3 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 Conven

> 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.

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.