 |
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Proteus -
According to the audio tape, yes. They knew there were wounded prisoners inside awaiting pick up from the day before.
Yup. That perception will drive the prosecution of this soldier.
Killed? I only heard about the one shooting. |
The MSNBC-Article gives more and more hints that the Marines shot other insurgents within the mosque befor ethe man with the camera arrived:
quote:
Military investigators also are looking into whether more than one wounded insurgent was shot in the mosque, said Maj. Francis Piccoli, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
Two other men visible on the NBC video appear to be suffering from what the network described as fresh and fatal gunshot wounds.
|
quote:
Earlier in the footage, as the Marine unit that Sites was accompanying approached the mosque, gunfire can be heard from inside. Marines who were already in the mosque emerge, and a lieutenant in the approaching unit asks if there were insurgents inside and if the Marines had shot any of them. An exiting Marine can be heard responding affirmatively. The lieutenant then asks if they were armed, and the Marine shrugs.
|
quote:
After the Marines that Sites accompanied entered the mosque, the video showed two other men slumped by a wall. Sites’ account said the men, who were hurt in the previous day’s attack, had been shot again by the Marines on Saturday.
|
(Yesterday only the last quote was there, but obviously the indications of more insurgents within the mosque being killed in cold blood get stronger and stronger.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vodkakov
|
 |
In the student union bar!
Aug 2004
time: 05:18
|
|
Just a thought, (bit of a nitpicking one, really) this isn't actually a war, it's an insurgency. The war (according to Bush et al) ended a fair while ago, not that there was any official declaration anyway. If it's not a war, then "rules of war" and "war crimes" are not relevant. Instead it's the peace time laws of the US military and Iraq that matter in this case.
Regarding the particulars of this case, I'd say it's understandable why this may have happened (with regard to previous insurgent tactics), although this is still not morally excusable. So, basically, it's understandable, but that doesn't make it right.
Also, how badly wounded was this US Marine? Knowing the media, he probably got a small scratch and was wearing a plaster or something, which they've blown out of proportion. Given that they always magnify everything (a couple of 500lb bombs being dropped is generally described by them as being akin to Dresden) and that I doubt even overstretched forces would put a guy that's got more than a scratch (as opposed to half his face blown away) back on combat duty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
For one, US troops aren't only used as police. Fallujah is a clear example of a direct combat, not law enforcement, role. What happened in Fallujah went well beyond police duties. Any crimes commited of a severe enough nature during that operation should and would be labeled as warcrimes, regardless of wether or not Bush and Co call it a "war".
And it most certainly is not "just logic" that something isn't a war because officials don't call it a war. That's absolutely rediculous. Sure, politicians have tried this in nearly every conflict. Calling operations "police actions" just sells easier than calling it a war. This does not mean that it is not a war. UN court jurispudence clearly show this, were people have been convicted (or at least tried) for warcrimes in parts of the world, despite there ever being an official declaration of war or despite any official statement stating it was a war. Just because Bush doesn't consider Iraq a war anymore, doesn't make it so. He may wish it wasn't a war. He may convince certain people that it isn't a war. But it's still a war. A rose by any other name... That is just logic.
Last edited by Saint Marcus on 21-11-2004 at 01:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vodkakov
|
|
In the student union bar!
Aug 2004
time: 05:18
|
|
I would not call it a war. It is counter-insurgency. Military forces are acting IN SUPPORT of civil authorities. That is not a war, that is COUNTER-INSURGENCY... there is a difference. In a war, you can get away with a lot more, like totally levelling cities a la WW2, in a counter-insurgency you fight a guerrilla force that blends into the civil population. There is a distinct difference in the scale of fighting and the type of fighting.
I did not say that they are not crimes, but it would be inaccurate to call them WAR crimes, as it features as part of a counter-insurgency campaign.
In a war, it is perfectly legal for an army to shoot any non-uniformed opponent as a spy, so, therefore no crime was committed. In counter-insurgency, whereby the army acts to support civil powers, this is illegal, but it is not a war crime, but it is a crime. There is a difference.
I accept your point about official declarations, but this particular case is not a war, it is counter-insurgency and therefore should and would not have the same 'rules of war' applied to it (see point about spies in the first paragraph).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vodkakov
|
|
In the student union bar!
Aug 2004
time: 05:18
|
|
As a side note, if the guy shot wasn't actually an Iraqi, officially under the Geneva Convention he would be classified as a mercenary, and therefore has no rights as a POW:
"Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."
Foreign combatants in Iraq would come under a, b, d, and probably f in my opinion.
Insurgents are also not armed forces:
"Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
...
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict."
