Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
[🔎] 460708A2.9020703@cox.net:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip]
>> ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA
>> status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
>
> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA?
..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its
equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which
incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals
Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention:
"(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without
having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided
they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument
> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another,
..on take-off, correct. On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful
military force.
> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity".
..yup, KIA, Arlington next.
> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/k/02986.html
> killed in action
> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other
> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or
> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a
> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty
> category.
..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: