You know, I really hate it when someone thinks they can twist my words around and use them to attack me. It makes me go all kinds of crazy. I was just going to reply to the stupid fucker in the comments section of Jane's post, but the thrill has gone out of using other peoples' server space to rant and rave. So here is my reply to one Eric, who has taken the position that he has the right to make a moral judgment on me.
The subject was the decision of UN officials to cover up the Picasso painting "Guernica" that hangs in the UN building. Here is my reply in full to Jane's remark that it must have something to do with the current "Iraq-obsessed atmosphere":
Well, it was the UN that covered up the painting, not the US. I don't know that the "Iraq-obsession" had anything to do with it, unless it was the obsession certain member nations have to not remind anyone that Iraq has waged a whole lot more of the Guernica-style war on its own people than the United States has.Well, along came Eric on his moral high horse.
He proceeded in his hectoring entries to accuse me of 1) lacking in "historical/artistic knowledge" (note: I am a Humanities major, and the daughter of a history teacher, not that he could be expected to know that); 2) of "not understanding" the meaning of Picasso's painting -- he then went on to make the astonishing claim that Picasso in his work was objecting to the "means" of war (i.e., dropping bombs from planes on people) and not the "ends"! I do actually believe that Picasso was objecting to both means and ends. Google is a wonderful thing: here is a website devoted to the matter. He also misunderstood what I meant by "Guernica-style attacks": he apparently thought I meant actual strafing and bombing, and was actually trying to compare Iraqi and US ordinance by numbers (which would have been ridiculous since I knew full well we overwhelmed in that area), when I actually meant "callous attacks on defenseless communities for experimental and/or training purposes," which was the reason the Germans attacked Guernica, and which is one of Saddam Hussein's favorite practices. I attempted to explain where Eric had misunderstood me, but he was having none of it, and I was accused of "ridiculous brutality," and of using the "straw man" argument. That is when I decided Mr. Moral Cop could go fuck himself. Here is my statement to him (warning -- lots of shouting and more swearing ahead):
And YOU, Eric, have used the STRAW MAN of UNINTENDED CIVILIAN CASUALTIES inflicted UNINTENTIONALLY by US forces during battles in foreign lands in order to paint me as some kind of brutal beast, when it is Saddam Hussein who DELIBERATELY KILLED AND TORTURED AND IS STILL KILLING AND TORTURING men, women, and cute big-eyed children in his OWN goddamn country. As for bombing, ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war? What about what his forces did in Kuwait? Do you think all they did was sit around in cafés in that country drinking coffee?
You dare to lecture me in morality. You pompous swine. Why don't you come down off your morally superior high horse? UNINTENDED civilian casualties are IN NO WAY the same thing as killing YOUR OWN citizens deliberately with bombings, poisonous gas, and the like. I never said that the United States armed forces never killed any civilians. Unlike you I can understand what I read. Here is what I said: "Iraq has waged a whole lot more of the Guernica-style war on its own people than the United States has." So you claim he has never bombed his own people? Well, what about the Kurds? And the Shi'ites in the south? What about them? Aren't they under his jurisdiction, technically "his own people"? I guess you would say no.
I don't get what your problem is. Are you really so anal-retentive that since Saddam Hussein didn't bomb a specific village using World War 2-era German bomber planes then my statement is an example of "ridiculous brutality"? Are you accusing the United States of deliberately targeting civilians? Is that what you are saying? That we DELIBERATELY bypassed military targets to get at the cute, big-eyed children? If not, then what is it with the manufactured outrage and these accusations of brutality and ignorance towards ME? I know exactly what the Guernica painting was about. I studied it not even one year ago. I know what went on during the Gulf War -- I was twenty-seven years old in 1990. I have friends who fought in it. Don't you EVER lecture me on something I know about and watched happen, and don't you EVER tell me I used the straw man argument when you are the one who started using it from the first with your accusations.
Here, I will break it down so that your tiny brain can understand it:
Civilian casualties in Iraq during Gulf War I caused by US forces = UNINTENTIONAL.
Civilian casualties on people in his own controlled areas caused by Saddam Hussein's forces during various wars and for experimental purposes = INTENTIONAL.
UNINTENTIONAL =/= INTENTIONAL
Got it?
Posted by Andrea Harris at February 5, 2003 02:15 AMWow. You're 40?
That's, like, really old.
[ducking]
Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 5, 2003 at 03:42 AMAndrea: you're angry when you're beautiful.
Dean: I'd smack you, but I can't catch you using my creaky 45-year-old legs...
Posted by: Brian Swisher at February 5, 2003 at 09:16 AMI'm not older, I'm better. (I'll be forty in May.)
;P
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 5, 2003 at 09:32 AMAndrea, don't beat around the bush -- tell us what you really think.
(I just reached an age where I should understand the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything -- and am quite disappointed that I don't.)
Posted by: *** Dave at February 5, 2003 at 10:44 AMRe: Eric the Red:
"Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."
