(no subject)

[theweaselking]

US troops deliberately and knowingly violate Geneva conventions, again, live on camera, again.

US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions. An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.

It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.

According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said. "You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours. Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".

Comments

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

That ought to help the US' international relations.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, war dead means uniformed combatant in the context of the Geneva Conventions. Members of the Taliban don't qualify.

Its still despicable. Whether its a Geneva Conventions violation is debatable.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Right, so if you're in a camo suit, you don't fall under the Geneva conventions?

Three words, man: War Crimes Tribunals.

Abu Ghraib alone should have been enough, but with the constant new evidence that, years after the fact, torture, murder, and desecration of corpses are still *official policy* should be enough to hang every directly responsible person and every person in their chain of command who ignored it, all the way to the top since EVERYONE IN THE WORLD has known about it for YEARS.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

If I'm misreading anything, or missing updates, let me know; this is largely a description of my understanding.

According to Protocol I, Article 50, civilians are anyone who aren't

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

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

members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power

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

all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or 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

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)

a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency that a Party to a conflict has incorporated into its armed forces

If the dead Taliban did not meet the above definitions, you are correct--they are not covered under the Conventions rules on deceased prisoners of war (I can't find the term "war dead" in the Conventions or Protocols). (Technically, crew members, war correspondents, or supply contractors accompanying armed forces may also become POWs, but I shall assume this is not the case for the Taliban.)

That said, Protocol I, Article 75 give a list of things that you are not supposed to do anywhere, anytime, to anyone. It includes (among other things) collective punishments, outrages upon personal dignity, and threats of the forgoing.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

You're right... Taliban militants do not fall under the Geneva Conventions as civilians or uniformed combatants. They aren't recognized as part of the Afghanistan military. They certainly don't enjoy the same safeties as civilians since they're actively working against the coalition through violent means.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

They've got a strong argument for "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" - and regardless of whether or not they fall under "soldier" or "civilian", the conventions have a whole lot of things that you do not do, to anyone, no matter who they are or what they have done, that the US has been violating since day 1.

(Also: The majority of the prisoners in Iraq are civilians. Pure, 100%-Geneva-Convention-applicable civilians, picked up off the street or from their homes with no warning and for no "crime" other than being male between 14 and 60, and they're being tortured, raped, and murdered, and we're told the conventions don't apply at all to them despite them clearly doing so A)regardless of their status and B) ESPECIALLY because they're civilians.

Why should anyone believe anything different about the "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan? Note that anything relying on the credibility of the US armed forces will *not* be believed, because the record shows again and again that any time they say "trust us, we know", they've been lying through their teeth.)

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

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

Hmm... I'd like to see some numbers that show Afghanis involved in expelling the Soviets and how many of them are/were members of the Taliban. I'd bet money that the leaders of the Taliban were involved. If the same people were involved in both, they certainly did have sufficient time to form an organized armed force, something like 12 years.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I would be right if I was saying that, but I'm not. Protocol I defines anyone who doesn't meet the criteria I listed as a civilian; unless there's another document in the Conventions which clarifies this, that'd make the Taliban civilians.

So, since you're saying they aren't civilians under the Conventions, can you point me towards where in the documents the definition given in Protocol I was overridden?

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

If you take up arms against a military, you lose your status as a civilian.

See: Check Part II/Article 15/Item B.

When they take up arms or perform work of a military nature, they lose their status as civilians. I've had this discussion before with others... I should bookmark the page.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
distinction:

(a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
(b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

When the Parties concerned have agreed upon the geographical position, administration, food supply and supervision of the proposed neutralized zone, a written agreement shall be concluded and signed by the representatives of the Parties to the conflict. The agreement shall fix the beginning and the duration of the neutralization of the zone.

==================

This has to do with who is eligible for shelter under Part II, Article 15. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of "civilian", only that some civilians are not eligible under Part II, Article 15.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

I was using this as an example for what would disqualify someone from their civilian, and protected, status.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't disqualify them from civilian status at all. It says that if they build barricades or make munitions or carry water for the soldiers or even pick up a gun and shoot, they don't qualify to be evacuated to the third-party camp for wounded and non-military civilians.

They're still civilians, and the rules that say "YOU DO NOT DO THESE X THINGS TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME" still apply to them. Even if, for some reason, they lost "civilian" status and gained "military" status (the ONLY other option), they'd STILL be covered under the "YOU DO NOT DO THESE X THINGS TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME" rules, because, funny that, those rules apply to EVERYONE.

It doesn't fucking who who you torture - civilian, POW, some bullshit "enemy combatant" designation - you're still in violation of the convention, you're still committing a war crime, and I look forward to seeing this century's Nuremburg trials.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

Civilians don't(or aren't supposed to...) get shot. If you are participating in most of the activities you mentioned, you'll get shot.

I look forward to seeing this century's Nuremburg trials.

I'd love to see anyone try and push this on the US....

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

So you define "civilian" based on who the US shoots? If they shot them, they must not have been a civilian?

I'd love to see anyone try and push this on the US....

