Whats he at?

Sparks

Yes, looters who have surrendered or been captured are protected by the Convention. Looters who are trying to avoid capture are not protected.
Is your name Bush?
1) The soldiers have not been proven to have been looters.
2) The evidence suggests that civilians were travelling in the convoy and that's where the civilian goods came from.
3) The soldiers and the civilians were all covered by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Not only that, but the UNSC resolution that authorised the use of force, 678, was no longer in effect when they were bombed.

Link please.
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
(Note to check the qualifications of the people involved in that...)

And your law degree is from which university? Just one high-profile case which proves the exact opposite of your assertion: Columbine Gun-seller: 6 Years (in the USA, but that's a common law jurisdiction too). If I supply a weapon used in a murder, I'm not guilty of the murder itself.
Hate to break it to you, but that's US law. Irish law works as I said it does - I should know, I've run a rifle club here for three years.

Is a national newspaper headline common enough for you?
No, as that's not a common legal way to refer to soliciters and barristers. It's a common laymans term.

Meh

Originally posted by Johnmb
A headline means nothing. It is meant to get your attention, nothing more. Guess what, they even (gasp, horror) make up words to put in headlines. read the article, it tells you what the people in question actually are (i.e. a barrister). The term "Lawyer" is not recognised in this country other than as a slang word gotten from too much american tv.

So do you actually have a point to make on Iraq, or are you just here to nitpick my choice of words?

Is your name Bush?

I hope my grammar isn't thatbad...

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."

It only protects 1) soldiers who have laid down their arms and 2) persons taking no active part in the battle. Soldiers fleeing the battlefield with looted goods are not protected. In fact, under the Geneva Convention, the onus would have been on the US to stop the looters.

In any case, that link has no evidence of your allegation that the fleeing Iraqi soldiers weren't looters. Which is why I originally asked for a link.

Hate to break it to you, but that's US law.

Which is based on the same common law principles as Irish law.

Irish law works as I said it does - I should know, I've run a rifle club here for three years.

So do you have any evidence to actually back up your opinion? "Because I say so" isn't considered a very good argument, you know.

Johnmb

So do you actually have a point to make on Iraq, or are you just here to nitpick my choice of words?

You're the one trying to argue about the legalities of a situation, yet you don't even know/understand the correct terminology. Th point on Iraq has already been made, the US administration are just as guilty as Saddam for the use of chemical weapons back in the 80's.

In any case, that link has no evidence of your allegation that the fleeing Iraqi soldiers weren't looters. Which is why I originally asked for a link.

I know this part of the discussion isn't with me, but did you actually read the reference that Sparks linked to? It's spelled out quite clearly:

"There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force."

That's just in the introduction, you should read the whole piece.

Sparks

It only protects 1) soldiers who have laid down their arms and 2) persons taking no active part in the battle.
Wrong...
Go read the actual convention, not a bastardised cliff notes version.
"should protect civilian property" does not override "each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely"

So do you have any evidence to actually back up your opinion? "Because I say so" isn't considered a very good argument, you know.
But it's okay for you? :rolleyes:
Fine. How about the fact that all pistols and rifles over .270 calibre here are illegal and have been since 1972 without special permission.
But a few years ago, someone sold a .22 pistol illegally. It was subsequently used in a murder.
That's how I know what the charge is - because I've seen it happen.

Meh

Originally posted by Johnmb
I know this part of the discussion isn't with me, but did you actually read the reference that Sparks linked to? It's spelled out quite clearly:

"There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces.

That's not evidence, that's an unsupported assertion.

Fine. How about the fact that all pistols and rifles over .270 calibre here are illegal and have been since 1972 without special permission.
But a few years ago, someone sold a .22 pistol illegally. It was subsequently used in a murder.
That's how I know what the charge is - because I've seen it happen.

So do you have a link to a newspaper report of the case?

Sparks

So do you have a link to a newspaper report of the case?
'Fraid not. Do you want the links to Irish law regarding firearms instead?

That's not evidence, that's an unsupported assertion.
From the document I linked to:
"There are also indications that some of those bombed during the withdrawl were Palestinians and Iraqi civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions. U.S. press accounts tried to make the discovery of burned and bombed household goods appear as if Iraqi troops were even at this late moment looting Kuwait. Attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions."

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sam

you could always change your settings instead

Sparks

Okay dave, I'll go back to [ quote ] tags, but be warned that that'll expand the posts a lot

daveirl

This post has been deleted.