NationStates Jolt Archive

Pic warning. here (http://www.alchahed.net/warcrimes/041204.htm)

Those aren't as bad as the prison photos.

I give a 6 out of 10. Seen worse.

While those aren't pretty pictures, I don't see anything that positivly identifies crimes. There is no real story, the source is highly suspect. We see a group of soldiers and people who appear to be prisoners.

Who are the people, and what were they doing immediately prior to the situation. It seemed like the US troops might have captured them in a raid, and they were being, say searched for weapons. I don't see any war crimes evidence here, just someone trying to be a propaganda fiend.

ok......i agree with the others those were things you see ont he internet like daily.

I don't need proof because I know it's true and conservatives don't understand the truth.

I don't need proof because I know it's true and conservatives don't understand the truth.

Oh how often I hear that....

Does anyone other than me seem to notice a MAJOR problem with his argument?

I don't need proof because I know it's true and conservatives don't understand the truth.
Conservatives don't understand YOUR truth.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view." - Sir Alec Guinness as Obi wan Kenobi

Oh how often I hear that....

Does anyone other than me seem to notice a MAJOR problem with his argument?


Well, if he is refering to "conservative" in the sense of people affliated with he poltical group, it is a proper noun, which means the "c" is capitalized.

I suppose he could have just been referring to people with a generalized set of beliefs... but yes... maybe he did mean the party :P

Funny i did not see any terrorists with the head being cut off, or being hung from a bridge and set on fire.

You have shown pictures of concientous warriors doing a hard job of keeping animals in place.
Why dont you take up arms against the occupiers? Chicken?

I see no crimes. That's the enemy, and that's what you do to the enemy. How would you have the war fought? With foul language? If your surprised someone was hurt in a war, you're beyond help. The bleeding hearts have truly warped your thinking.

preach on scarcon, preach on.

Dude, war is ugly and harsh. Period. If you were expecting nice, shiny, clean ques of happy, smiling prisoners of war being escorted to a 4 star breakfast, you're sorely deluded. What *I* saw in those photos was a bunch of soldiers restraining and seraching a bunch of other soldiers who were on the losing end. No rape, torture or unneccessary violence is portrayed in those photographs.

Nobody was missing a head or limb. Considering the bestial manner the war has been fought from the other side, I feel that these people are being handled very gently. Fortunately, American soldiers by and large are not morons who believe that two wrongs make a right, but simply do their best to do their jobs, stay alive and come home safe again rather than carrying out some stupid vendetta against the Iraqi soldiers.

Simmer down.

I see no crimes. That's the enemy, and that's what you do to the enemy. How would you have the war fought? With foul language? If your surprised someone was hurt in a war, you're beyond help. The bleeding hearts have truly warped your thinking.
I agree that those pics are no evidence of war crimes, since they only show some people being treated roughly, but we don't know who they are, what they were doing and what happened to them afterwards. But we don't know if they enemies either, or if the miliitary was overstepping their boundaries for the same reason. We simply don't know either way. And because of that I declare the site and the photographs, useless.

Way to send us to a terrorist website dude.You really prove a point to a bunch of english people when you send the a link to a site with different language written in different script.

watch the beheading videos of the innocent americans, british and other people who were kidnapped in iraq, and then tell me about war crimes.

watch the beheading videos of the innocent americans, british and other people who were kidnapped in iraq, and then tell me about war crimes.


I can mention one fairly substantial crime. It is against internatonal law to invade a country that that did not threaten the invading country. In what way did Iraq threaten the U.S? The Americans went in based on theorys that would, for any other country, not hold up in an international court of law.

I am not trying to make the Americans look bad, for they do many good things for many countries, however they are becoming an international police force and shows little regard for anyone, for example operation "just cause", where many innocent people were killed in South America, when the FBI went after an ex-agent who commited most of his crimes when he was in the FBI.

As for the photos, yes it is a war, and bad things do happen, however I do think the soldiers did go to far. It is against the rules of war to mistreat prisnors. Remember Nuremburg, did it accomplish nothing?

Nuremberg merely upholds that there is only one true crime in war. Losing.

As for the Geneva Convention rules, what were broken in those pictures?

I can mention one fairly substantial crime. It is against internatonal law to invade a country that that did not threaten the invading country. In what way did Iraq threaten the U.S? The Americans went in based on theorys that would, for any other country, not hold up in an international court of law.

