POWs

[Dis]

CSS?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
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.

The first class is more like:
Folks that may have the potential to bother attempting to kill me at some point. In other words, I don't care if he's a cook 30 meters away from his rifle and he's the only guy around, he's an enemy soldier, and his fate is really iffy at the moment.

The second class is:
Well, they appear to be civilians, but either keep them out of our security zone, or check them out carefully as possible hostiles. And if they're armed and in civilian clothes, concealing their weapons, waste 'em.

The third class is:
Well, unless all resistance in the area has ceased and there is clearly an ordered surrender of all enemy forces in the area, it's too little, too late for you, *******, I don't have time to waste ascertaining your intentions and capabilities while your buddies are still trying to kill me and mine.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dissident
CSS?

Combat Support Services, i.e. she's a REMF, not a line animal, and she and her unit unfortunately got out in the wrong place at the wrong time, without escort by a combat force.

[Alexander's Horse]

More surrender ambushes means less prisoners.

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

If I was on the losing side of a battle, somehow managed to survive and was made a POW I would consider myself exceedingly lucky just to be alive.

[Dis]

yeah I knew she was a support unit. But they are still operating in enemy held territory.

Normally she would not be doing a hazardous job in enemy held territory I guess. There was no way to predict where the pockets of resistance would come up.

But it still seems strange. In the navy women would intentionally get pregnant to avoid going on deployments. Many would get pregnant while out at sea. I'm not certain of the rules about single mothers though.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Dissident
yeah I knew she was a support unit. But they are still operating in enemy held territory.

Normally she would not be doing a hazardous job in enemy held territory I guess. There was no way to predict where the pockets of resistance would come up.

But it still seems strange. In the navy women would intentionally get pregnant to avoid going on deployments. Many would get pregnant while out at sea. I'm not certain of the rules about single mothers though.

isnt it against the rules for a woman to get pregnant out at sea?

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

how exactly does it work, out of curiosity? how are Iraqi POWs being treated? my sources are probably quite biased...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
More surrender ambushes means less prisoners.

That's part of the Iraqi intention, no doubt, which indicates to me that thinks aren't all kosher with the Saddamites - they wouldn't bother (it's a poor way to trigger an ambush to give people some idea in advance you're there) unless the goal was to make it harder for their conscripts to surrender, and to make us a lot more suspicious and prone to shoot on sight.

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

If I was on the losing side of a battle, somehow managed to survive and was made a POW I would consider myself exceedingly lucky just to be alive.

Spot on.

[Alexander's Horse]

It could be some soldiers were genuinely trying to surrender and others still fighting on saw an opportunity in the situation.

[Dis]

you can't force a woman not to get pregnant.

The feminists would cry a storm!!

But there are rules against fraternizing (depends on rank and superiors) and against having sex on the ship. But you can't control what they do in port. And navy ships have many fan rooms Even gay guys have been caught in fan rooms.

[Alexander's Horse]

too much information.

[Tolls]

"It could be some soldiers were genuinely trying to surrender and others still fighting on saw an opportunity in the situation."

Something that is quite common...there were lots of incidents of this on the western front in '45, as well as in Russia in '41/'42. The nutcases (fanatics, whatever) will take advantage of any situation...it's a bit of a pisser for the poor sods trying to surrender, but then they are on the side of the loons and consequently will get crapped on.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Trip
There's a difference between media housed by democratic countries getting a view of us handling surrendered Iraqi POWs, and a Saddam-sanctioned parading of captured US POWs.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

I fail to see the difference. The Geneva convention doesn't grant democratic countries an exception from Article 13.

[Uncle Sparky]

You also must remember that the Geneva Covention was written prior to global mediaization ( I just invented a word! Lets all use it! )

I don't think the drafters envisioned a world where battles, and the aftermath, could be broadcast live into peoples homes around the world.

Do the rules need to be updated ? If so, what would be reasonable to balance global mediaization?

[Dis]

yes there have already been talks about rewriting the rules esp. with regards to public humiliation. Their original intent was probably to keep prisoners from being put in cages on public display.

I'm still concerned about these people. I don't think they are going to survive. They will either be killed by allied bombs or killed by the Iraqis. I just hope they aren't tortured in the meantime.

[Tolls]

They weren't killed last time, so I'm not too sure why they would be killed by Iraqis now. Except possibly by Uday...if he's still around.