Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

The Federal Reserve would probably not be eager to default on foreign owed treasuries.  The effects on defaulting on Chinese bonds would be very large.  If a default happens, they would probably default the 2.5 trillion (with a t) in excess bank reserves.  That is assuming that the federal reserve doesn't step in and start monetizing assets and handing them to the treasury to circumvent the debt ceiling entirely.  That would not be a desirable outcome but having it there as a last resort would limit some of the destructive cycles.

Money is pretty weird.

[PTTG??]

One thing the treasury could do is mint a trillion-dollar coin. They decided not to do it last time, but it's still an option as far as I know.

I mean, if you stole it, how would you use it?

[evilcherry]

One thing the treasury could do is mint a trillion-dollar coin. They decided not to do it last time, but it's still an option as far as I know.

I mean, if you stole it, how would you use it?

Most importantly the coin can be so small that it can only be seen under a microscope (or scanning electron microscope).

Of course, it crosses a certain rubicon, but I would rather want this be crossed if US is stuck with its undemocratic legislature.

[Strife26]

That is incorrect. Pretty much all modern war crime standards require a reasonable amount of intent. Rules of engagement are not a standardized, international thing.

Rules of engagement are not a standardized, international thing, but what's that got to do with anything? Rules of engagement that are drafted to include war crimes as SOP or to explicitly permit war crimes are still war crimes if carried out by soldiers, and war crimes on which RoE are silent are still war crimes. They're totally independent legal structures. Whether nor not the soldiers were in violation of their RoE, the United States as a government still was in violation of international law.

The relevant treaties (see the Geneva Conventions, for example) make no mention of intent. They do say things like, "Civilian  hospitals  organized  to  give  care  to  the  wounded  and  sick,  the  infirm  and maternity  cases,  may  in  no  circumstances  be  the  object  of  attack,  but  shall  at  all  times be  respected  and  protected  by  the  Parties to  the  conflict..."

War is messy business. Mistakes happen, and it's inevitable - and people will die as a consequence. I don't think that absolutely rules out the practice of warfare; there are situations in which it's still the best possible course out of many terrible ones. For me, at least, this isn't about decrying the evils of war or of the United States military in particular. They're doing the best they can, and the fact is that sometimes that's not good enough. Which is still no reason to give up.

This clearly was a mistake, and when mistakes are made they should be paid for. That's all. The correct posture in response to this isn't ass-covering.

I guess we're adding War Crime to the list of words that don't have a real definition. Because a War Crime is an actual thing and not the same thing as collateral damage or a mistake. If you're going to talk out of your ass, then learn some definitions.

[Reelya]

Well the relevant convention would be the one about bombardment:

Protocol 1, Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits the bombardment of cities where civilian population might be concentrated regardless of any method

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065

But I'm guessing this routinely gets ignored.

The Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi confirmed an airstrike, saying that "10–15 terrorists were hiding in the hospital" and confirming that hospital workers had been killed. The Afghan Ministry of Defense and a representative of the police chief in Kunduz also said that Taliban fighters were hiding in the hospital compound at the time of the attack, the latter claiming that they were using it as a human shield.

Well, maybe. But it's still 100% illegal according to the Geneva Conventions to blow up a hospital and everyone in it to "get" some terrorists. They've basically said they knew it was a hospital and all that, and that they already knew civilians were in there, and the place was targeted on purpose, not by accident. Using human shields is illegal too, but that doesn't make it legal to ignore the human shields and just blast away. That basically makes you just as bad as the person using the human shields.

Geneva convention Articles 51/4(c) and 51/5(b)

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

For the human shield clause (51/7) it reads:

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

^ This says you can't place civilians in a place to render the place immune from attack. It does not prohibit e.g. hiding yourself in a hospital, as such, taliban merely hiding in a hospital is not a geneva convention war crime, but bombing the entire hospital to kill the taliban is a clear war crime. The statements from the Afghan representatives might well be bullshit. Maybe they think saying they bombed the hospital to kill some hidden rebels will make it ok. Let's hope they're lying, because the admission as it stands is like holding up your hand and claming to have breached the Geneva Convention on war crimes.

[Strife26]

If someone is actively fighting from the hospital, it probably loses its protected status, but that's a nitty-gritty international law issue where the conclusion depends entirely on who might be sitting on the ICC at the time, unless a Security Council cares enough to force the issue there and veto it.



A war crime requires intent or willfully ignoring facts (several Imperial Japanese officers attempted to claim that war crimes were conducted without their knowledge). Calling a shitty air strike does not qualify unless it could be shown that someone along the way knew for certain it was a protected location and was not being used for attacks.

To expand a metaphor.

This clearly was a mistake, and when mistakes are made they should be paid for. That's all. The correct posture in response to this isn't ass-covering.

This is what's frustrating to me.  That the argument that it was a mistake is expected to mean anything.  If I make a mistake that costs my operation at work an extra $50 because I'm overworked and make a typo, I get fucking reamed for it, and many working class people live with daily anxiety over the idea of potentially getting fired over inevitable human errors of minor consequence, with all the serious shit that follows being unemployed.  But when someone in a position of serious responsibility fucks up in a way that ruins innocent lives, mistakes seem to be much more easily forgiven and every benefit of doubt granted in determining whether it was a mistake.  I can't blame a transposed digit on burnout, pressure, and time restraints and expect sympathy from anyone, but others can empty a clip into someone because they're on edge and that's nothing more than an unfortunate but understandable tragedy...

In a military sense, that is exactly the way things work.
If I manage to break of a bolt when I'm working, the company can fire me, or possibly try to make me pay for it on the basis of an employment contract. If they take me to court over it, my burden of proof to tell them to fuck off is essentially that breaking bolts or making typos is within the reasonable scope of my duties. This applies further, as a defense against outside liability, if that broken bolt was to go flying and hit someone in the eye.

