I completely support someone who kidnaps 3 women, makes those women his slaves, rapes and abuses them over the course of 10 years getting the death penalty. If that person's organs save lives, then even better.

There are categories of crimes that the general population finds especially heinous, and I would rather the offenders of those crimes get a needle in the arm, and their organs save the lives of others, than pay $70,000 a year for them to live in a cell with cable TV, microwave, and free college courses.

By assorted bad guys, I mean capitol offenses. Like murder, severe cases of rape (say where the victim is permanently disabled, injured, or subjected to torture), genocide, etc. And including the people responsible for arranging said crimes, like Cartels and terrorist leaders.

Murder is an action that is morally objectionable. The definition of the word means the unjustified killing of someone. It is not my standard, I didn't create it. That standard is present in every religion and moral philosophy and I would argue that 99% of the world agrees killing someone for no reason is wrong.

I mostly agree, except for one point. Once someone is convicted of a felony crime, they do loose certain rights. In the US, they loose the right to vote, own a firearm, most of their 4th and 5th amendment protections, etc. While I am not opposed to revoking the 2nd amendment rights of someone convicted of armed robbery, I am opposed to revoking someone's 2nd amendment rights because they are "politically inconvenient".

Do you notice the parallels to this issue and the NSA snooping (not to go off topic). In both cases, when the system is implemented "correctly" (executing violent murderers, snooping of terrorists), nobody has any issue with it. However, the citizenry is concerned with the potential for abuse of these systems. We know the Chinese system is being used for abusive purposes and it is outrageous. What happens when the NSA snooping is abused?

I have no moral dilemma with executing the worst criminal offenders. Charles Manson, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, the world (is/would be) a better place without them in it. But I do not want to execute people who's only crime is exercising their God-given rights, like freedom, liberty, expressing an opinion. Being politically inconvenient to an oppressive communist regime is not a crime worthy of execution. Murdering 29 people and wearing their skin as clothing is.

If these prisoners were serial killers, rapists, murderers and other assorted bad guys, then I fully support using their organs to save lives. I find it poetic justice and a very fitting end for the life of a person who (possibly) killed so many others.

If these prisoners are political prisoners sentenced to death because they were at Tiannamen Square or oppose communism, then I welcome the end of such barbaric policies.

+1

"By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Quirin Case in 1942

Based on the intelligence received, and the visual images of this gathering, the men were enemy combatants without uniform who had the purpose of waging war. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, it was based on the information present at the time. For example, if soldiers came under fire from a house and returned fire, they would not be committing a war crime. If the house had 20 civilians taped to the walls to provide human shields, the soldiers would still NOT be guilty of war crimes because there was no reasonable method of evading those casualties and no way of knowing about the civilian casualties to begin with.

Perhaps you should go pick up a rifle (like the .45% of our country, myself included) and go over to Afghanistan and experience this first hand. Instead of playing Armchair General. Your Call of Duty rank does not count, nor does your StarCraft rank.

Your premise is based on the idea that it was a war crime. It was not.

FTFY

As the AC pointed out, for a vehicle or person to be qualified as a non-combatant (limited to medics and chaplains), their vehicles must be marked with a Red Cross/Red Crescent. Chaplains wear their religious insignia on their uniform to denote their non-combatant status. As AC mentioned, the vehicle did not have the required markings to be an ambulance. Therefore, valid target. And, it also makes the parties driving the van, assuming they were acting as an "ambulance" guilty of war crimes.

Following the Geneva Conventions, ANY enemy combatant is still a combatant until friendly troops have moved their forward line past that person. So if this was a ground-based engagement and the casualties were behind the line of forward progress by friendlies, those casualties are now categorized as POWs and are entitled to protection, first aid, and food/water.

Oh, I didn't realize Hawkeye was a member of Slashdot. I am sure with your superhuman abilities you were able to identify a white blob on an infrared night-vision camera as a child. It could have also been the following: paper plate, basketball, laser disc, bowl of hummus, block of C4, 155mm artillery shell, or a Mac G4.

It's not spin. It's called the Rules of Engagement. You have a problem with them, you should have voted. Otherwise, it is better to be judged by 12 (or a nation) than be carried by six in a casket.

Anecdotal evidence only:

Many people I was deployed with have been developing hypothyroidism and severe weight gain. Not a few pounds, but 50+ pounds which started after returning from Iraq. Even once they are on thyroid replacement medication, the weight gain still stays. Not trying to claim that my observations are statistically significant or are the de facto truth, but merely want to point out that breathing trash fumes 2-3 times a day for a year cannot be good for your health. And anyone who claims that is safe should buy their next house down-wind from an incinerator and see how they like it.

The CM video is a perfect example of playing Armchair General. The objects being carried by the "civilians" had the same profile as RPGs. Only from post-engagement analysis can you tell what they are. The video is a grainy night-vision camera from miles away. Nor can you identify the "children" in the video, they are literally small white blobs on the screen. If you watch the video, without preconceived notions, you can easily identify that it was legitimate engagement.

According to the Rules of Engagement from the 2006-2007 time frame, if any person from a crowd of group of people commit a hostile act or show hostile intent, the entire group is displaying hostile acts or hostile intent. In that crowd which was shot by the Apache, one person in the group was displaying hostile intent (carrying an RPG, which has so legitimate self-defense purpose) so therefore, can be engaged. If it was an AK-47, they would not have been able to engage. I know this because a farmer across from my guard tower would carry his AK everywhere and we were specifically told that carrying an AK was not hostile intent. If it was a PKM (machine gun), the group would also have been displaying hostile intent. Another group of people showed up and were in the field of fire. Therefore, they become part of that group and are showing hostile intent.

When you stop sipping on your latte's and get a dose of reality, the video is a legit engagement. Sorry for the innocent lives lost, but that is part of war. If you do not want to run that risk, then you should run away when you hear 30mm machine gun rounds land in your area, not drive towards the weapon fire.

Did you check Snowden's laptop?

Desktop Linux is useful when the purpose of that desktop is specific. A user that is doing tasks like application development, CUDA programming, fluid simulations (UNIX really, but similar concept) and penetration testing would be well served to have a Linux desktop. Your average user, surfing the internet, watching Netflix, and writing papers for their english class would be better served with a Windows/Mac. A gamer would be better served with a Windows computer, right now at least.

I utilize Windows for gaming at home, Windows for office tasks at work, and Linux for everything else. Just a personal preference.