It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Squidleepie
governments across the world (including the US) adopted a policy that allows military servicemen to reject orders they deem unethical or illegal.
That's very cool, in theory....
but, if they do, don't they get court-martialed and sent to the federal penn and/or exiled and tried for treason and have their passports revoked? (Like Snowden and Manning, you know?)
I was a young teen during the Vietnam war...I was terrified my younger brothers would be drafted. My classmates had older siblings who were coming back in wheelchairs and totally messed up in the head.
Fast forward twelve years: My husband is a National Guard (Army) MP (retired)....and he and I have talked often about conscientious objection....I have left corporate jobs because they insisted I do their bidding but I said "no, this is wrong." He has also made judgement calls as to whether a situation was worth pounding and prosecuting or not.
Why are Rumsfeld and Cheney (and GW) NOT on trial for crimes against humanity? And Obama and his drones also?
Please?
And Rumseld and Cheney have not been tried for crimes against humanity because the United State refuses to join that sector of the UN international court system. If we did join, a good number of Americans would likely get indicted.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Squidleepie
And Rumseld and Cheney have not been tried for crimes against humanity because the United State refuses to join that sector of the UN international court system. If we did join, a good number of Americans would likely get indicted.
A bit duplicitous, methinks? It really bothers me, the "Military/Industrial" thing going on here in the USA.
And people wonder why so many of our own citizens are homeless, hungry, helpless......or, well, maybe people know exactly why.....
but still endorse it.
Shameful. IMHO.
originally posted by: Squidleepie
a reply to: Enochstask
But this kind of activity is against Geneva Conventions. Based on your logic, the Geneva Conventions are wrong, not the activity of bombing a hospital. Thoughts?
originally posted by: yuppa
Hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel—whether civilian or military—are entitled to protection from hostile fire under the Geneva Conventions, PROVIDED THAT structures are marked with a red cross or red crescent and NOT USED IMPROPERLY OR NEAR MILITARY OBJECTIVES.
In other words the Doctors broke the COnventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.
In other words the Doctors broke the Conventions stipulation because they used it improperly by treating ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who were MILITARY TARGETS themselves.
originally posted by: Enochstask
This thread isn't about me it's about that criminal organization Doctors Without Borders. It might be a good time for you now to review the T&C's of the site.
originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
a reply to: Squidleepie
My internet is running slow today and clicking the link takes forever.
Could you tell me if the articled mentions why the US would knowingly bomb the hospital? What purpose it served?
I read the part of your post that states the absurdity of the US not knowing in was a hospital, I am just wondering how that would benefit the US.
If my internet picks up speed, I'll read the full story. I was just hoping you could shed some light.