ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Foxfyre wrote:

What they think and what the attitude of you and others like you are toward their right to self defense are two different things.

I'm thinking about the right of self defense strictly within the lines of the law.

Which can't be wrong, I assume.

In no place during this discussion on this thread have I addressed ordinary crime and punishment or the laws regulating that. I have been discussing Islamofacist terrorists determined to obliterate Israel and anybody who gets in their way. I see a distinct difference between the two.

I strongly approve of the police following the law and I strongly approve of the military following the law in the routine course of their business. But stopping murderers from killing innocent people trumps the strict letter of the law when such killing is imminent. If the police are chasing a serial killer and believes him to be in a particular place, what is better? Kicking in a door and catching or killing him? Or waiting to get permission from the property owner and a warrant and missing the chance to stop more murders of innocents?

And if the IDF chases terrorists into a residential neighborhood, it may be necessary to cause damage to that neighborhood to prevent another firebombing of a market or crowded bus.

That also trumps anybody's notions of the proper way to conduct war.

Of course Israelis have their bad guys, but the Israelis overall are not the bad guys in this conflict.

And of course the Palestinians have their bad guys, but overall, the Palestinians are not the bad guys either. The vast majority probably wants to live a peaceful life, and not blow themselves up in an Israeli marketplace.

Foxfyre wrote:

In no place during this discussion on this thread have I addressed ordinary crime and punishment or the laws regulating that. I have been discussing Islamofacist terrorists determined to obliterate Israel and anybody who gets in their way. I see a distinct difference between the two.

I strongly approve of the police following the law and I strongly approve of the military following the law in the routine course of their business. But stopping murderers from killing innocent people trumps the strict letter of the law when such killing is imminent. If the police are chasing a serial killer and believes him to be in a particular place, what is better? Kicking in a door and catching or killing him? Or waiting to get permission from the property owner and a warrant and missing the chance to stop more murders of innocents?

And there we go. I don't think your laws would prevent the police from knocking down a door to catch or kill him. It would, however, prevent the police from blowing up the whole apartment building, with everyone else inside, in order to stop him.

And in the case of Israel, I'm critizising the disproportion of the means and methods that are being used.

Foxfyre wrote:

And if the IDF chases terrorists into a residential neighborhood, it may be necessary to cause damage to that neighborhood to prevent another firebombing of a market or crowded bus.

Depends on what "damage" they are causing. Does it mean bulldozing the whole street, because a potential terrorist is hiding in the neighborhood? Does it mean killing a dozen innocent people when blowing up a building where a potential terrorist is hiding? Or does it merely mean knocking down the door of an apartment where a potential terrorist is hiding?

I mean, can you see the difference between that?

Foxfyre wrote:

That also trumps anybody's notions of the proper way to conduct war.

No, it doesn't. Being killed in a terrorist attack is not worse than being killed in a war. And the Geneva Conventions are not merely somebody's "notions of the proper way to conduct war", but a binding agreement that Israel has signed.

Saying "they're terrorists, so we don't have to follow the GC either" is the same as the police saying "they're criminals, so we don't have to follow the law either".

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course Israelis have their bad guys, but the Israelis overall are not the bad guys in this conflict.

And of course the Palestinians have their bad guys, but overall, the Palestinians are not the bad guys either. The vast majority probably wants to live a peaceful life, and not blow themselves up in an Israeli marketplace.

I do not condone retaliation against innocents for the crimes of the Islamofacist terrorists.

I do condone whatever is necessary to stop the Islamofacist terrorists from the wholesale murder of innocents.

If that requires bulldozing a neighborhood, I cannot fault the Israelis from doing that. If it does not require bulldozing a neighborhood, then I agree, Israel should not do that.

Are you in a position to say what is and is not necessary?

Again, if the free world directed as much criticism toward those committing the murders as they direct at Israel who is defending itself against those murderers, this whole conflict would be over much sooner than it will be otherwise.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not condone retaliation against innocents for the crimes of the Islamofacist terrorists.

Okay. Then this appears to be one point where we agree.

That's a start.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do condone whatever is necessary to stop the Islamofacist terrorists from the wholesale murder of innocents.

So do I, as long as it is within the law.

No. The purpose of the law is to maintain justice, order, and decency. But must the law be followed when the imminent result is that the opposite will be accomplished? Here is where you and I profoundly disagree. For me, there is a higher law that the bad guy should not be allowed to kill the innocent just because the law doesn't provide a way to stop him.

Foxfyre wrote:

If that requires bulldozing a neighborhood, I cannot fault the Israelis from doing that. If it does not require bulldozing a neighborhood, then I agree, Israel should not do that.

Are you in a position to say what is and is not necessary?

No, I'm not. Neither are you. So the only criterion can be what is legal and what is not.

No, there is an additional criterion which is to stop the bad guys from murdering the innocents.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, if the free world directed as much criticism toward those committing the murders as they direct at Israel who is defending itself against those murderers, this whole conflict would be over much sooner than it will be otherwise.