The insurgents do not have an internal system of discipline, which ensures that the forces under its control uphold international law. Therefore that disqualifies them as being classed as 'armed forces'. Also, they have not 'informed' the other party of their use of paramilitaries, if they are in fact to be considered an 'armed force'.
Therefore, if this were a war, there would be no war crime, as the casualty is not to be classified as a legal combatant. If he is not Iraqi, he does not gain any protection either, as he is a mercenary. In a counter-insurgency campaign, the rules are different, as both parties are judged by the laws of the civil power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
Does this mean American civilian contractors being killed is "legal"? Also, the person shot was not a mercenary because of point D. He was an Iraqi sunnite, not a foreign soldier.
You are using definitions of the rules of war from a bygone era, back in the first half of the 20th century. Nowadays, in the first half of the 21st century, things are completely different. Even the guys in current US administration don't follow those rules (as they've stated repeatedly) since the nature of this age and the conflicts in it is drastically different. The US Administration recognises this. The terrorists recognise this. The UN reconises this. That's why people have been tried for warcrimes in conflicts not officially described as wars.
 In what way wasn't the Korean War a war? Or hell, the Vietnam War for that matter! If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. Despite what officials have called it back then.
They are called Civil Wars. Also, again, people have been tried with commiting war crimes during civil wars.
So again, vodkakov and Kuciwalker, since neither of you has addressed this: People have been tried with war crimes in conflicts that weren't officially labeled as wars, nor considered by you to be wars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
Vodkakov: By your definition, what Slobodan did in Kosovo wasn't a war. By your definition, it was a counter-insurrgency campaign against the UCK and their supporters. However, he is being tried for warcrimes in The Hague.
So again: People have been tried with war crimes in conflicts that weren't officially labeled as wars, nor considered by you to be wars.
Last edited by Saint Marcus on 21-11-2004 at 03:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vodkakov
|
|
In the student union bar!
Aug 2004
time: 05:18
|
|
Er... no, what the Serbs did in Kosovo was genocide, which doesn't even class as a "war crime" - it's a crime against humanity, as it can occur without armed conflict. The Kosovo campaign was not counter-insurgency, as the Serbs did not act merely against the UCK, but also to remove all Albanians, the crime committed was genocide, which is not a war crime, but a 'crime against humanity'. A counter-insurgency is targetted against one or more groups, which threaten order in an area.
No where have I said that what occured was not illegal, as in a counter-insurgency it is still illegal. The difference I am trying to raise is the difference between a crime in a war and a crime during a counter-insurgency. I do not see why you have such a problem accepting this...
Last edited by vodkakov on 21-11-2004 at 03:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
Slobodan, as well as others, are being tried for warcrimes as well as crimes against humanity for what they did. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4012043.stm (Three Kosovo Albanians accused of committing war crimes during the Kosovo conflict). So once again, people are being tried for warcrimes in conflicts you do not consider to be wars.
And indeed, I do not believe there is a difference between a war and a "counter-insurgency" like the one in Iraq. The way the American military acted in Fallujah was the way they acted as if they were in a war. That's how they approached this. That's how they fought this. That's how they viewed this. That's how the world viewed this. If this was counter-insurgency, and not a war, I can't see the difference. When does counter-insurgency stop and (civil) war begin? The old Geneva definition no longer seems fully accurate in this day and age. And judging from UN jurispudence, they agree with this.
Last edited by Saint Marcus on 21-11-2004 at 03:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vodkakov
|
|
In the student union bar!
Aug 2004
time: 05:18
|
|
Where did I state that Kosovo was not a conflict? A counter-insurgency is an instance in which troops must be used in order to bolster civil authorities, like the police in order to maintain order.... there is a lot of difference between this and a war. In Kosovo, the Serbs, as I have already stated did not do this. They just moved the army in and started committing genocide (which is not a war crime, in fact according to the UN case notes, the only 'war crime' Milosevic is indicted with is murder (that's in Kosovo, there're also other indictments in Croatia and Bosnia)). This is different to a counter-insurgency campaign in that during a counter-insurgency campaign, the army acts in co-operation with the police and civil authorities in order to maintain order. Milosevic didn't maintain order, in fact he created disorder.
For the example of Iraq, Coalition troops are acting IN SUPPORT OF the civil authorities of Iraq, i.e. the Iraqi police. This is because the Iraqi police would not be able to cope alone with the security situation. The tactics used by the US are a different discussion, for the record, I believe them to be incorrect for fighting this type of action. Iraq is a counter-insurgency campaign, and therefore, traditional 'rules of war' do not apply, but civil law does. This is the point I am making.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2004 08:38
|