Go after the medics
It appears that the Feds committed a war crime in Portland.
Federal authorities have been accused of violating the Geneva Convention after apparently destroying medical equipment during protests in Portland.
Reporter Sergio Olmos shared a video on Twitter Tuesday night showing medical supplies and protective gear covered in an orange liquid.
“It appears that federal officers, during dispersal, pepper sprayed the medical supplies in the tents,” Olmos wrote.
And The Enemy is…protesters. Not soldiers for the Nazis but protesters.
An article in the 1998 International Criminal Court Statute says “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against … hospitals and places where the sick and the wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
…
It comes after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the DHS, U.S. Marshals Service and the city of Portland on behalf of volunteer medics who have been attending to injured protesters.
The lawsuit alleges that federal agents have “brutally attacked” volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, flash bangs and batons in violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
But but but graffiti.
There’s going to be some kind of loophole, isn’t there? Like the “actually two- thirds of the U.S. population live within 100 miles of the border, so nyah”? Does the Geneva convention fail to prohibit the pepper-spraying of medical supplies during peaceful protests because it never occurred to anyone involved that it would be necessary to prohibit it?
Catwhisperer, I can imagine Trump inventing a loophole on the lines of the protesters being enemies of the American government and the medics are supplying aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore medics are fair game. It wouldn’t stand up in the courts (American or international) of course, but since when has that minor inconvenience bothered Trump?
That’s what Trump does though, isn’t it? He wants to do X, therefore he is allowed to do X. Simples. I mean, that’s bad, but it’s not like finding out that something that you think must surely be against the law actually… isn’t. It’s how I felt years ago when that poor little girl was tortured to death by her guardians and then there were were calls to ban exorcism on children. What do they mean, ban exorcism? There is no such thing as magic, therefore anything done under the guise of “exorcism” has to be taken for what it is. Wafting incense, sure, go nuts. Keeping a child in the bath and beating and starving her for months until she dies? Fucking no. How is that not already covered by existing laws. It’s like the horrifying reverse of those quirky little laws that nobody knows about and that have been ignored for a few hundred years. “A man may not walk his goat down the high street on Palm Sunday unless he his wearing a deerstalker cap” and such.