-- Robert Heinlein
The true moment of revealing idiocy:
Andrea said: "It is not our fault if the stankass thug ruler of their country puts military installations next to children's hospitals. And you can bite me if you think it is."
Eric said: "You understand little about morality, clearly. Even when this is true (and I don't doubt that it is--some of the time), the U.S. had no right to attack such installations..."
In other words, placing ones military installations amidst civilian populations makes them invulnerable to attack, and is a perfectly acceptable military strategy. Furthermore, if those military facilities are attacked, any civilian casualties are clearly the moral responsibilty of the attackers, not the people who deliberately put innocent lives in harm's way. Nice.
I also loved how Mr. Eric worked the Geneva Convention into the discussion. As the Geneva Convention covers treatment of war prisoners, I fail to see how it actually applied to the discussion at hand... hmmm... but it does contain this passage (from Article 23):
"No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Posted by: RC at February 5, 2003 at 04:09 PMRC,
I can't find the text at the moment, but as I recall there's something in another treaty (likely the 1899 or 1907 Hague Conventions), that specifically bans placing military facilities in areas of high civilian concentration, or something similar. That would make the party who does this the war criminal, not the one who targets a legitimate military objective and winds up causing collateral civilian casualties.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 5, 2003 at 05:04 PMTypically, Eric was not interested enough to come here and see what I said -- or so he claimed. He said he wasn't interested in visiting a "warblogger's" site. Nice fellow. Oh well, guess I'm free to post jpegs of my Iraqi baby head collection! (As soon as they are delivered from Ebay. You can get anything from Ebay.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 5, 2003 at 05:17 PMRemind me again how many hours it took before putative pieces of the Columbia showed up on Ebay?
Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 5, 2003 at 07:06 PMRC, the Geneva Convention covers more than just POWs. It does cover the treatment of "protected persons", i.e. civilians. Scroll down to Art. 28:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
In other words, Andrea's right. If you move civilians to a military installation, or build your military installations amid civilians, that does not mean your enemies cannot attack the military sites.
I have seen that interpreted to mean that it is a bona fide war crime to so endanger civilians.
Sadly, the notion of "war crime" is fast becoming meaningless, seeing as how some idiots already want to try Tony Blair in the ICC in the event of war in Iraq, regardless of whether any actual war crimes are committed. Going to war without a permission slip from the UN is a war crime in their minds.
Weirdness alert: This article is a Reuters article by Opheera McDoom.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at February 5, 2003 at 10:22 PMHow anyone that is the daughter of a history teacher and a humanities major (but then again, you're 40 and haven't graduated yet) can be so ignorant is beyond me.
Posted by: daytripper at February 6, 2003 at 12:08 AMHow anyone can be such a wad of stank is beyond ME. Get stuffed, AOLhole.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 6, 2003 at 12:13 AMAnd oh yeah -- your IP 66.136.62.180 is banned, fuckstick. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 6, 2003 at 12:15 AMEric won't visit a "warblogger's" site, huh? LAME excuse...
Sounds more like he attacks, and then runs away; much like the terrorists he undoubtedly idolizes.
Posted by: MisterAtoz at February 6, 2003 at 12:42 AMThe problem is that it's "the Geneva Conventions"...plural. The one you want to look at is Fourth Geneva Convention, which is: "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm] (RC was citing from Convention III [relative to prisoners of war]).
Angie points out correctly that Article 28 of Convention IV deals with this topic very clearly and simply. Note that this article appears in Part III (Status and Treatment of Protected Persons), Section I (Provisions Common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories). I mention this because someone recently thought that Article 28 of the Fourth Convention might apply only to Occupying Forces, but it's in the section for provisions on both "Occupying forces" AND "Parties to a conflict." See Article 4 for further definition of what a "Protected Person" is.
Now, want some fun? Check the very next article...Article 29: "The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred." (If you find that sentence difficult to read the first time through, try pausing after the word "be"... :-)
In other words, Eric is CLEARLY wrong; Geneva Convention IV states here in black and white that the US is not the responsible party for the unintentional civilian casualties when "human shield" tactics are used.
Also, there are two additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions -- adopted June 8, 1977, and entered into force December 7, 1978 -- that govern treatment of victims of international and domestic armed conflicts. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm] states some things explicitly:
Part IV (Civilian Population)
Section I (General Protection Against the Effects of Hostilities)
Chapter 2 (Basic Rule and Field of Application)
Article 51 (Protection of the Civilian Population)
Paragraph 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."
and
Part IV (Civilian Population)
Section I (General Protection Against the Effects of Hostilities)
Chapter 4 (Precautionary Measures)
Article 57 (Precautions Against the Effects of Attack):
"Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
(a) Without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
© Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations."
See Articles 48 and 52 of the same document for further definition on this.
I'm not a lawyer; I don't even play one on TV. I'm just a professional scientist who got sick of hearing claims about this issue by people who wanted to spend more time bashing the U.S. and defending Saddam than getting informed.
Hope I'm not intruding by posting this.
Gondring
Posted by: Gondring at February 12, 2003 at 08:06 PM