Laws Of War

[SlowwHand]

As good a day as any to discuss.

Are the Laws Of of War archaic?
Excerpt from definition of Laws of War.

Conduct of warfare

Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

Violations and applicability

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

Laws Of War

I ask, because it seems so one-sided lately.
Not lately, particularly. The last 50 years.
Requirements of being in uniform is to help facilitate
the Laws Of War.

I'm going to make this a poll.
A lot of people believe in statistics and polls.
What do you think?
If you think we need to keep them, how?
If you think them archaic, what are you saying?

[Verto]

Do you mind?
If I ask?
Why you seem to.
Type like this?
(No offense)

[GePap]

How the hell could the laws of war be "archaic" at this time in history, when states have a greater and greater ability to actually practically abide by them?

Man Slowwly, you have some weird ethics.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Verto
Do you mind?
If I ask?
Why you seem to.
Type like this?
(No offense)

He thinks
It makes his points more dramatic
And thus more effective.
But in fact
It just makes
Him look
more
retarded.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is an easy question to answer:

We Need To Adhere To The Laws of War

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


He thinks
It makes his points more dramatic
And thus more effective.
But in fact
It just makes
Him look
more
retarded.

[SlowwHand]

I agree, Imran. There's movement to abolish them.
If you read through there, you notice that it mentions nations have agreed to certain...bylaws. I forget the exact wording.
We have over 2000 dead military, and it's pointed out in their arguments that if the people placing roadside bombs and such were in uniform, they'd more likely be seen and stopped.

This is not a ranting proposition by me to reject the Laws. This is not me at all. It's happening.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is an easy question to answer:

We Need To Adhere To The Laws of War

I agree...


however, if our survival (as a people, or species... ZOMFG ALIENS OR ZOMBIES!!! YOU NEVER KNOW) is at stake, desperate times may call for desperate measures...


let's just hope we never have to make such a decision

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I agree, Imran. There's movement to abolish them.
If you read throuogh there, you notice that it mentions nations have agreed to certain...bylaws. I forget the exact wording.
Wh have over 2000 dead military, and it's pointed out in their arguments that were the people placing roadside bombs and such were in uniform, they'd more likely be seen and stopped.

This is not a ranting proposition by me to reject the Laws. This is not me at all. It's happening.

Oh, I'm sure there are some here that think it is archic. I've heard some say so myself. But I think we are of a similar mind that those people are dead wrong.

[SlowwHand]

I hope they don't win out. I do. Be a sad day when the USA decides civilians don't matter, or rather, can't matter.
Something else that will be used, if it's not already being used, is that one of the Laws is to end a war with all haste. We may see the wording of the Laws turned, and exploited to their end.

[Whaleboy]

I think that once you have a state of war, a system of rules and laws to define it is absurd in that context. In other words, war is a terrible state where anything goes. You could say, like I do, that this is an indictment of war, or say that do-gooders who have never seen a battlefield are inhibiting the effectiveness of a nations defence; that they're diluting war. I suppose both are valid interpretations, depending of course on whether you think war is a good idea.

[Dauphin]

I thought laws of war only existed because being on the receiving end of 'an illegal act' was more undesirable than the ability to perform such an act yourself. This was not simply a case of here and now, but also future repercussions.

The biggest problem therefore is when one side no longer cares about the downside happening to them - 'illegal acts' are performed. This leads to the other side thinking 'well why the hell do I abide?'. Fair point I say. The answer I have in the context - you still don't want to perform such acts more than you don't want to be on the receiving end.

[Ted Striker]

I've already *****ed and moaned countless times about the Geneva Conventions and how our leadership has bypassed them on several occasions.

First we are morally bound to them. Even throwing out the moral reasons, practically, veering from the Geneva Conventions has bit us in the azz several times already. Our world standing is now lower than it has ever been, even amongst our closest allies.

Our ability to show leadership on the world stage has drastically been diminished. Every time Condolezza Rice opens her mouth to badmouth some other country about human rights abuses, her words are meaningless because we are violating human rights ourselves.

The point was mentioned, that we have the ability to abide by the Conventions more than ever. On the same token, the ability of others to hold us ACCOUNTABLE to those rules, are now greater than ever.

In the past, some may have been able to get away with bending the rules, but now because of the Internet, news travels fast.

It's more important to follow the rules than ever before.

Whaleboy does make a good point, whether or not war is a good idea in the first place is an even more important question. But if you MUST do it, at least do it in a way that is moral, and practically, covers your ass.

[Whaleboy]

But if you MUST do it, at least do it in a way that is moral, and practically, covers your ass.

Perhaps, in terms of simple self-preservation. I do think that if you are in war, moral behaviour so to speak, is absurd. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating it, like I said earlier, its a sad consequence of war.

Ted raised an interesting point about how fast news travels... its true, the media have completely changed the face of war. The British catastrophe at the Somme in 1916 could never happen today because the worlds news agencies would have been closer to the actions than the generals. Ok, so the German generals were closer to the British troops than our generals, but you get the point.

If we are to say that war is the extension of politics by lethal means, then it stands to reason that you cannot fight abroad without prudent counsel at home. God I love bastardising old truisms . You're not going to get prudent counsel without political support, which in turn wont happen without favourable media reports, so perhaps the political voice of the masses are an instrument of moral behaviour in warfare.

There is only one way to describe that line of reasoning; ****ing ironic!

[Patroklos]

The problem with such system of rules is that if everyone isn't playing by them the system falls apart.

Case in point, Iraq. By the rules of war almost every insurgent captured is by definition a spy, being not clearly identified by uniform or emblem as well as being unaffiliated with a recognized state. They are also war criminals for deliberately using civilians (which also falls in with being unaffiliated with a recognised stat) as shields.

Does anyone here want to argue with the simple logic of having combatants wear recognizable uniforms, and making sure civilians are maintained as a separate and protected class of people?

On the other had, there seems to be a romanticism for allot of people towards insurgents no matter what their means. Ted is a good example, magnifying the individual actions of .001% of America's soldiers in an attempt to manufacture a systemic problem, while saying little to condemn the actions of those they are fighting against. Not that that .001% should not be punished if the policy is to follow the rules, but a little perspective please.

However, I find this interesting and have often discussed in school and with friends and colleagues..

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

I read this as saying the obvious, that it is a crime to do the basic act. But that last part, in which those who do this are responsible for what happens as a consequence of that action, is taken differently by others. I read that as saying you could go ahead and defeat the violators anyways without violating the rule and the original violators are still responsible for any collateral. This also has the effect of keeping the violation of this most basic rule from being an effective battlefield tactic, thus not encouraging others to follow it. This is how it was interpreted in WWII anyways.

If one side fails to use the rules, there has to be consequences. That means defeating the transgressors by whatever means THEIR methods make necessary, and holding them accountable after the fact (a la WWII).

Consequently, almost every insurgent captured in Iraq could (and in my opinion should) be hanged for espionage according to the rules of war.