POWs

[Willem]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
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 ?

Of course not. He's already said that he doesn't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court for American citizens.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
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 ?

They would probably be court martialed based on historical precedent.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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)

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

Right there in black and white (specifically mentioned as a possibility), IIRC...

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: POWs

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
on this?

What do you think of the Sports Fishermen method (catch & release - unless you get a big one)

Sorry that's wrong. I proudly practice catch and release fishing. You release the big ones too

[KrazyHorse]

Clause 6 of article 4

6. 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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree with you if what you're saying is that Iraqi soldiers who have access to uniforms and who choose to selectively wear them or not to trick their opponents into thinking they're noncombatants are violating rules of war...

I was taking umbrage with the implication I perceived in your post that the rifle wasn't enough...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
I agree with you if what you're saying is that Iraqi soldiers who have access to uniforms and who choose to selectively wear them or not to trick their opponents into thinking they're noncombatants are violating rules of war...

I was taking umbrage with the implication I perceived in your post that the rifle wasn't enough...

Well, it gets down to that question of what "openly bearing arms" means. Snipers, guerillas, etc. will have a hard time. That's just in the nature of combat - they don't usually end up being POW's unless they're clever about surrendering.

The Iraqi militia units that are being engaged in various places are pretty close to non-uniformed, but they're clearly abiding by the openly bearing arms bit, so they're treated like any other POW.

[Alexander's Horse]

This POW business....Speaking as a former infantry officer I would say forget the law, its pretty meaningless to talk about POW's on the battlefield until they have made it safely into a POW holding camp and been tagged and bagged.

Up until that point they are not POW's but people you are holding and really just people who are lucky to still be alive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This POW business....Speaking as a former infantry officer I would say forget the law, its pretty meaningless to talk about POW's on the battlefield until they have made it safely into a POW holding camp and been tagged and bagged.

Up until that point they are not POW's but people you are holding but really just people who are lucky to still be alive.

I was talking about the legal distinctions, so you know what to write in your AAR to make sure everything's kosher. I didn't want to scare the impressionable youth with reality in the field.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I'd hope that people in the field would see only three classes:

1) Folks that are trying to kill me
2) Folks that aren't
3) Folks that were, but now aren't

Shoot the first class, ignore the second and round up the third.

[Alexander's Horse]

Sure.

Our SOP is if we assault a position its too late to put your hands up.

[KrazyHorse]

And so far the stuff from the Iraqi side that I've seen so far ("interviews" with POWs etc.) is pretty mild. Nothing like the last time when they were being forced to read accusatory statements...

Prolly a violation nonetheless, but similar in scale to propaganda shots of Iraqi POWs which have been floating around.