Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[vodkakov]

I think I know the case, but I dunno who tried him. It would seem reasonable to assume that a lot of lawyers got paid a lot of money though

[vodkakov]

I found a link http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/stor...514602,00.html
It seems Japanese authorities are dealing with it...

[Saint Marcus]

Yeah, that's the case I was talking about. Thanks!

It's been 3 years now...I wonder what the situation is...

[Ned]

vodkavov and St. Marcus, good debate.

I presume that your definitions of a mercenary, American troops themselves are mercenaries because they are not Iraqis.

As to the foreign fighters, they seem to be working for Zarqawi. This makes them Al Qaeda because Zarqawi is working for bin Laden. Also, at that Zarqawi's base in Falluja we found a wall mural which stated that it was a base for the Al Qaeda organization.

Now I know that the US administration has an opinion that captured members of Al Qaeda are not POWs, but what are they?

Back to the question of the jurisdiction of the international criminal Court, who could bring a complaint against the Marine if the Marine Corps decides not to prosecute him, which appears likely in my view.

[vodkakov]

No, US troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government (apparently), so I think that would qualify them as being counted as legitimate, as they are technically party to the conflict.

I guess you could argue that Al Qaeda are legally mercenaries, as they seem to fit a lot of the qualifications:

*being recruited abroad to engage in hostilities (Art. 47 s.2(a))
*taking part in hostilities (Art. 47 s.2(b))
*not being nationals of either of the parties to the conflict (Art. 47 s.2(d))
*nor are they members of the armed forces party to the conflict (Art.47 s.2(e))

So, I guess you could make the argument that Geneva would count them as mercenaries, so perhaps the US does have grounds for its claim of unlawful combatants...

Personally, I doubt the ICC would even bother with such a case, given the expense involved. Realistically, I don't think the US could not punish him in some way - even if it's a dishonourable discharge - given the media pressure.

(Btw. these aren't my definitions of a mercenary, they come from Article 47 of the most recent Geneva Convention )

[FredKarno]

this evil world

All this hoo-ha about one bloke being killed off is pathetic. Much worse things have occured/are occuring in Iraq. Dropping great big high-explosive bombs (non-weopons off mass destruction) on groups of civvies for example. Such a thing has even been filmed and broadcast on the telly. No hoo-ha.
But then, we've been doing it for a long time now. We god-fearing peaceful-loving democratic westerners are expert at this. We perfected the process in World War Two.
Sadism comes in many forms.
No hoo-ha.

[vodkakov]

I'm not denying that...

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm so glade Kuci says Vietnam wasn't a war.

For a moment I believed the propaganda that people died there.

and family

[Saint Marcus]

vodkavov and St. Marcus, good debate.

Thank you.

I guess you could argue that Al Qaeda are legally mercenaries, as they seem to fit a lot of the qualifications:

That indeed applies to non-Iraqi Al Qaida members. However, it seems that 90% of the Al Qaida fighters who fought in Fallujah, were Iraqi sunnites (including the guy killed). So what should one call those people? Where does insurgency vs counter-insurgency stop and civil war begin?

[vodkakov]

I think the difference between civil war and insurgency is that in a civil war you have two (or more) sides of one single nation (or even race/nationality) that fight one another in open conflict. Insurgency implies that one (or even more) sides acts in a manner, which for want of a better word could be described as terrorism or guerrilla warfare. Insurgency implies that one side acts to overthrow or convince the existing state of its views using tactics not associated with traditional open warfare where sides are more clearly defined. Insurgents tend to blend with the civil populace and therefore traditional tactics are relatively ineffective. Though I must admit the line is rather blurred. One could also make the point that with a more internationalised world, it's rather difficult to have an isolated civil war. Spain would be a good example, as would many of those during the Cold War, such as Angola.

And yes, I did forget to specify that the only members of Al Qaeda that would classify as mercenaries would be the foreign fighters.

[Ned]

The war that was begun in March of 2003 did not end. The people who are fighting in Falluja and elsewhere in the country are the former regime, its military and its allies. The fact that we formed an interim government in the meantime changes nothing. Recall that the Japanese installed an interim government in China even while they continued the war. The fact that there was an interim government did not change that war into a civil war between one Chinese government and another Chinese government. That war remained at all times Japan against China.

[vodkakov]

I don't think Al Qaeda and Saddam can be considered 'allies'. Afterall Baathist philosophy has more in common with Stalinist communism than with any more Islamist train of thought. And communism being inherantly atheist... I think you get the picture. The former regime elements argument is a joke, they don't even say that in the media (in the UK) anymore. The open war ended after the fall of Saddam, the conflict moved onto a different stage, now it's an insurgency, as the opponents of the US do not represent any recognised armed force (in fact the Geneva Convention would not even recognise them for the reasons I listed earlier).

The insurgents are guerrilla fighters, but do not necessarily form one cohesive fighting organisation as with Mao's partisans (or with Jiang's nationalists for that matter). They do not represent a state, and many are most likely opportunist gangs, which see money in the anarchy that exists. That is why this is a counter-insurgency campaign, as the ultimate aim of the Coalition (inter alia) is to establish order within Iraq.

[MrFun]

Yeah . . . . . . .



the Vietnam War was not a war -- it's just that more than 50,000 American soldiers and over one million Vietnamese died, playing in the mud, making mud pies.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yeah . . . . . . .



the Vietnam War was not a war -- it's just that more than 50,000 American soldiers and over one million Vietnamese died, playing in the mud, making mud pies.

sad..it was referred to as a Police Action....

but many of us lost family members

sad...pawns of politics..

[vodkakov]

Vietnam was different to Iraq in that the North Vietnamese government provided backing and logistical support for one main group in South Vietnam, the NLF. The North Vietnamese government also sent PAVN troops south to fight against the US backed government. The groups operating in Iraq do not fit the standard (Geneva's) interpretation of an army. The groups also do not (so it would seem) have official sanction and backing from a state. This is different to Vietnam. The NLF had a large logistical network within SouthVietnam unlike with Iraq, where there are many groups acting with different agendas.

I'm guessing that the Vietnam comments're addressed at Kuci's comments. No where did I state that Vietnam was not a conflict even though it might not fit the traditional style of war, but the sides were more clear cut in Vietnam. In Iraq, there are many groups, many of which are probably just opportunist criminals.