Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[Tattila the Hun]

How long have these guys been fighting? After some time, I'm quessing you just don't care.

Just curious, how many soldiers were tried during the WWII pasific campaign because of incidents like these? I believe the japanese at the time had a nasty habit of going kamikaze on enemies, even after being wounded and supposedly out of action. Of course they never even pretended to surrender...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
You'd think they'd at least complain about the language.

I don't know. Right before that a youth pastor was on, and he justified the action too.

[Arrian]

Not real sophisticated, I guess, Kid. One can be for the operation overall and condemn this particular act. But that's just too nuanced for our righty talk show folks, I guess.

There are mixed signals coming out of Fallujah (outside of this, I mean). There are definitely some people who are pleased that the city has been retaken. Others are pissed because they lost a family member in the bombing and fighting. Only time will tell, really, what the overall effect ends up being.

-Arrian

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
How long have these guys been fighting? After some time, I'm quessing you just don't care.

Just curious, how many soldiers were tried during the WWII pasific campaign because of incidents like these? I believe the japanese at the time had a nasty habit of going kamikaze on enemies, even after being wounded and supposedly out of action. Of course they never even pretended to surrender...

I'm not sure how many, but wouldn't be surprised if it was none. Everyone got a coup de grace shot just to be sure in combat.

Of course the Marines in WW2 were desperate to get prisoners for intelligence purposes, and went to some lengths to get them. But very few Japanese soldiers would surrender. Many of the PoWs who were captured were actually Korean laborers.

[Kidlicious]

Arrian,

I doubt if they considered there kid being the Iraqi.

[Patroklos]

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.

[Kropotkin]

Nice creative use of a law there. So now any civilians that are excecuted could be labeled a spie.

[vodkakov]

Has there been an official declaration of war? It would seem logical to assume that without any war, 'rules of war' are irrelevant. Surely civilian law would still hold primacy during an insurgency (as opposed to a war). Civilian law in all countries would consider this an illegal act.

[Pekka]

"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.

[Patroklos]

Now show me the spie law, that gives anyone right to execute a spie without proper procedure and hearing?

I don't need to, because I didn't say that. I just said execution and you took liberties

Of course you try them first. But that is the case of the prisoners. THIS person was an unsurrendered combatant who do to situational reasons was and should have been considered a threat. I won't lose any sleep tonight

[Pekka]

I always take liberties .

But I think it's clear that unless there was a 'search and destory' warrant on his ass, then he can't be killed, but should be taken into custody. Because how else can we know he's a spie? And even if he was, then we still need to check out what the rules say that he can be killed. I think he still can't be shot on sight if he poses no threat.

[Kropotkin]

Something wrong with taking liberies? The liberties you just took with the Geneva convention would make a geneva whore blush up to her ears.

[Patroklos]

Something wrong with taking liberies? The liberties you just took with the Geneva convention would make a geneva whore blush up to her ears.

Except of course, that is what it actually says. The whore is probobly blushing over you trying to cover insurgents under her dress, and god knows what they are doing under there.

The whole espionage thing is a catch, not a rule. They are not actually spies but it is a good way to keep soldiers on the battlefield and out of the houses, to minimize civilians getting mistaken the other way liek Vodka said. Unfortunetly because college political science kids think it is cool to be a revolutionary, we don't apply this anymore and so know we fight in cities.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm amazed. I new this happened, but it seems the US can't get away with anything in this war.

Or perhaps this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm amazed. I new this happened, but it seems the US can't get away with anything in this war.

Or perhaps this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I doubt there is any iceberg to begin with, seeing as the strong likliehood that American soldiers that commit atrocities or violate combat rules of conduct are the exception, rather than the rule.