Hoon avoids 'napalm in Iraq' quiz

[zulu9812]

from http://www.itn.co.uk/rssnews/index_1634194.html
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will not be asked to clarify reports that coalition forces used napalm during recent operations in the rebel Iraqi stronghold of Fallujah.

A Labour MP submitted an emergency question to Mr Hoon asking him to make a statement on the reports in the Commons but Speaker Michael Martin has disallowed the question.

Alice Mahon, Labour MP for Halifax said: "There are reports from people who were in Fallujah that they have seen lots of burnt bodies that bear the hallmarks of napalm having been used.

"We are signed up to the UN protocol that napalm will not be used again, but America never signed it, yet we are part of the coalition and equally responsible."

Napalm is a deadly and flammable jelly and its use was blamed for widespread civilian casualties during the Vietnam War.

 

[Iggy]

It would be interesting to know on what grounds the question was disallowed.

 

[nonconformist]

[sarcasm]Well, duh, napalm isn't used anymore.[/sarcasm]
They just changed one ingredient to get around international convention.

 

[Iggy]

Well, duh, napalm isn't used anymore. They just changed one ingredient to get around international convention.

What is the name of the new product; "nu-palm" pehaps?

 

[nonconformist]

What is the name of the new product; "nu-palm" pehaps?

I dunno, but it technically ain't napalm, so it doesn't fall under international restrictions.

 

[Jawz II]

[sarcasm]Well, duh, napalm isn't used anymore.[/sarcasm]
They just changed one ingredient to get around international convention.

this is a really neat trick, works great

for example, remember how prisoners were "abused" in abu ghraib?

cause, well torture is illegal, dont even think about troturing anyone, howeve you can abuse the crap out of them, go get your blowtorch and pliers and lets go abuse

 

[stormbind]

I thought the US forces were gung-ho, not sadistic.

 

[zulu9812]

I dunno, but it technically ain't napalm, so it doesn't fall under international restrictions.

it's called a Mark 77 Firebomb, and the only difference is that they have kerosine instead of petrol

 

[Uiler]

this is a really neat trick, works great

for example, remember how prisoners were "abused" in abu ghraib?

cause, well torture is illegal, dont even think about troturing anyone, howeve you can abuse the crap out of them, go get your blowtorch and pliers and lets go abuse

Actually, there is an easy way for developed nations to get around laws to do with torture. You hand the suspects over to a friendly developing nation with much less qualms. You see you didn't actually *do* the torturing yourself. Therefore it is OK. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* That, and it's a question of how *exactly* your laws define what torture is. For example, Alberto Gonzales, the counsel for the president wrote a memo to the President saying that torture was only:

“Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.”

“Although these statutes address a substantially different subject from Section 2340, they are nonetheless helpful for understanding what constitutes severe physical pain...Such damage must rise to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant bodily function.”

“A defendant must specifically intend to cause prolonged mental harm for the defendant to have committed torture. It could be argued that a defendant needs to have specific intent only to commit the predicate acts that give rise to prolonged mental harm..."

According to the White House torture only occurs if:

1) Permanent bodily injury or death is caused. Therefore bashing is not torture (though they need to be careful not to kick the prisoner too hard in the kidneys or you could get kidney failure). Rape is not torture. I guess whipping is not torture as long as it does not cause permanent scars. Hey, do thumb-screws or the rack cause permanent bodily injury? I guess this leaves out the Iron Maiden though. All those spikes have got to leave permanent bodily damage.
2) Unless the psychological element of the torture leaves you a nut-case in a mental hospital for years, there is no mental damage.
3) If the intention of said techniques is not to intentionally cause prolonged mental harm, but for example to get information and said mental harm was just a side-effect, then it's not torture.

EDIT: BTW I think Bush wants to make Alberto Gonzales a high level judge. Bwahahaha. I'd love to see his judgements. "I'm sorry. The police may have bashed you but I don't think broken ribs and legs count as a "signficiant physical injury"." or "Well, sure the government may have put you in prison for 20 years by framing you, but since they did it in good faith because they truly thought you were guilty and did not have malicious intent to make you suffer or obtain personal gain I will have to deny your application for damages."

 

[amadeus]

If it works, it works.

 

[nonconformist]

If it works, it works.

Well, so does brutally cutting off heads.

 

[amadeus]

Since when did you start sympathizing with victims of things other than capitalism?

 

[Goober]

Jeez, slightly deceptive title, when i first read it, I though, "Geoff hoon Napalmed in Iraq? WTH did the Insurgents get Napalm from?!?!"

heh, Napalm is so cool . . .

 

[nonconformist]

Since when did you start sympathizing with victims of things other than capitalism?

Eh, long story.

 

[Norseone]

If the USA used Napalm, and they didnt sign an agreement to not use it, there is nothing anyone can say about. I am sure that the USA has many new technologies that they could use, causing more damamge than napalm. Besides, im sure the insurgents would have no qualms about using napalm on US citizens, why should we not use it one them?

 

[cgannon64]

Banning napalm and allowing other types of bombs is like banning one type of bullet. Its not going to change a thing.

 

[WarlordMatt]

Napalm or something like napalm + insurgent stronghold - presence of civilians = lots of dead terrorists and insurgents.

 

[Jawz II]

i can make napalm

well not exactly napalm, but the homemade version isnt much worse

 

[amadeus]

Dave Barry's flaming pop-tart?

 

[MarineCorps]

your Defence Secretary's name is Hoon?

MK 77 Mod 5
In March 2003 the Pentagon denied a report in The Age that napalm had been used in an attack by US Navy planes on an Iraqi position at Safwan Hill in southern Iraq. A navy official in Washington, Lieutenant-Commander Danny Hernandez, said: "We don't even have that in our arsenal." The report was filed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was attached to units of the First US Marine Division.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."

The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Depeartment of Defense had been in fact been sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm

You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like - victory" Apocalypse now (1979)