|
Is this a war crime.? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
Spacey,
You didn't make a legal argument on the matter, but the clauses you highlighted make the case that the convention does not apply in this instance.
Article 4.6 refers to NON-OCCUPIED inhabitants.
Iraq was under the occupation of coalition forces and is now under the occupation of the Iraqi regime who has sceeded control of its security to coalition forces.
Second neglecting that 'little' fact the second part of the paragraph states that [inhabitants recieve protection] "provided they [the Iraqi terrorist] carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.".
Obviously the Iraqi insergents are not respecting the laws and customs of war and hence do not fall under the protections of Geneva.
A case may also be made that they do not carry arms openly (afterall, no uniforms or insignia).
So there you have it, three reasons according to your own quote from Geneva Convention why these individuals should not be entitled to its protection. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Article 4.6 refers to NON-OCCUPIED inhabitants.
Iraq was under the occupation of coalition forces and is now under the occupation of the Iraqi regime who has sceeded control of its security to coalition forces.
Second neglecting that 'little' fact the second part of the paragraph states that [inhabitants recieve protection] "provided they [the Iraqi terrorist] carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.".
Obviously the Iraqi insergents are not respecting the laws and customs of war and hence do not fall under the protections of Geneva.
A case may also be made that they do not carry arms openly (afterall, no uniforms or insignia).
So there you have it, three reasons according to your own quote from Geneva Convention why these individuals should not be entitled to its protection. |
You're stating a legal conclusion, but i don't think there are enough facts to state a legal conlusion, much less make one. I stated that in my original statement.
Stating that obviously the insurgents are not follwing the customs of war does not prove it, or make it so. In any case, we are concerned with that person, not the blanket term "insurgents."
Iraq is occupied by Iraqies? When does the Iraqi occupation of Iraq end? When its occupied by another country? Correct if i'm wrong, but under your reasoning there is no such thing as an unoccupied nation. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
You're stating a legal conclusion, but i don't think there are enough facts to state a legal conlusion, much less make one. I stated that in my original statement. |
I'm only basing this on the limited fact that I know this Iraqi did not wear uniform, nor that the vast majority (if any) of Iraqi insurgents wear a uniform or identifying insignia. If they did, we would have known in 5 sec if the guy was a civilian or militant.
| quote: |
Stating that obviously the insurgents are not follwing the customs of war does not prove it, or make it so. In any case, we are concerned with that person, not the blanket term "insurgents." |
No thats not true. Geneva protects the inhabitants of an occupied or un-occupied country so long as they abide by Geneva (they don't need to be signees of the convention, just abide by it). Clearly the inhabitants of Fullujah have not followed the customs of war and hence are not entitled to the protections of those customs.
| quote: |
Iraq is occupied by Iraqies? When does the Iraqi occupation of Iraq end? When its occupied by another country? Correct if i'm wrong, but under your reasoning there is no such thing as an unoccupied nation. |
Yes, Iraq is occupied by Iraqis as funny as it sounds this is how it is. Now you are right - there is no such thing as unoccupied nation (or the equivlant would be an unsoveriegn nation). However, typically Geneva dose not apply in such cases, because Geneva does not govern the internal politics of nations. Iraq is free to police its people how it wishes, it can torture them, it can shot and kill them, and Geneva would not care (but they might violate some other accords in the process). Iraq as a soverign entity (which it is now) can decide how to police themselves. Iraq has decided to have the Americans police them.
Now the case could be made that none of the insurgents in Iraq are indeed entitled to protection by Geneva even if they were to follow its customs. However, making such a case would be hard as Geneva does allow armed organized groups in rebellion to enjoy its protections.
Now where the line between policing and civil war is exactly is a grey one, but clearly what is happening in Fallujah (not say in the pacified Kurdish regions of Iraq) is an equivlant of a organized civil rebellion. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I'm only basing this on the limited fact that I know this Iraqi did not wear uniform, nor that the vast majority (if any) of Iraqi insurgents wear a uniform or identifying insignia. If they did, we would have known in 5 sec if the guy was a civilian or militant. |
You're drawing several conclusion, that I don't think you can. One, that this person is an Iraqi. Two, that this person is an insurgent. You can make reasonable inferences but not conlusions. That's why I stated that there are issues that are unclear.
| quote: | | No thats not true. Geneva protects the inhabitants of an occupied or un-occupied country so long as they abide by Geneva (they don't need to be signees of the convention, just abide by it). Clearly the inhabitants of Fullujah have not followed the customs of war and hence are not entitled to the protections of those customs. |
Again, you are making broad statements and conclusions about abiding by the customs of war and refer to the inhabitants of Fallujah, not the insurgents as you did in the previous statements. I won't comment on your analysis of the protections provided by the Convention because I haven' read it in its entirety.
| quote: | Yes, Iraq is occupied by Iraqis as funny as it sounds this is how it is. Now you are right - there is no such thing as unoccupied nation (or the equivlant would be an unsoveriegn nation). However, typically Geneva dose not apply in such cases, because Geneva does not govern the internal politics of nations. Iraq is free to police its people how it wishes, it can torture them, it can shot and kill them, and Geneva would not care (but they might violate some other accords in the process). Iraq as a soverign entity (which it is now) can decide how to police themselves. Iraq has decided to have the Americans police them.
