Re: BULLSHIT, was RE: [SG] HAMR

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>

> Well, you've just hit my absolute #1
> pet-freaking-peeve.

> There is NO mention in the Geneva Conventions
> forbidding any round with two exceptions:  Poisoned
> rounds, and hollow-point rounds.  These rounds are
> considered to cause unnecessary suffering.  However,
> the .50 caliber BMG is a full metal jacket round and
> hence is legal to use on any target whatsoever.  

The original Hague conventions banned the use of explosive
rounds less than 1 lb in size, effectively 37mm.
This was before the use of nitrated explosives, ie the
filling was black(gun)powder.
Actually the Hague conventions just ratified an earlier
protocol, 
"Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive
 Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg,
 29 November / 11 December 1868."

Although the trivial details have changed, the idea "to
ban weapons that cause unneccessary suffering instead of
an incapacitating wound or swift death." hasn't changed.

It could be argued that the .303 Bock & Pomeroy ammunition,
and the .303 Buckingham ammunition of WW1 (incendiary/explosive/
tracer rounds designed to take out Zeppelins) might come under this.
It's been ruled that a 20mm shell doesn't. It has been
customary to assume that tracer rounds don't either, but
that's a fine point, and may change in the future.

But it's been customary that all rounds less than 20mm not have
an explosive filling. This includes 15mm, 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMGs.

But as the 0.50 calibre HMG is a full metal jacket round, it is
completely kosher under the laws, and koseher under the spirit
of those laws. Few people have survived a solid hit from a .50 cal.

> So you can't argue with me, let me provide you with
> some INFORMED references on international law of armed
> conflict:
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl is the definitive
> database, containing 91 treaties and commentary.  
> 
> http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm
> is the US Army's manual on the Law of War.  

> Now stop passing on myths.
> 
> It annoys me.  It is untrue.	It leads to violations
> of the laws of land warfare by encouraging an attitude
> of general contempt towards the very foundation of
> civilized warfare.  

That's one thing I like about you, Mr Atkinson: if I can
just ignore the less than smooth tones of your posts, you
give some excellent hard evidence. The ICRC link was one I
didn't know. I have (for my sins) had to wade through the
Australian equivt of FM 27-10 in the past.
We have the equivalent of Chapter 3 Section 1, para 64,
but it differs significantly. We'd count Al Quaida forces
as POWs rather than Protected Persons IMHO.
Those committing warcrimnes are of course, after due process
by military tribunal, liable to harsh penalties.
But IANAL.