Posted on 09/13/2001 6:02:09 AM PDT by parsifal
Anti-Semitism in the Form of "Rules of WAR for Israel"
by STEVEN E. PLAUT
MARCH 15, 1998
ONE OF THE most absurd aspects of the anti-Israel campaign is the attempt to delegitimize Israel and justify Arab atrocities on grounds of arguing that Israel must be prohibited from defending itself unless it does so through the most highly-restrictive rules of behavior. If Israel violates any of these special Israel-specific rules of waging defense, the violation would make Israel into the aggressor and criminal, not the Arab perpetrators of atrocities and aggression.
These rules come in various forms, down to and including "Mirandizing" terrorists. When Arab armies attack Israel, so runs the first rule, Israel should be restricted to killing a number of Arabs that is LESS than the number of Jews killed by those Arabs. For if Israel were to kill a number of Arabs in defending herself that exceeds the number of Jews killed in the Arab assaults, then this would prove that Israel was the aggressor. Such an argument has been heard regarding every Arab military assault against Israel, and also in Israel's camapign against terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere. Should the number of Hizbullah terrorists who get killed by the IDF exceed the number of dead Israelis on Israel's borders, this proves that Israel is the aggressor and the real cause of the conflict. Of course, by this same logic the US and Britain were the aggressors against Japan and Germany in World War II, since they killed far more Germans and Japanese than the numbers of Brits and Yanks killed by them.
Then we have the special rules regarding dealing with rioters. There is not a country on earth where rioters can throw rocks at police and military with impugnity except Israel, certainly not in Los Angeles -- as the riots there proved. Yet the anti-Israel campaign demands that Israel turn a Christian cheek when Jews are assaulted by mobs throwing rocks and petrol bombs.
When Palestinian terrorists hijacked a bus full of women, some pregnant, near Ashkelon a few years back, and when one woman was killed in the firefight that forced the release of the bus, some security officiers summarily executed the terrorists, who had infiltrated from across the Green Line. This became the cause celebre of the Israeli lemming Left, which argues that terrorists who are not Israeli citizens have automatic rights to a trial and due process, with a public defender and appeals to the Supreme Court. No doubt Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon do also. The officers responsible got court martialed instead of receiving medals.
Then we have the rules for interrogating terrorists. Remember we are talking about people who blow up buses of women and children, and make a special effort to target Jewish children. But if Israeli police interrogate them using tactics that any New York cop would regard as sissy pampering, suddenly Israeli "torture" is a headline. As if police in any other nation facing similar terrorist filth would hesitate to do what is right and needed. (Israel is the only state in the Middle east that does not summarily execute Islamic terrorists. Which may be why it suffers from so much terror.)
Then we have the rule that says that if any Arab civilians get killed by Israel while defending herself, this makes Israel the aggressor and criminal. Israel can only fight wars when no civilians get killed. But since there has never been a war in which civilians did not get killed, such a restriction is equivalent to a requirement that Israel not defend herself militarily. Which, now that you mention it, is what the Anti-Zionists want, since surrender to Arab demands is the only form of Israeli defense they will accept. SO the Arabs remain fascist and racist aggressors when Israel is attacked, but only as long as not a single Arab civilian gets killed by Israel while defending herself.
And now we suddenly have the Anti-Zionist maggots rolling their eyes over a Court decision that allows Israel to grab hostages in Lebanon as bargaining cards. Oh the inhumanity they scream. Never mind that Lebanon is crawling with terrorists, and some Israeli hostages are held by the other side.
Now imagine if the US were to fight World War II using the rules of war that the Anti-Semites insist that Israel (and only Israel) follow. Why, the US troops would parachute into Normandy on D-Day, locate some SS troops, read them their rights, invite them to appeal to the US Supreme Court, invite in the pro-German observers to make sure the SS men were getting high-protein meals with sufficient fiber and vitamins, and that the movies in any prison camps for Nazis be all high quality, that agents for Hitler and Himmler be permitted to run for the US Senate and appear nightly on NBC news, that special care be taken that the number of dead Nazis never exceed the number of Americans killed in Normandy, that only rubber bullets be used against Nazis, and then only when 3 days notice is given so that no civilians remain in the area.
In fact, these special rules for Israel are not the expression of high-minded ethical superior beings holding Israel to a higher standard, as the Anti-Zionist maggots would have it, but rather the attempts of Anti-Semites to delegitimate Israel and rationalize Arab atrocities.
STEVEN E. PLAUT teaches at the University of Haifa is a member of the Editorial Board of B'tzedek.
also BREAKING:Local stations in Little Rock report 1 arrest in Ft. Smith Arkansas in connection with hijacking.
Op-Ed
Execute Terrorists at Our Own Risk
by Jessica Stern
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
New York Times
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — As a nation, we have decided that terrorism that results in loss of life should face the possibility of the death penalty. But is this wise?
