4 ms·

Tom Cotton is a former military officer and attorney, he knew exactly what “no quarter” means, it is explicitly called out as a war crime in the Geneva Conventi

by fmajid 3y ago

Tom Cotton is a former military officer and attorney, he knew exactly what “no quarter” means, it is explicitly called out as a war crime in the Geneva Conventions. To accept that he misspoke or meant something else is the height of bad faith. I’m surprised The Atlantic published this self-serving tripe that will be used to discredit future well-deserved criticism of the NYT’s policies as sour grapes

tim333 3y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume he meant the dictionary definition. Words don't have just one meaning - it depends on context and the like.
- xracy 3y ago
  I don't know many people who read the dictionary definition of things. I think the wikipedia definition feels much more likely. See my other comment for why I don't think it's "reasonable to assume" what he meant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Tom Cotton is a former military officer and attorney, he knew exactly what “no quarter” means, it is explicitly called out as a war crime in the Geneva Conventions. Rioters and looters have nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. For one, that is not even a bona fide combat situation. For another, they don't meet the definition of "lawful combatants" because they don't typically wear "uniforms or other insignia recognizable at a distance". No uniform = no POW rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants can be executed on the spot with no trial or any other formalities. Now, one could make a decent argument that the so-called "Black Bloc" groups qualify, because they do wear outfits that might be characterized as uniforms if you squint at them hard enough. They should at least get the benefit of the doubt, IMO. But random rioters and looters? It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that the Geneva Conventions even apply in that situation. Swiping iPads and Air Jordans are not the actions of lawful combatants. In fact, looting itself is explicitly called out as a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Someone here isn't familiar with the Geneva Conventions, but it's not Cotton.
- leereeves 3y ago
  True, but irrelevant. It's disingenuous to suggest that Tom Cotton was suggesting mass murder of protestors. (And if he was, then it would certainly be illegal under US murder laws, not the Geneva Convention.) Someone here and many people at the Times were clearly trying to put the worst possible spin on a figurative expression.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    It's not a "figurative expression", it has a precise meaning in international law that a military officer and lawyer like Cotton simply cannot claim to have been unaware of. Rioters are not protected by the Geneva Convention, which applies to military conflicts between regular forces, but the US Military's own regulations prohibit that practice in all cases, as it is a war crime: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule46 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule46 https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-june-2015.pdf https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-... (section 5.5.7). Thus Tom Cotton was advocating for something he knew was against both US and international law. While that is noteworthy, and not in a good way, the NYT is certainly not obliged to print such, just as you would not expect it to print any other call for criminal activity as an Op-Ed. There are bounds to acceptable discourse and publication, "journalist" Julius Streicher was tried and hanged at Nurenberg for going well beyond them.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      In addition to its literal meaning, it is also a figurative expression, as TFA explains, and you can check for yourself in a dictionary. Those words were used in a tweet, not an order to military personnel. For better or worse, that kind of extreme language was common on Twitter. And those words did not appear in the op-ed published by the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > Rioters are not protected by the Geneva Convention, Correct. Which makes both the Geneva Conventions and DOD's Operations Manuals utterly irrelevant. Triply so, since 2) Cotton was not in command of any troops and 3) the alleged violation of the laws of war never actually occurred. From the latter: > In assessing whether de facto hostilities exist for the purpose of applying jus in bello restrictions, situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature do not amount to armed conflict.7 You really should familiarize yourself with the material before citing it. This. Was. Not. A. War. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear than that.
AlexandrB 3y ago
I found it interesting. Some of this stuff is crazy for a journalist to say: > Rachel Abrams, one of Lee’s co-authors on the article, had been a vocal internal critic of Cotton’s op-ed. “How can they be sending us emails telling us they’re keeping us safe and care about our physical and mental well-being and then publish this,” she had posted on Slack, later adding, “I think it’s good that a lot of us will put our names on a strong condemnation.” This reads like the equivalent of a firefighter complaining that his employer is endangering him by sending him into burning buildings. Regardless of what the NYT publishes, this was an honestly held opinion of Tom Cotton's. Not publishing it doesn't change what Tom Cotton thinks nor what kind of response he would advocate for in congress.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xracy 3y ago
Felt like a pretty clear dog-whistle to me. Especially since the rest of the behavior around it looks like a dog-whistle as well. "How could you say it means this thing. I've never heard of that thing before! I meant it in this other way!" But also the clarification gives away the game: "If you say that someone was given no quarter, you mean that they were not treated kindly by someone who had power or control over them." <- Even this could still refer to the war crime. The original tweet was saying "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters." Who would be the person that had "power or control" over people who don't recognize your authority? He has to be viewing them as military combatants, in which case he clearly meant it as the war crime, but ran to the other definition in the hopes it would cover it up.

