You can throw grenades at Americans, but you can't take tinkling on yourself?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Armed soldiers on the battle field who do not wear recognizable military uniforms are unlawful combatants who are explicitly striped of all protections under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. He was armed, he was a combatant, he murdered medical personnel who were fulfilling their duty to care for the sick and injured, and he was not in a military uniform. This case is open and shut.

Under the Geneva Convention he could have legally been lined up against a wall and shot. Instead he has been given prison until the end of hostilities and that's pretty damn generous.

Yeah, you keep coming back with that, and you've been shown that it's not as simple. So yeah, keep trying.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There is nothing illegal or even remotely illegal about this and instead it fulfills the legal requirements of all international treaties governing warfare.

It doesn't, unless you still hold that idea that the Geneva convention overrides further treaties meant to extend it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Where's the outrage here?

I expect everyone in this thread to state how outraged they are or Tar and Featherings(tm) will result.

Thank you.

The LORD'S Department of Morality

I'm outraged this hasn't made it to reality TV yet.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Let's see. He threw a grenade at an unarmed medic, and killed him.

Did he? Evidence? Do you still believe the US government and what it says?

You are right that it is wrong to degrade a person, just as it is wrong to kill an unarmed man, regardless of the circumstances.

And it is wrong for a "free and fair" nation to deny fundamental justice.

If the Canadian police were to shoot an unarmed suspect you'd be calling for him to be drawn and quartered?

Not necessarily - I would want some FACTS first.

Where's the outrage here? Why shouldn't this man be punished for killing another person?

If he did it, yes.

As for abuse, if pissing on himself is the worse that has been done to him, he should be thankful.

I don't believe this is your moral compass Ben.

[GePap]

Oerdin is correct as far as non-uniformed combatants being delcared illegal- the problem there thought is what that means- I doubt just simply not having a uniform means you can get shot-thats sort of silly (most international volunteers in the Spanish Civil War were formed into recognized bridgades and uniformed)- basing law on clothing styles.

I view it as whether one is fighting as part of the recognized armed forces of one combatant side or another, or if one is fighting in a method or for a group outside of the recognized combatant forces of one side or another. Hence individual partisan bands can, if caught, be shot.

If the kid was fighting for the Taliban forces then I think he should fall under the protection of a prisoner of war: the Taliban did not uniform its men- so what, that is not really the point- they were the regime in power (even if only 3 states had diplomatic relations- we still acknowledged them when we gave them money to fight heroin and demanded they turn Osama over) and henxce people fighting in their forces are soldiers of the regime and should be thus treated. If he was fighting for an AQ band, then he woluld not fall unde the protections for POWs.

If he is a POW, then you can try him for war crimes (killing unarmed and marked medical personel).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
SCROTUM

A low ranking wrinkled old retainer of the family ?

[vodkakov]

The man's not a spy according to the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of
International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts
entry into force 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 95" instead he is a mercenary, as under article 47 2 (b), he does in fact take part in hostilities and under article 47 2 (d), he is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of a party to the conflict. Under Article 47 1, he has no rights to be treated as a 'combatant' or a 'prisoner of war'.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And here I thought we were on the same side.

I'm sorry. It was an immature little quip which I couldn't resist.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, you keep coming back with that, and you've been shown that it's not as simple. So yeah, keep trying.

You keep claiming it is not but have yet to show why. I've quoted the relavent parts of the GC numerous times.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by vodkakov
The man's not a spy according to the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of
International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts
entry into force 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 95" instead he is a mercenary, as under article 47 2 (b), he does in fact take part in hostilities and under article 47 2 (d), he is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of a party to the conflict. Under Article 47 1, he has no rights to be treated as a 'combatant' or a 'prisoner of war'.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

He had Afghan citizenship so he was a citizen of a party in the conflict. He was armed. He was not in uniform. So that text doesn't apply to this man.

Gepap may have a point about the Taliban foot soldiers not being given uniforms. In an open and shut case like this I think Gepap's suggestion should be followed just because it's a slam dunk and it would make us look better among the moderates.

[vodkakov]

Oh, he had citizenship... I didn't realise that. In which case Article 43 is the important one...

"Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict. "

It's rather ambiguous, as "organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates" has a lot of scope for interpretation. One would have to prove whether he was a part of an organised group of fighters, which took orders from a higher authority or whether he was just a lone fighter acting out of self-interest (or what-have-you).

The issue of spies is not as clear cut as 'no uniform = spy', instead the person has to actually be engaged in "espionage" as is made clear in article 46 1. It seems that as he was engaging in direct hostilities, he's not a spy.

[Last Conformist]

I still don't see what harm could come from declaring him a PoW and trying him for warcrimes.

[vodkakov]

I'm not arguing against that, just that he's a spy and how people seem to be using the GC without actually citing any articles (of the convention) to back it up.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You keep claiming it is not but have yet to show why. I've quoted the relavent parts of the GC numerous times.

No, the stupid part of it is claiming that the Geneva convention OVERRIDES further conventions meant to ENHANCE the protection it already offers.

The GC doesn't say that belligerents have an inaleniable right to torture, it only positively defines a certain category of combattants and how they should be treated.

In other words, according to you, it can NEVER be legal to enhance the protections offered by the GC. Yeah, suuuure. Why don't you send a letter to the US diplomacy telling them how they have been fooled in signing further conventions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, IIRC, the 4th Geneva Convention applies to all combatants (legal and not) and mandates humane treatement. If this guy was subject to the same conditions as those at Abu Ghraib, it can easily be said that the US violated the 4th Geneva Convention.