And if the media would mention often enough how evil criminals really are instead of reporting every case where a police officers has beaten up a suspect, the crime rate would drop to zero within a year.

The purpose of the law is to maintain justice, order, and decency. But must the law be followed when the imminent result is that the opposite will be accomplished? Here is where you and I profoundly disagree. For me, there is a higher law that the bad guy should not be allowed to kill the innocent just because the law doesn't provide a way to stop him.

Foxfyre wrote:

The purpose of the law is to maintain justice, order, and decency. But must the law be followed when the imminent result is that the opposite will be accomplished? Here is where you and I profoundly disagree. For me, there is a higher law that the bad guy should not be allowed to kill the innocent just because the law doesn't provide a way to stop him.

Really?

In our system of law, the rule of law requires that people should be governed by accepted rules, rather than by the arbitrary decisions of rulers. These rules should be general and abstract, known and certain, and apply equally to all individuals.

I admit that such might be different in the USA, since I'm not at all well up re this.

I admit as well that these different law systems probably might lead to different views of "international law".

As said, I feel obliged to the oath I've taken.

Our laws have enough tolerance to stop a murderer legally, btw.

mysteryman, let me cut an obvious corner in this conversation.

Both Foxy and you seem to take issue with the Geneva Convention. You contention seems to be that following them would incapacitate Israel in its efforts to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

What part of the Geneva Conventions are you two taking issue with? Which part do you see as a particular impediment to Israel's efforts of self-defense?

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Walter,if you see someone being murdered,would you try and stop the crime?
Would you personally take action,including deadly force,to stop the attack?

If the law says you are not allowed to use deadlt force to prevent a murder,would you just stand there and watch someone get killed,or would you attempt to do something,even if it included the possibility of using or having to use deadly force?

Section 32 Necessary Defense
(1) Whoever commits an act, required as necessary defense, does not act unlawfully.

(2) Necessary defense is the defense which is required to avert an imminent unlawful assault from oneself or another.

Section 33 Excessive Necessary Defense
If the perpetrator exceeds the limits of necessary defense due to confusion, fear or fright, then he shall not be punished.

Section 34 Necessity as Justification
Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb, freedom, honor, property or another legal interest which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an act to avert the danger from himself or another, does not act unlawfully, if, upon weighing the conflicting interests, in particular the affected legal interests and the degree of danger threatening them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with. This shall apply, however, only to the extent that the act is a proportionate means to avert the danger.

Section 35 Necessity as Excuse
(1) Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb or freedom which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an unlawful act to avert the danger from himself, a relative or person close to him, acts without guilt. This shall not apply to the extent that the perpetrator could be expected under the circumstances to assume the risk, in particular, because he himself caused the danger or stood in a special legal relationship; however the punishment may be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection

(1), if the perpetrator was not required to assume the risk with respect to a special legal relationship.

(2) If upon commission of the act the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that circumstances exist, which would excuse him under subsection (1), he will only be punished, if he could have avoided the mistake. The punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection (1).

I have no complaint with the GC,but I do have a problem with one side not having to abide by it and then crying foul when the other side doesnt.
Israel should be allowed to react the same way the terrorists attack.

mysteryman wrote:

I have no complaint with the GC,but I do have a problem with one side not having to abide by it and then crying foul when the other side doesnt.
Israel should be allowed to react the same way the terrorists attack.

That's a bit going in circles, but I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Foxy:

Do you think that the police should be exempt from having to follow the law, since they are fighting criminals who don't abide by the law? Or do you think the police should be able to use the same methods the criminals make use of, in order to fight crime more effectively?

If an officer witnesses a crime in progress,then that officer should be allowed to do whatever is neccessary,including using deadly force,to stop the crime.
If an officer does NOT witness the crime,then that officer should be required to follow the law and proper procedure toinvestigate the crime.

I have NEVER heard any conservative of any party and certainly no Republican speak against the Geneva Convention or indicate in any way that s/he was not in favor of all provisions of the Geneva Convention.

I have not, MM has not, nor has any other Conservative suggested that police officers or the military or any member of Congress, the judiciary, or the Executive branch were above the law in any way.

My quarrel here is with those who confuse action against those who intend imminent murder of innocents with ordinary law enforcement whether by local police or the military. There is a difference. I don't know if some are unable to comprehend that or simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have NEVER heard any conservative of any party and certainly no Republican speak against the Geneva Convention or indicate in any way that s/he was not in favor of all provisions of the Geneva Convention.

I have not, MM has not, nor has any other Conservative suggested that police officers or the military or any member of Congress, the judiciary, or the Executive branch were above the law in any way.

My quarrel here is with those who confuse action against those who intend imminent murder of innocents with ordinary law enforcement whether by local police or the military. There is a difference. I don't know if some are unable to comprehend that or simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Foxy: were the crimes committed by Timothy McVeigh or the Washington Sniper different from most other criminal cases? Was the prosecution of the McVeigh or John Allen Williams any different from the prosecution of other criminals? Where the authorities prosecuting these criminals allowed to act outside the law?