 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Rumsfeld raised an interesting point re: the captured coalition troops. It is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention to "publicly display" POWs. Is this possible, or practical in the current media saturated war?
Will the US ask or even require the American corespondents in the field to stop filming captured Iraqis? ... or was Rumsfeld only concerned about the rights of Coalition troops? |
I can't address Rumsfeld's concern, but the technical difference is whether the POW's are made to address the camera, make propaganda statements (a la USN Lt. Geoff Zahn in GW I). Simply being filmed at some reasonable distance in the process of being captured or handled subsequently isn't enough to be a violation - there has to be some (higher than normal for being a POW) level of coercion, humiliation, or use as a political object.
quote:
Will both sides in this conflict treat POWs as prisoners or as detainees without rights - like those captured by the US, Canadians and other forces in Afghanistan? Have the Coalition Forces made any statements on this? |
There's a solid basis for treating the al Qaeda and some of the Taleban as unlawful combatants. Most Iraqi POW's will clearly be POW's, but according to early reports out of An Nasiriyah, you had some Iraqis wearing civilian clothing over their uniforms. That can get you summarily tried and shot, if not simply shot in the field. Einheits Stielau in the Ardennes offensive in WW 2 is a good example.
quote:
What do you think of the Sports Fishermen method (catch & release - unless you get a big one) of dealing with Iraqi combatants? Are there any precidents to this? Isn't it rather dangerous? |
There are precendents, Grant at Vicksburg in 1863 being one. The treatment of these EPW's will depend a lot on the units they come from, and indications of their general state of uniform, supply and equipment. Obviously IRG prisoners won't get treated this way, but a lot of third-grade conscript units that never wanted to fight in the first place will. Their weapons will be taken, they'll be checked medically if wounded, fed, given some food and water, and sent down the road. Better for them, and better for us to not have to deal with them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, that is the distinction no? Guys walking up to be taken into custody are not yet technically in custody.
Particulars, technicalities..the wonders of law. |
If they're in a recognized posture of surrender and in control, i.e. clearly in range of ground forces and under your weapons, they're POWs. Otherwise, it would be legal to simply shoot them on the spot, and it isn't.
Now, if there's any question that they're in control - i.e. the area is still contested, they're at range, or able to rapidly get under cover, or anything that makes taking them into custody questionable, i.e. you're not really in control of them, then they're still hostile combatants, and when in doubt, wipe 'em out.
That's why getting to be a POW is a risky business, but the moment they become protected doesn't start with touching them or searching them or confining them - if they don't resist, once you establish control, they're protected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
This has been very informative - I sincerely thank you for your responses.
Is there an agreed upon definition for unlawful combatants in international law? Would the same definition apply to both the al Qaeda (a nationless army) and people such as Iraqi citizens defending their own country sans uniform ? |
There's four criteria in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. Citizens out of uniform are presumed to be non-combatants, and entitled to those protections, so if they arm themselves and fight without wearing some uniform or markings distinguishable at a distance (a beret and armband would work, it just has to be fairly consistent and distinguishable at a distance), then they're unlawful combatants. Members of regular and irregular militia, and partisans wearing something that meets the distinguishable at a distance criteria are lawful combatants.
The four basic criteria are:
They must be members of forces of recognized parties to the conflict. (mercenaries may or may not be, depends on if they're integrated into a recognized parties forces - this is one area where al Qaeda didn't meet the criteria in Afghanistan.
They must abide by the rules and customs of war. (i.e. genocidal killers in uniform don't count.)
They must be in uniform, or wearing distinguishing markings which can be distinguished at a distance.
They must be part of an organized command structure, subject to orders by higher-ups responsible for their control and conduct. (i.e. no Rambos or indivduals fighting for the hell of it. The purpose of this requirement is to distinguish legal vs. extralegal partisan and militia members, and to facilitate ordered surrenders and cease fires)
quote:
Speculate - G.W. Bush stated today, rather succinctly, that anyone treating POW inappropriately will be tried as war criminals. If he is faced with incontrovertible proof that coalition forces inflicted mistreat upon Iraqi POWs, would he send them to The Hague ? |
In all cases involving US forces, (on either end), they'll likely be tried by US military tribunals or courts-martial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
Civilians who arm themselves for defense who do not have time to get together a uniform of some kind are presumed to be POWs if they openly carry arms, MtG. |
I kind of lump the Kalashnikov and web belt as being "distinguishing markings" which can be seen at a distance. 
Seriously, though, you're misconstruing the intent. The idea here (and the GC has a somewhat dated view of combat) is like the minutemen of the American revolution - showing up, in plain sight, with your weapon of choice, because you have no time to do anything else.
In An Nasiriyah, there's no question of time any more - there's no sudden approach, and people concealing weapons, ducking in and out of cover, etc., don't count. That's the practical combat situation on the ground, not something like a disorganized irregular force trying to retake the town from outside, or make a last ditch stand in a fortified position. Open carrying of arms gets around the aversion to guerilla fighting in the laws and customs of land warfare, and also the identification issue.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2003 06:26
|