I expect the US to do it themselves when they finally realise that perhaps holding people accountable for their actions is the only thing that gives them
A) a hope in hell of "winning" the "war on terra"
B) any smidgen of international respect.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

So you define "civilian" based on who the US shoots? If they shot them, they must not have been a civilian?

Yeah, that's what I meant...

First off, I didn't say US anywhere in that part of my last post. More on topic, it was a simplistic way of saying as long as you aren't involved in opposing a recognized military, you're(supposed to be) safe.

I'm glad you're seeing the interpretation problems with the Geneva Conventions.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I *don't* see interpretation problems. I'm trying to figure out how on earth you got to defining munitions factory workers as "not civilians, not combatants, and hence free to be tortured", and then defining non-civilian as "people who got shot".

The application of the convention is quite clear. There are activities that are not to be performed, under any circumstances, to anyone. The US troops routinely perform these activities. The commanders know this and condone it. The generals know this and condone it. The secretary of defense and the CiC know this and condone it. Bush has, in fact, threatened to veto bills if they get a rider that says the US should not violate the Geneva conventions.

There's no debate, here. You've got blatant, deliberate war crimes with everyone involved knowing full well what they're doing. The only people who find any "confusion" or "interpretation problems" in the Geneva conventions are the ones violating them.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to figure out how on earth you got to defining munitions factory workers as "not civilians, not combatants, and hence free to be tortured"

They're aiding combatants. Shoot'em(or destroy the factory), but don't torture them.

I know there are GC violations occurring.

I was discussing who had protections under the GC and who didn't. The Taliban do not. Al Qaida does not. Iraq insurgents do not. Actual civilians, which is most of the abductees in Iraq who are being taken into custody, do.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

And now we come right back to Frances' question.

"Protocol I defines anyone who doesn't meet the criteria I listed as a civilian; unless there's another document in the Conventions which clarifies this, that'd make the Taliban civilians.

So, since you're saying they aren't civilians under the Conventions, can you point me towards where in the documents the definition given in Protocol I was overridden?"

Where, besides Alberto Gonzales' ass, does the notion that *anyone* is denied protections of the Geneva Conventions come from? Since, after all, the Geneva Conventions that we're discussing say that these acts are not to be performed ON ANYONE AT ANY TIME.

Where the fuck does the idea that it's okay to torture Taliban come from, since ALL TORTURE IS TOTALLY 100% BANNED?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

That just says that they will attempt to provide neutralized zones where the wounded, and the sick, and any civilians who haven't taken part in hostilities and don't perform work of a military character may avoid the effects of war.

It doesn't say that taking part in hostilities no longer makes you a civilian, only that you are a civilian that the neutralized zones are not intended to shelter.

New Thread... other one was getting congested.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

Under Article 3:
1) 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.

* The Taliban doesn't qualify.

Also, from Frances's post: Civilians aren't/Taliban are:
- 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

- members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps... etc.

They don't however qualify as uniformed combatants since they aren't regulars of any recognized military.

Where the fuck does the idea that it's okay to torture Taliban come from, since ALL TORTURE IS TOTALLY 100% BANNED?

I don't know. I never said or thought it was okay....

Re: New Thread... other one was getting congested.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The next part from the same sentence:
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,

You're allowed to "treat inhumanely" those who are currently fighting you. As soon as they're CAPTIVES, they become "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" againm and you're not allowed to mistreat them.

You have yet to show how the Taliban don't qualify.

Re: New Thread... other one was getting congested.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

I suppose you're assuming they aren't actively trying to escape detention? If they're crazy enough to adhere to this particular form of Islam, they're supposed to kill all infidels too, bare hands or AK47, it doesn't matter.

The coalition could easily solve the problem and just kill everyone and take no prisoners. Would that be better?

Re: New Thread... other one was getting congested.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

So, mistreating captives is now okay because you think they might try to escape?

> The coalition could easily solve the problem and just kill everyone and take
> no prisoners. Would that be better?

The Marines did that in Fallujah, briefly. Killing the people who are fighting back, yes, go ahead. Killing the people who are not fighting back any more, even though they were 5 minutes ago, no, that's a crime, too.

It's not that complicated for anyone except the US Military, apparently.

You don't kill people who've surrendered or can't fight back.
You don't torture, rape, or murder anyone.

Why is this so difficult, and why are you so eager to defend the people who do it?

(Your next line: "But, but but but Nick Berg, yo!11!" - And no, "we're not as bad as Al Qaeda" is NOT a valid fucking excuse to be reprehensible. Hey, look at me, I've never killed anyone, so there's NOTHING WRONG with me robbing anyone I want senseless. After all, Charles Manson killed people, and I'm not as bad as him!)

Re: New Thread... other one was getting congested.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

Why is this so difficult, and why are you so eager to defend the people who do it?

Its not difficult, but I'm not over there involved in the fighting. Moronic(and probably a little racist...) 18-24 year old Marines who've been tricked into believing all the propoganda are. While its reprehensible, I'll still go to bat for them over an Islamofascist terrorist or insurgent. When it starts involving innocents in the wrong place/wrong time, I don't feel the same.

If I weren't in the military, I probably wouldn't. I'm also not eager, but I am willing.