Washington, D.C. – A new Pentagon legal guide, the “Department of Defense Law of War Manual,”
which encompasses the legalities of war for all four branches of the
U.S. military, explains legally acceptable methods of killing opposing
soldiers.
Shockingly, the manual also notes that journalists can now be labeled “unprivileged belligerents,” a term that replaces “enemy combatant.”
The “Law of War Manual” details acceptable means of killing to include cutting, stabbing, bombing, exploding and shooting the enemy, while the use of poisons or suffocating gasses are strictly prohibited.
Surprisingly, the killing of troops that are retreating was deemed legally acceptable.
Perhaps the most troubling section of the manual relates to the manner in which journalists are treated in a designated war zone.
“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,” the “Law of War Manual” asserts.
This new term, “unprivileged belligerents” is now used in the stead of “unlawful enemy combatant,” a catch all Bush-era term which essentially referred to any male over the
Shockingly, the manual also notes that journalists can now be labeled “unprivileged belligerents,” a term that replaces “enemy combatant.”
The “Law of War Manual” details acceptable means of killing to include cutting, stabbing, bombing, exploding and shooting the enemy, while the use of poisons or suffocating gasses are strictly prohibited.
Surprisingly, the killing of troops that are retreating was deemed legally acceptable.
Perhaps the most troubling section of the manual relates to the manner in which journalists are treated in a designated war zone.
“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,” the “Law of War Manual” asserts.
This new term, “unprivileged belligerents” is now used in the stead of “unlawful enemy combatant,” a catch all Bush-era term which essentially referred to any male over the
age 16 in a designated war zone.
Ambiguous terms such as these are meant to provide legal cover, so that the U.S. military can essentially kill innocent people, without facing any legal repercussions.
In an interview with RT, Georgetown Journalism professor Chris Chambers explained why using these terms seemingly provide legal cover, explaining that the reason is “because the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.”
Read more @ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pentagon-releases-war-manual-claiming-authority-potentially-murder-journalists/
Ambiguous terms such as these are meant to provide legal cover, so that the U.S. military can essentially kill innocent people, without facing any legal repercussions.
In an interview with RT, Georgetown Journalism professor Chris Chambers explained why using these terms seemingly provide legal cover, explaining that the reason is “because the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.”
Read more @ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pentagon-releases-war-manual-claiming-authority-potentially-murder-journalists/
No comments:
Post a Comment