The rest of the article follows but it is NY Times crap so I can not post full article. It can be found at:
http:/www.cfr.org/public/pubs/stern_terrorists_op-ed.html
The search "execute terrorists at our own risk" reveals several more websites
In this same vein, I was trying to find out whether we are better off to handle the terrorists thru civilian or military legal systems. I did not have much lick. Geneva Convention seems to require trial either way. Does anybody else have good info or links on this?
I believe that non-citizen terrorists captured in this country should be tried by military tribunals.
A) This would avoid much of the nonsense that infects our criminal justice system. I believe that the military is perfectly capable of conducting a fair trial without bending over backwards to free prisoners.
B) It would underscore our insistence that this is an act of war. Terrorists should be treated as combatants, not as criminals. Since they wear no uniforms, they are not entitled to POW treatment and may be tried and executed as war criminals.
Terrorists overseas should not be captured at all, unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
I am not sure if "technically", killing civilians is a crime against humanity. That is what I was trying to find on Net. What rule permits execution of spies, for example? O think four crimes against humanity were listed, like deportation, and some others. I did not find a "terrorism" statute. There must be one. Where is it?
I tend to agree. I was trying to find what law says you can take the SOB's, line them up against a wall and shoot them.
I don't think there is such a law.
You can check out the Army field manual on The Law of Land Warfare
I don't believe that osama bin laden and his partners in crime are signators to the Geneva Convention. In our case, self-defense against outlaws does not require trials.
That's why I said we should try to avoid capturing terrorists abroad. If you kill enemy combatants, you don't need to try them.
504. Other Types of War Crimes
In addition to the "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (" war crimes"):
a. Making use of poisoned or otherwise forbidden arms or ammunition.
b. Treacherous request for quarter.
c. Maltreatment of dead bodies.
d. Firing on localities which are undefended and without military significance.
e. Abuse of or firing on the flag of truce.
f. Misuse of the Red Cross emblem.
g. Use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle.
h. Improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes.
i. Poisoning of wells or streams.
j. Pillage or purposeless destruction.
k. Compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor.
l. Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts.
m. Compelling civilians to perform prohibited labor.
n. Violation of surrender terms.
Section III. PUNISHMENT OF WAR CRIMES
505. Trials
a. Nature of Proceeding. Any person charged with a war crime has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
b. Rights of Accused. Persons accused of "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are to be tried under conditions no less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those following (par. 181 and following) of GPW (GWS, art. 49; GWS Sea, art. 50; GPW, art. 129; GC, art. 146, 4th par. only; par. 506 herein.)
c. Rights of Prisoners of War. Pursuant to Article 85, GPW (par. 161), prisoners of war accused of war crimes benefit from the provisions of GPW, especially Articles 82-108 (pars. 158-184).
d. How Jurisdiction Exercised. War crimes are within the jurisdiction of general courts-martial (UCMJ, Art. 18), military commissions, provost courts, military government courts, and other military tribunals (UCMJ, Art. 21) of the United States, as well as of international tribunals.
e. Law Applied. As the international law of war is part of the law of the land in the United States, enemy personnel charged with war crimes are tried directly under international law without recourse to the statutes of the United States. However, directives declaratory of international law may be promulgated to assist such tribunals in the performance of their function. (See pars. 506 and 507.)
506. Suppression of War Crimes
a. Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 contain the following common undertakings:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. (GWS, art. 49; GWS Sea, art. 50; GPW, art. 129; GC, art. 146.)
b. Declaratory Character of Above Priciples. The principles quoted in a, above, are declaratory of the obligations of belligerents under customary international law to take measures for the punishment of war crimes committed by all persons, including members of a belligerent's own armed forces.
c. Grave Breaches. "Grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other war crimes which are committed by enemy personnel or persons associated with the enemy are tried and punished by United States tribunals as violations of international law.
If committed by persons subject to United States military law, these "grave breaches" constitute acts punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Moreover, most of the acts designated as "grave breaches" are, if committed within the United States, violations of domestic law over which the civil courts can exercise jurisdiction.
507. Universality of Jurisdiction
a. Victims of War Crimes. The jurisdiction of United States military tribunals in connection with war crimes is not limited to offenses committed against nationals of the United States but extends also to all offenses of this nature committed against nationals of allies and of cobelligerents and stateless persons.
b. Persons Charged With War Crimes. The United States normally punishes war crimes as such only if they are committed by enemy nationals or by persons serving the interests of the enemy State. Violations of the law of war committed by persons subject to the military law of the United States will usually constitute violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, if so, will be prosecuted under that Code. Violations of the law of war committed within the United States by other persons will usually constitute violations of federal or state criminal law and preferably will be prosecuted under such law (see pars. 505 and 506). Commanding officers of United States troops must insure that war crimes committed by members of their forces against enemy personnel are promptly and adequately punished.
508. Penal Sanctions
The punishment imposed for a violation of the law of war must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The death penalty may be imposed for grave breaches of the law. Corporal punishment is excluded. Punishments should be deterrent, and in imposing a sentence of imprisonment it is not necessary to take into consideration the end of the war, which does not of itself limit the imprisonment to be imposed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.