Another black eye for your recent insane bull sh*t ranting
The story that got my attention is from here with this headline:
In Response to Paris, Ted Cruz Calls for
Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance for Civilian Casualties’
Ted Cruz already knows the solution in the aftermath of the Paris attacks: “A bombing campaign that’s not afraid to kill innocent civilians,” he says in part:
“We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not “violent extremism.” It is the “radical Islamism” that has declared Jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life.”
Sen. Cruz, listen up — call this your hour of education update: What you propose is illegal, unlawful and a war crime and that is not America.
The “concept of immunity, that is the rule that certain people and places should be protected and respected” during wartime, can be dated back at least to 1582, when a Spanish judge suggested that “intentional killing of innocent persons, for example, women and children, is not allowable in war.”
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 confirmed immunity for civilians, hospitals, and medical staff
The 1977 Additional Protocols to the conventions state: “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.”
The absolute rule is that civilians must not be directly targeted for military attack.
Furthermore, some individuals considered especially vulnerable: children under fifteen, the elderly, pregnant women, and mothers of children under seven for example, are granted special protection and may be moved to safe zones exempt from attack by agreement of the warring parties. The wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, military personnel who are considered to be hors de combat (not inside, but away from combat, etc.), are also protected, as are POW’s.
Hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel — whether civilian or military — are also 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, and staff are properly protected.
Staff includes not only doctors, nurses, and orderlies, but the drivers, cleaners, cooks, crews of hospital ships — in short, all those who help a medical unit to function. Some aid workers — for example, Red Cross volunteers treating the sick and wounded on the battlefield — are also covered, as are military chaplains. Other than hospitals, certain other buildings cannot be attacked.
Places of worship and historic monuments are protected, as are civilian structures like schools and other objects that are not being used to support military activities. Under the 1954 Convention on Cultural Property important places of worship, historic sites, works of art, and other cultural treasures are likewise protected from attack.
There are exceptions however. A school, for example, becomes a legitimate military target if soldiers are based there (and can be shown thus so).
With hospitals, the situation is more complicated since they are permitted to keep armed guards on their grounds. But immunity from attack can be lost if the people or objects are used to commit acts that are harmful to one side in a conflict.
Finally, I say in no uncertain terms that Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz (R-Texas) may have Harvard law degree and be in the U.S. Senate and yes, even a good or great debater, but the man is dirt clod dumb. He need not be anywhere near the Oval Office except maybe on a guided tour but never ever be the President or Commander-in-Chief, period.
Thanks for stopping by.