Look as This Man Gets HIT!

[Goshin]

In fact, you must respect a man whos willing to die for his cause. Whether or not you agree with it, the real men are out there fighting it out in the warzone. I have great respect for both the American soldier and the man who shot him. Why? Because its war, and both people are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. That's pretty noble.

I have enormous respect for a man who is willing to die for his cause. So much so, I feel all but compelled to assist him in achieving his wishes. :mrgreen:


I prefer General Patton's take on the matter.

 

[Deuce]

Sure.

By uniformed members of a nation's military.

If you engage in combat against troops with no uniform, you're a war criminal.

Sorry, but the Geneva Conventions aren't just a "bash the United States" license, though they're frequently used as such.

"Terrorist" and "war criminal" are not the same thing. "Blowing up civilians to create fear" and "not wearing a uniform" are not equivalent crimes.

 

[spud_meister]

They also must have a recognizable, fixed, and distinctive sign of who they are, recognizable at a distance. As well as an established chain of command.

No, read the part I quoted again.

The Protocol requires combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. What is more, in particular instances (occupied territories, so-called asymetric conflicts setting regular armed forces against guerrilla fighters), it suffices for guerrilla fighters to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by carrying their arms openly (i.e. visibly) during military engagements and before launching an attack.

It states that in a-symmetrical or guerrilla warfare, or in the case of fighting an occupying force, they only need to distinguish themselves by bearing arms openly. In the sentence before the one I quoted it clearly states that the rules were relaxed for guerrilla warfare.

Consequently, the Protocol relaxed the obligation for combatants to wear a distinctive sign at all times, something which guerrilla fighters consider an obstacle to successful operations.

 

[Harshaw]

No, read the part I quoted again.



It states that in a-symmetrical or guerrilla warfare, or in the case of fighting an occupying force, they only need to distinguish themselves by bearing arms openly. In the sentence before the one I quoted it clearly states that the rules were relaxed for guerrilla warfare.

That may be what this dude says, but that's not what the Conventions say.

 

[Harshaw]

"Terrorist" and "war criminal" are not the same thing. "Blowing up civilians to create fear" and "not wearing a uniform" are not equivalent crimes.

Yeah, and you'll note I didn't say they were "terrorists." Or, perhaps you won't. Won't change the fact that I didn't.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, read the part I quoted again.



It states that in a-symmetrical or guerrilla warfare, or in the case of fighting an occupying force, they only need to distinguish themselves by bearing arms openly. In the sentence before the one I quoted it clearly states that the rules were relaxed for guerrilla warfare.

My understanding of the situation in Afgh. is that most of the guerrilla fighters do not carry their arms openly, nor do they make their allegiance known before trying to ambush troops or set off bombs. That's exactly the type of thing that the Conventions were drawn to exclude.

 

[Harshaw]

Correct. Thus, why it's a war crime.

 

[spud_meister]

That may be what this dude says, but that's not what the Conventions say.

What I'm quoting is a summary of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. Additionally the site it's on the the International Committee of the Red Cross, if you can find a source of greater authority that contradicts what I'm saying, be my guest.

 

[Harshaw]

What I'm quoting is a summary of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. Additionally the site it's on the the International Committee of the Red Cross, if you can find a source of greater authority that contradicts what I'm saying, be my guest.

No, you're not. You're quoting an article that the ICRC posted, which is written about the Protocols.

As for a source of greater authority, how about, oh, the Geneva Conventions?

 

[spud_meister]

My understanding of the situation in Afgh. is that most of the guerrilla fighters do not carry their arms openly, nor do they make their allegiance known before trying to ambush troops or set off bombs. That's exactly the type of thing that the Conventions were drawn to exclude.

Do you have a source for that, I'm having difficulty finding out how most combat situations on Afghanistan start, and whether a force must declare itself before carrying out an ambush.

And additionally, if what you say is true, would not the Allied forces use of predator drones also be in violation of the Geneva conventions?

 

[spud_meister]

No, you're not. You're quoting an article that the ICRC posted, which is written about the Protocols.

As for a source of greater authority, how about, oh, the Geneva Conventions?

Certainly, Protocol 1, article 44, number 3.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

 

[RightinNYC]

Do you have a source for that, I'm having difficulty finding out how most combat situations on Afghanistan start, and whether a force must declare itself before carrying out an ambush.

I don't have exact numbers, for the obvious reasons. I'm just basing it off of my impressions.

And additionally, if what you say is true, would not the Allied forces use of predator drones also be in violation of the Geneva conventions?

