Rigby5
Diamond Member
I already did many times.
You never did, not even once.
The intent of the 1906 Hague Conventions that turned into the Geneva Conventions, was motivated by trying to stop the old Medieval practice of starving cities out into surrendering.
So starving civilians is a war crime, what about economic sanctions?
Post your proof, just once.
If someone is making a living doing business with a foreign entity, then with imposed economic sanctions, the US government is illegally taking from them without compensation.
Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations. Still not a war crime.
Here is another reference, from the 1958 Geneva Conventions.
However, I am not sure if the US ever signed that one?
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958
ARTICLE 23 [ Link ] . -- CONSIGNMENTS OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES, FOOD AND
CLOTHING
[p.178] GENERAL BACKGROUND
In consequence of the growing economic interdependence of States the blockade has become a most effective weapon. A ban on all trade with the enemy or with any country occupied by the enemy, strict regulations governing trade with neutral countries, and a extension of the idea of "war contraband" are measures whose object is to place the adverse party in a state of complete economic and financial isolation; such measures cause suffering to the population as a whole, as they affect combatants and non-combatants indiscriminately.
After the First World War several International Red Cross Conferences discussed this problem and recommended that combatants should come to an agreement to allow medicaments, medical equipment, food and clothing through any blockade when they were intended for certain categories of the civilian population (1).
From the very beginning of the Second World War the International Committee of the Red Cross tried to persuade the authorities responsible to relax the blockade in order to relieve the distress among millions of human being who were exposed to famine or epidemics. Undaunted by the difficulties and the many refusals, the Committee made untiring efforts which were finally rewarded when it was able [p.179] to arrange for relief supplies to pass through the blockade to the civilian population which had been tried most sorely -- in Greece, the Channel Islands, the Netherlands, the "pockets" on the Atlantic coast etc. This assistance was given almost entirely to the populations of occupied countries: help could not be brought to those of the belligerent countries themselves until hostilities ended (2).
In order to provide a legal basis for future action of this kind, the International Committee proposed inserting in the new Civilian Convention provisions designed to save certain categories of civilian from the unfortunate consequences of the blockade, the categories in question being the most vulnerable and most worthy of protection and assistance. The Committee prepared a draft Article prescribing free passage for any consignment of medicaments or medical equipment on its way to another contracting State, even an enemy. A second paragraph provided for the free passage of any consignment of food, clothing and tonics for the exclusive use of children under fifteen and expectant mothers, subject to supervision by the Protecting Powers as a safeguard for the interests of the State authorizing passage.
The Committee's draft was approved by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (3) and submitted to the Diplomatic Conference in 1949. After lengthy discussion the Diplomatic Conference adopted the general principle but considerably expanded the stipulations concerning supervision.
PARAGRAPH 1. -- RIGHT TO FREE PASSAGE
1. ' Principle -- Distinction between two kinds of consignment '
The right to free passage means that the articles and material in question may not be regarded as war contraband and cannot therefore be seized.
...}