 |
| |
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
I don't understand why there are people out to defend summary execution. Enemy territory or not, it's still a crime. Just for the record, you are nto supposed to kill insurgents either who are wounded and unarmed and pose no threat. The argument "you weren't there, you couldn't know how threatning it was" is moot point. Too bad, it turns out he wasn't dangerous in that situation. It's like saying it's ok for cops to shoot someone if someone pulls out car keys, when not ordered to not to do that. |
Actually, becasue insurgenst are not part of any official belligerent force they enjoy none of the privlages recognized soldiers do. But if you do consider them "official combatants" and apply Geneva standards to them, since most of these are found/captured in civilian attire the rules of war that do apply to them are covered under espionage. In other words they are spies and should be executed. This is one of the oldest rules of war, and is so to protect civilians.
One ofhe primary purposes of the Geneve Conventions is to distiguish combatant for no combatant. Since the prime stategy of an insurgent is to blur this line, they are always in violation of it and forfeit to it. The whole thing doesn't work if one side isn't playing by the rules, and it is naive of you to think that the other side should continue to when the other isn't. The fact that the first patrol actually left prisoners unattended and moved on is proof the US is at least trying to be civilized. In a functionality sence, if they couldn't maintain prisoners the best thing would have been to kill them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
"Actually, becasue insurgenst are not part of any official belligerent force they enjoy none of the privlages recognized soldiers do."
So it's legal to kill them unarmed and wounded? I don't think it is.
" In other words they are spies and should be executed. This is one of the oldest rules of war, and is so to protect civilians."
Really?
"Since the prime stategy of an insurgent is to blur this line, they are always in violation of it and forfeit to it."
I didn't know you can give up your rights.
"The whole thing doesn't work if one side isn't playing by the rules, and it is naive of you to think that the other side should continue to when the other isn't."
So you suggest what? Summary executions legal? Who made the decision of the wounded and unarmed being illegal combatant? It's not his decision to make, not posing threat makes it illegal to execute him.
I think that you have missed the whole point of Geneva Convention. It's not to give you clear green light who you can kill or who you can't kill. It's point is to protect combatants, enemy and own.
Now show me the spie law, that gives anyone right to execute a spie without proper procedure and hearing? I think it's pretty dangerous when we have justified all soldiers being judge dredds, who can execute you right there and then, because he saw it fit without anyone else bothering. That is not legal, you can throw any lawbooks, any interpretations you want, but that is not legal, it's that simple, it's not legal, you can not execute a man who poses no threat and is wounded and unarmed. When you have the control of the situation, it is not legal. War is hell, if you execute someone on your own account, too bad, war is hell. I think you're the oen being naive, that all soldiers are judge dredds and that's jsut fine because war is hell and it messes up your head. Too bad. It's the job of the justice to get these people in jail. War is no excuse.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
My point is, these things happens all the time. Everyone does them. But it's still not acceptable for individual to take liberties to execute in situation like this, if the situation is what has been described. These things continue happening, but it's the duty of army to take action when a person gets caught doing it. I'm sure individual soldier does not have a right to do this. I have also been in service and read the geneva convention. I do not recollect this kind of interpretation being legal one. Of course it's not the fault of the army, but it is the fault of the individual, and that individual should be punished for it, by the army. If not, then we're setting a pretext, where we can shoot anyone and just say afterwards 'he was a spie'. Or 'i thought he was a spie'. Now if this interpretation woudl be legal, then every country also has right to do it, and against US citizens also.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch
Terrorists are still human beings. Are they exempt from being judged by the same morals that we apply to the marines?
The point is that there's a double standard. If you think the double standard is fair because America should lead by example then you're unrealistic. The guys who are actually putting their lives on the line can't meet your fantastic standards. And the insurgents, who seem to go out of their way to commit war crimes (IIRC murder, pretending to be civilians, and I think booby trapping dead bodies are all against the GC) are given a free pass because that's the European notion of fair.
Nobody here knows what happened there, nobody there even really knows what happened. But we can be sure that the military takes significant measures to instill discipline, and will maintain that by punishing people for crimes. The noble savages will probably not make any effort to match the Americans in this regard. |
to make a long story short, we cannot influence the behavior of terrorists, but we can influence our own. So while it would be nice asking terrorists to please be fair this is unrealistic as they won't do.
That doesn't mean that we need to play their game. Because that's not how we win. Or you in this example. You can only win by playing fair.
Btw, it was you who created this enemy. You told us and everyone who doesn't want to hear, that terrorists are rude and bad and don't care about innocents and what not. And now you complain, that they live up to your expectation.
What do you want?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I can recall at least one incident in the Falklands War where a Brit Army medic fired several rounds into a wounded prisoner's head.
After a large group of prisoners had been captured (Goose Green I believe) the only building large enough to house them was a large wool drying shed.
Right outside the shed there's a huge stack of ammo - mortar rounds, shells, grenades - with the rain pouring down on them.
Eventually the prisoenrs (quite contrary to the rules of war) were told to move the munitions - as it was in their own safety interests they agreed.
One mortar round or grenade detonated, leaving a wounded Argentinian soldier with no legs and his burning guts hanging out for all to see - but he was alive.
That medic did the only thing he could do to ease that soldier's suffering.
War crime? Sometimes death on the wounded is a mercy.
I really cannot comment on the Falluja film because I haven't seen it.
But I want to make it clear that this sort of awfulness is NOT confined purely to American tactics or behaviour.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2004 19:04
|