by fmajid 3y ago

tim333 3y ago

I think it's reasonable to assume he meant the dictionary definition. Words don't have just one meaning - it depends on context and the like.

xracy 3y ago
I don't know many people who read the dictionary definition of things. I think the wikipedia definition feels much more likely. See my other comment for why I don't think it's "reasonable to assume" what he meant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> Tom Cotton is a former military officer and attorney, he knew exactly what “no quarter” means, it is explicitly called out as a war crime in the Geneva Conventions. Rioters and looters have nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. For one, that is not even a bona fide combat situation. For another, they don't meet the definition of "lawful combatants" because they don't typically wear "uniforms or other insignia recognizable at a distance". No uniform = no POW rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants can be executed on the spot with no trial or any other formalities. Now, one could make a decent argument that the so-called "Black Bloc" groups qualify, because they do wear outfits that might be characterized as uniforms if you squint at them hard enough. They should at least get the benefit of the doubt, IMO. But random rioters and looters? It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that the Geneva Conventions even apply in that situation. Swiping iPads and Air Jordans are not the actions of lawful combatants. In fact, looting itself is explicitly called out as a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Someone here isn't familiar with the Geneva Conventions, but it's not Cotton.

leereeves 3y ago
True, but irrelevant. It's disingenuous to suggest that Tom Cotton was suggesting mass murder of protestors. (And if he was, then it would certainly be illegal under US murder laws, not the Geneva Convention.) Someone here and many people at the Times were clearly trying to put the worst possible spin on a figurative expression.
- fmajid 3y ago
  It's not a "figurative expression", it has a precise meaning in international law that a military officer and lawyer like Cotton simply cannot claim to have been unaware of. Rioters are not protected by the Geneva Convention, which applies to military conflicts between regular forces, but the US Military's own regulations prohibit that practice in all cases, as it is a war crime: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule46 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule46 https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-june-2015.pdf https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-... (section 5.5.7). Thus Tom Cotton was advocating for something he knew was against both US and international law. While that is noteworthy, and not in a good way, the NYT is certainly not obliged to print such, just as you would not expect it to print any other call for criminal activity as an Op-Ed. There are bounds to acceptable discourse and publication, "journalist" Julius Streicher was tried and hanged at Nurenberg for going well beyond them.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    In addition to its literal meaning, it is also a figurative expression, as TFA explains, and you can check for yourself in a dictionary. Those words were used in a tweet, not an order to military personnel. For better or worse, that kind of extreme language was common on Twitter. And those words did not appear in the op-ed published by the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > Rioters are not protected by the Geneva Convention, Correct. Which makes both the Geneva Conventions and DOD's Operations Manuals utterly irrelevant. Triply so, since 2) Cotton was not in command of any troops and 3) the alleged violation of the laws of war never actually occurred. From the latter: > In assessing whether de facto hostilities exist for the purpose of applying jus in bello restrictions, situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature do not amount to armed conflict.7 You really should familiarize yourself with the material before citing it. This. Was. Not. A. War. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear than that.

AlexandrB 3y ago

I found it interesting. Some of this stuff is crazy for a journalist to say: > Rachel Abrams, one of Lee’s co-authors on the article, had been a vocal internal critic of Cotton’s op-ed. “How can they be sending us emails telling us they’re keeping us safe and care about our physical and mental well-being and then publish this,” she had posted on Slack, later adding, “I think it’s good that a lot of us will put our names on a strong condemnation.” This reads like the equivalent of a firefighter complaining that his employer is endangering him by sending him into burning buildings. Regardless of what the NYT publishes, this was an honestly held opinion of Tom Cotton's. Not publishing it doesn't change what Tom Cotton thinks nor what kind of response he would advocate for in congress.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xracy 3y ago

Felt like a pretty clear dog-whistle to me. Especially since the rest of the behavior around it looks like a dog-whistle as well. "How could you say it means this thing. I've never heard of that thing before! I meant it in this other way!" But also the clarification gives away the game: "If you say that someone was given no quarter, you mean that they were not treated kindly by someone who had power or control over them." <- Even this could still refer to the war crime. The original tweet was saying "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters." Who would be the person that had "power or control" over people who don't recognize your authority? He has to be viewing them as military combatants, in which case he clearly meant it as the war crime, but ran to the other definition in the hopes it would cover it up.