No, why? We've openly declared war and are using an organized military.

Certainly, Protocol 1, article 44, number 3.

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

That only applies to "combatants" as defined in article 43. That requires an organizational structure. Moreover, I think you're reading that article as excusing too much. If a random guy sets a roadside bomb, he's not a lawful combatant. If a random guy pulls a gun out of his closet and shoots at troops from his window, he's not a lawful combatant.

 

[Harshaw]

Certainly, Protocol 1, article 44, number 3.



International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Dude.

We're talking about engaging US soldiers in open battle. What "nature" of the hostilities could possibly prevent distinguishing themselves from civilians?

And to the extent we're NOT talking about that, indeed, hiding among civilians is their chief asset. Has been all along.

 

[spud_meister]

I don't have exact numbers, for the obvious reasons. I'm just basing it off of my impressions.

Fair enough

No, why? We've openly declared war and are using an organized military.

Are they not too?

That only applies to "combatants" as defined in article 43. That requires an organizational structure. Moreover, I think you're reading that article as excusing too much. If a random guy sets a roadside bomb, he's not a lawful combatant. If a random guy pulls a gun out of his closet and shoots at troops from his window, he's not a lawful combatant.

But we're not talking about a random guy, we're talking about Taliban combatants, who, by being a soldier for the Taliban, are combatants under article 43.

 

[RightinNYC]

Are they not too?

I believe that the bulk of insurgents in Afghanistan are not part of an organized military group that has formally declared war on the US.

But we're not talking about a random guy, we're talking about Taliban combatants, who, by being a soldier for the Taliban, are combatants under article 43.

If they are part of an organized military group and act in accordance with the other requirements, then yes, they are. If they don't, then they're not.

 

[spud_meister]

I believe that the bulk of insurgents in Afghanistan are not part of an organized military group that has formally declared war on the US.



If they are part of an organized military group and act in accordance with the other requirements, then yes, they are. If they don't, then they're not.

Well, the Taliban are an organised military force that have declared war upon the invading forces, so for the purpose of resolving this debate, shall we agree that they are not war criminals within the context of this discussion, however unaffiliated insurgents are war criminals?

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, the Taliban are an organised military force that have declared war upon the invading forces, so for the purpose of resolving this debate, shall we agree that they are not war criminals within the context of this discussion,

If they comply with all the other requirements. As I mentioned earlier, I have my doubts as to whether the bulk of them do.

however unaffiliated insurgents are war criminals?

Well, they're certainly unlawful combatants.

 

[Hoplite]

Well, they're certainly unlawful combatants.

Why do you classify them as such?

 

[RightinNYC]

Why do you classify them as such?

Because the terms of the Conventions clearly exclude them from being classified as lawful combatants.

 

[Hoplite]

Because the terms of the Conventions clearly exclude them from being classified as lawful combatants.

Alright, which terms specifically and can you cite specific examples of a single Afghan resistance force violating these terms?

 

[RightinNYC]

Alright, which terms specifically and can you cite specific examples of a single Afghan resistance force violating these terms?

At a minimum, in order to be a lawful combatant, you have to be part of an organized military force that openly displays its weapons when engaging or preparing to engage in combat. Anyone who does not satisfy those requirements is an unlawful combatant. Not sure why that's controversial.

 

[Hoplite]

At a minimum, in order to be a lawful combatant, you have to be part of an organized military force that openly displays its weapons when engaging or preparing to engage in combat. Anyone who does not satisfy those requirements is an unlawful combatant. Not sure why that's controversial.

That goes against the very nature of a resistance. A resistance that does that is almost guaranteed to fail. I dont see how it could be unlawful for a population to resist an invading force.

 

[RightinNYC]

That goes against the very nature of a resistance. A resistance that does that is almost guaranteed to fail. I dont see how it could be unlawful for a population to resist an invading force.

Be that as it may, that's what the Geneva Convention says.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Be that as it may, that's what the Geneva Convention says.

You may believe that it does, but can you support the claim with evidence?

 

[Andalublue]

You may believe that it does, but can you support the claim with evidence?

You may remeber that this discussion was kicked off by my questioning whether we can classify the Afghan resistance fighters as 'terrorists'. This, surely, is quite a different matter to whther or not they fight strictly according to the terms of the Geneva Convention. I'd argue that those fighting face-to-face, hand-to-hand with Allied forces are not terrorists, they are simply the enemy of the Allies and their Afghan allies.

Are they in contravention of the Geneva Convention? Almost certainly, in many different ways, but then again, so are the Allies on occasion, it appears:
BBC News - Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture'