Posted on 07/15/2008 11:37:39 PM PDT by HarryCaul
Cry me a river.
I don’t care whether they shot the POS ala Jon Carry with his Viet Cong dude, or crushed his nuts until he barked like a dog and wailed like a coyote.
We should have stood firm from the start on the point that jihad terrorist scum are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and they will be treated as the genocidal vermin they are.
This guy has had it easy compared to so many better men and women.
Announcing that we were not expecting Geneva Convention protection during the conflict might have been wise, but I think there would have been great backlash for us to do the required declaration.
Do you happen to have the date of when we became an “Occupying Power” of Afghanistan under the Hague/Geneva Conventions? I can’t find it.
Let him go free. Drop the punk off with a big ceremony in Jacksonville, North Carolina.
You have a kid over there or very likely to be soon? No? I do. Do you want to give special consideration to the kid that aims a rifle at or tosses a grenade your son or daughter? How about one who helps make an IED that can dismember your son or daughter? Sorry, even at 15 you should be bright enough to know that if you pickup arms or or help those who do, you take your life in your hands and may be interrogated harshly to get those that are taking aim at our troops,
There is no requirement to extend Geneva Conventions POW protections to non-state terrorist groups operating on the battlefield.
Here is who is eligible for POW protections:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(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.
Two years ago, Ralph Peters wrote an excellent column on this point, entitled "Kill, Don't Capture". Here are excerpts:
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror...
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a proposal (Protocol I) to make multiple changes and additions to Geneva. One of these changes (Article 44) would extend POW protection to terrorists. New York Times opposed Protocol I in an editorial entitled "Denied: A Shield for Terrorists", as did the Washington Post, in its editorial entitled "Hijacking the Geneva Conventions".
As for Omar, sorry kid, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time by your own choosing. At best, you are a murderer. At worse, you are an accessory to murder. You are a terrorist, assassin, and spy. What you are not, is a soldier or a warrior. Your consequences are of your own making.
“....trying to find my give a dam....
I want my mommy!!!!
Replied via FReepmail.
Shoot the MF.
Just shoot him.
I will if nobody else has the ballz.
There will soon be NO reason for other countries to observe the Geneva Conventions after terrorists (who by definition aren’t covered) are given these rights. It’s not America people have to worry about. Can anyone name ONE nation at war with us that has given our SOLDIERS or civilians Geneva considerations? N Korea, N Vietnam, Iraq... When China is the world’s “hyperpower” they miss us.
He should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention; shot on the spot as an illegal combatant.
Why the heck aren’t we doing that?
Great. Another "expert."
The Geneva Conventions do not allow summary executions of anyone - whether "lawful" or "unlawful"- without the benefit of a trial.
Yes. Only members of the military, militias or other groups meeting that four-part test qualify for protections as POWs. But, check out Common Article III:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Those are pretty basic requirements, designed for near-universal applicability. All a Haji needs to do to be protected under Common Article III is put down his AK-47. Then, you can't kill him without due process.
All a Haji needs to do to be protected under Common Article III is put down his AK-47.
I understand. However, I can see some ambiguity in a fire fight. Seems to me that for such protections to apply, the Haji would need to make a clear declaration of intent - tossing the weapon far away and taking a surrender position - prone with hands behind the head. If there is an active firefight and the Haji has been firing all along, I tend to give our troops on the ground more latitude. People do not speak of the 'fog of war' for no reason. When there is ambiguity, the preservation of our troops' lives is more important than those of enemy combatants.
It is very easy to make pronouncements from the safety of an easy chair with a fast Internet connection. When the bullets are flying, your buddy's been shot, and you are a 19 yr old who has to make a split second decision where the wrong one can cost you your life, I think we need to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt. There is a big difference in making a questionable call on the spur of the moment, and say, planning to go in and wipe out a whole household with suspected connections to combatants when no shots have been fired.
In this case the 15 yr old Haji had been actively associated with these folks and appeared to be involved. I have zero compassion for him. He knew the risks (or should have) and participated anyway. I would, without reservation, trade his life for that of any of our troops who came home in body bags. I would chock it up to 'suicide by soldier.'
I should have added, that I stand by my original statement that he received better treatment from our troops that his behavior deserved.
That's usually how these things work out anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.