened).
If Obama has issued direct orders or enacted specific planning as to the civilian targeting in carpet bombing, this would and should be treated as a war crime.
If, however, no such direct or implied orders from Obama exist, he is not legally responsible if civilian casualties occur. In the absence of orders from Obama, the fault and legal responsibility lies in either lower command structures (who might have ordered these raids independently), or in the pilots of the aircrafts that conducted the bombing raids (error of judgement).
Nazis: direct orders (judged to be war crimes) from the top on down - guilty
Obama: a) direct orders (judged to be war crimes) from the top on down - guilty
or
b) no such orders/strategy - innocent
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