In the military sense, various officers and nco's up and down the chain will have their careers destroyed over this, if anyone could actually find fault (and they probably won't, because it's a pretty clear fog of war affair), they could face court martial with punishments that basically go up as far as you want, depending on charges. In the international sense, it's nothing the ICC could charge without them setting new standards for ICCness, which would be pretty damn impressive. This would, of course, result in the affected countries ignoring the fuck out of them, because offering up scapegoats is not something real countries do to the court of public opinion.


Edit for additional reading point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
Should give you a good idea at how fuzzy the Medina Standard is in general.

[Flying Dice]

If someone is actively fighting from the hospital, it probably loses its protected status, but that's a nitty-gritty international law issue where the conclusion depends entirely on who might be sitting on the ICC at the time, unless a Security Council cares enough to force the issue there and veto it.

Funny, looks like MSF are saying that there weren't Taliban fighters fighting from within the hospital.

Oh hey, Gen Campbell is now saying that the Afghan security forces that requested the airstrike weren't in direct contact with the aircraft that executed it, and that it was in fact a U.S. unit that directed it, so y'all don't get to blame them either.

Boy oh boy, look at those conflicting stories! MSF still saying there weren't Taliban fighting from the hospital, the Afghan forces say that they were hiding inside the hospital compound, and the U.S. has been claiming everything from collateral damage to an attack on active combatants firing on U.S. forces while somehow miraculously not alerting any patients or staff or giving Afghan forces cause to report them as something other than "hiding".

But go ahead, let's keep rationalizing calling in multiple airstrikes on a hospital to maybe kill a handful of Taliban who might have been hiding inside as necessary action that totally isn't a war crime, because it's not a war crime if we're the ones slaughtering civilians and aid workers.

[Bauglir]

EDIT: Actually, no. Sorry. I apologize for getting into the argument in the first place. I may have confused the term "war crime" with "violation of the law of war" or something. I'm too tired for this shit, and I don't care enough to get back into it when I wake up, so I'm just gonna throw in the towel. Good game.

[smjjames]

Where's the independent investigation? It's becoming a massive 'he said/she said' type situation between the U.S. and the Afghan army with BOTH parties constantly changing stories.

Also, did MSF say anything about whether they knew that Afghan soldiers were trying to hide in the compound? Not that it makes them complicit (I honestly don't know about legally though), but they seem to be the most reliable one out of the three parties involved. Or rather they aren't constantly changing their story.

[Frumple]

... you think there's actually going to be an independent investigation, especially one that anyone involved will listen to?

[Playergamer]

heh, what frumple said. i'm a patriot, sure, but even i have to admit that the whole world turns a blind eye to what we do. UN doesn't have the power, or the nerve, to hold an investigation, and there aren't many others who could pick it up.

[smjjames]

... you think there's actually going to be an independent investigation, especially one that anyone involved will listen to?

Who the heck knows?........

I thought the ICC (or whoever MSF was wanting to do an investigation) was going to do an investigation, thought I haven't heard anything about it.

If anything, there needs to be an independent investigation to get the facts straight, even if nobody gets prosecuted over it.

[Frumple]

Well, the folks in question were trying to get the US to acquiesce to said investigation. What's significantly more likely to happen to that is the US will tell them to shove it up their arse and suck down whatever BS story the states ultimately end up settling on, assuming they don't just leave the ones already laid out in confusion and call it a day. S'how it usually goes.

There probably won't be an independent investigation, if there's an actual investigation at all and not one that exists in name only (or even that much), the facts won't be got straight, and nobody will be prosecuted. If anything happens differently than that, it'll be a surprise.

[misko27]

Where's the independent investigation? It's becoming a massive 'he said/she said' type situation between the U.S. and the Afghan army with BOTH parties constantly changing stories.

No one cares enough. I mean it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Who the hell would organize a independent investigation over a single, relatively small bombing? What nation is there that has both the credibility (so not any major power) and diplomatic capital (so not any minor power) to investigate a single bombing in one warzone?  Especially one that doesn't directly affect them? I mean hell, why don't you go and do it smjjames? For the same reasons as everyone else: It's expensive as hell, it's difficult to do, it's physically dangerous (active warzones are like that), there's no guarantee of success, you don't have a dog in that fight (you have a life, don't you?), there's no guarantee (or even likelihood) that anyone will believe you, and it's likely that even trying will get you onto someone's shit-list. One side will investigate and come to certain conclusions, the other side will investigate and come to different conclusions, and then there will be people who will believe whatever the hell it is that they want to believe, and screw your investigations.

But when did this become the American Intervention thread? It seems like every time I come here it's about war. Why don't we have an intervention, so it doesn't infect the regular politics thread? Don't we, in fact, have a thread such as that?

[SalmonGod]

What I don't get about these stories is how whenever enemy combatants are near civilians, they're "hiding" and "using human shields".  Every time there is collateral damage, these are the words used.

But I don't feel like these words should be accepted as applicable unless:
Hiding -- the enemy is literally fleeing immediately and directly from a violent engagement into a civilian building or crowd
Or
Using Human Shields -- the enemy is literally grabbing civilians when they know they're under fire to shield themselves

These terms used in any other context makes the implicit statement that anyone engaged in warfare in any capacity should not have any sort of life outside of warfare.  They should not visit hospitals to get medical attention.  They shouldn't visit markets to buy themselves necessities.  They shouldn't go home to families.

The way our military uses these terms, terrorists could bomb a hospital on U.S. soil where a drone operator is getting some medical attention and say that their enemy was hiding among human shields... and we would be capital H Hypocrites if we had any objection to that story.