Now the case could be made that none of the insurgents in Iraq are indeed entitled to protection by Geneva even if they were to follow its customs. However, making such a case would be hard as Geneva does allow armed organized groups in rebellion to enjoy its protections.
Now where the line between policing and civil war is exactly is a grey one, but clearly what is happening in Fallujah (not say in the pacified Kurdish regions of Iraq) is an equivlant of a organized civil rebellion. |
Again, I won't comment on your analysis of the protections provided by the Convention because I haven' read it in its entirety. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: |
. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
|
The iraqi forces, the forces of the iraqi government also fought with US troops. So they aren't really technically resisting invading forces as they are killing their own government troops as well. They have had plenty of time to form themselves into cohesive unit, albeit units without uniforms. They have also not carried arms openly and have on nearly every occasion broke the rules of law by masquarading as citizens, using citizens as human shields, using surrender to attack the enemy, torturing and killing civilians on tv, etc. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
You're drawing several conclusion, that I don't think you can. One, that this person is an Iraqi. |
First I am drawing only one conclusion. The other 'conclusions' are assumptions.
All I am assuming is that the guy was a un-uinformed individual in the combat zone of Fallujah that was either bearing arms, not bearing arms openly, or not bearing arms at all.
| quote: |
Two, that this person is an insurgent. You can make reasonable inferences but not conlusions. That's why I stated that there are issues that are unclear. |
Ya, I am assuming this guy is an insurgent. But that assumption has no effect on my conclusion. So you can neglect it if you wish.
| quote: |
Again, you are making broad statements and conclusions about abiding by the customs of war and refer to the inhabitants of Fallujah, not the insurgents as you did in the previous statements. |
Look how Geneva is written is basically as a convention - a contract betwen two parties. What's special about it is that you never have to sign it to be protected by it so long as you follow it (sort of like some standards enforced by trade associations). If you don't follow it you don't get any of its protections (any of the benifits of the association).
Now I am using specific incidents (although without specific reference because I am not writing this for university and hence have no motivation to google newspapers for articles) such as the fact that the insurgents do not wear uniform, do not wear arms openly, misuse neutrality protections, and violate just about every clause of the fourth Geneva convention. Even if these violations are not widespread if and when they occur one could at least aruge that coalition forces no longer need abide by the protections of Geneva. (What I am saying here is that lets assume its just one isolated silly incident where a guy is shooting an RPG out of an ambulance. The US troops despite the fact there there is no mass violation of Geneva, just this one clause, in this one incident, can in turn neglect this specific claus in this specific incident just as the enemy has done and return fire (instead of uphold the ideals of Geneva and get RPGed to death).... I mean law when you get down to the root of it is pretty much common sense..)
Now the fact that there were militants in a protected site (it was a Mosque lets recall, and if it is not protected under neutral, civilian, religious, purposes it is at least protected under the Hauge Convention for culture and art). Now the very fact that one person shot at US forces from a Mosque inturn nulifies its protection. Whether there are citizens in the Mosque or not in there is no longer a (legal) concern on the part of the US forces. What is clear is that there is a militant in there, and a militant who has violated the Geneva conventions.
| quote: |
I won't comment on your analysis of the protections provided by the Convention because I haven' read it in its entirety. |
Its a pretty easy read, pretty common sense stuff. Its a nice read, because when you think about it people back 50-80 years still got it right for today.
| quote: | | Again, I won't comment on your analysis of the protections provided by the Convention because I haven' read it in its entirety. |
Looks like somebody has got a lot of reading to do:p :
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
(You'll wanna start with Geneva III and IV) |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
|
A first hand source guys. First hand. I'll be honest I was gonna give the guy a break but read that. |
|
|
| Dervish |
but then again.......
| quote: | It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
|
think it's possible no-one will ever know. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
A first hand source guys. First hand. I'll be honest I was gonna give the guy a break but read that. |
But why did he not have a same reaction with the other guy who the journalist percieve as more dangerous if he just wanted to kill indiscriminantly? What about the specific insurgent that he killed did he percieve as dangerous? We're still missing that critical peice of information. I'm all for prosecuting the guy if he was malicious or indiscriminantly killing without good cause. I'd like to hear some additional first hand accounts. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
Yoepus -
Thanks for the link. I try to read it when I get a chance. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
But why did he not have a same reaction with the other guy who the journalist percieve as more dangerous if he just wanted to kill indiscriminantly? What about the specific insurgent that he killed did he percieve as dangerous? We're still missing that critical peice of information. I'm all for prosecuting the guy if he was malicious or indiscriminantly killing without good cause. I'd like to hear some additional first hand accounts. |
Yeah I know what your saying (tho I think it's possible he wigged out, understandable, not his fault, but perhaps the guy who cleared him for duties fault, tho obviously done in a war situation).
In fact I'm starting to think its just a tragic accident, given that the guy was no threat and worse.... was known to the american military to not be a threat. Whos responsible? Who didn't pass on the information? But obviously its a war and I basicly we don't have enough information. |
|
|
| rez |
| I couldn't make anything out, who killed what |
|
|
|
|