I am not trying to make the Americans look bad, for they do many good things for many countries, however they are becoming an international police force and shows little regard for anyone, for example operation "just cause", where many innocent people were killed in South America, when the FBI went after an ex-agent who commited most of his crimes when he was in the FBI.

As for the photos, yes it is a war, and bad things do happen, however I do think the soldiers did go to far. It is against the rules of war to mistreat prisnors. Remember Nuremburg, did it accomplish nothing?


again i say- watch the beheading videos. why did they have to slowly saw off innocent civilians heads with a steak knife and then put it on the web?thats the worst thing ive ever seen in my life. and everyone who criticizes the US for war and taking action against terrorists, how exactly would you have handled 9/11? how would you protect your country? its funny that so many countries use the US as the butt of their jokes and as the main topic to bitch about just because theyre bored, but the US would be the first ones to receive a call for help if their country was invaded by some other country. and the whole world knows thats the truth.

As for the photos, yes it is a war, and bad things do happen, however I do think the soldiers did go to far. It is against the rules of war to mistreat prisnors. Remember Nuremburg, did it accomplish nothing?
There is a very wide gap between the poorly equipped, poorly funded camps housing Russian POWs and transiting a group of POWs from point A to point B. How does the enemy fight wars? With bombs, sometimes strapped to their persons. The only way for the soldiers to make sure that they won't be blown up in transit is to strip people down to their underwear, make sure they're clean, then suit 'em back up and carry them off. While it's not in the most private of places, they're also not doing this in the middle of the town square in the middle of the day.

Some guy got a bloody nose. A bloody nose isn't a war crime, nor is it necessarily evidence of abuse. Without context, this is just propaganda, and poorly done propaganda at that.

Can you deny that the prisoners were being mistreated? Not really, however I do understand that the prisoners were probably fairly ruthless themselves and deserved what they got, but how can we be sure? I realise that the prisoners were not too badly treated, so the case is purely technical. I feel that as the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has a duty to adhear strictly to the rules, even in face of a barbaric enemy, and when the enemy commits atrocitys, they too should be brought to justice, and I do sincerely hope that they would be treated harshly, but fairly.

Reminder:

Please do not copy and paste or simply link to an article without adding your own commentary. That is considered spamming under the Nationstates rules.

Also: kindly use common sense. Photos like the ones shown above are fine -- photos, however, that show grievous bodily harm or obscenity are strictly verboten and may well result in a nation's deletion.

Can you deny that the prisoners were being mistreated? Not really, however I do understand that the prisoners were probably fairly ruthless themselves and deserved what they got, but how can we be sure? I realise that the prisoners were not too badly treated, so the case is purely technical. I feel that as the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has a duty to adhear strictly to the rules, even in face of a barbaric enemy, and when the enemy commits atrocitys, they too should be brought to justice, and I do sincerely hope that they would be treated harshly, but fairly.
Yes, I can. Again, there is a very wide qualitative and quantitative difference between someone's lip being busted or measures being taken for safety and war crimes.

War crime: Abu Gharab prison. Torture is right out, especially for no good reason.

Part of the job: This. Think about it--the police stop an assailant who may be armed, they put him on the ground (sometimes forcefully) and make sure he has no weapons. Is it humiliating? Yes. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. When body bombs can be made as thin as necessary and shaped to seem like any other vest, it becomes necessary to do strip searches, which are not abuses a) because they are necessary to combat a credible threat and b) while uncomfortable, they hardly cause permanent harm.

How can we be sure? The same way we're sure that the space race was conducted on the up-and-up. There are enough international media breathing down the USA's neck, especially after the prison scandal, that beating people up for grins and giggles will not only be posted on some "La Resistance" website but also every single respected news media outlet in the known world. There's no benefit in making it doctrine to beat people up for no good reason, and, despite common belief to the contrary, the USA military is not filled with pigheaded idiots.

Firstly I would like to say I have no problem with the Americans, however they are not perfict, but America is never the brunt of any of my jokes, nor do I think they are bad for international peace, quite the opposite in fact.
Also I do agree with you, it is not wrong to treat someone harshly when they could be a threat, however these prisoners were not a threat, at least from what I saw. How could they have been, they had not only just been captured on the battlefield, and it was clear that the prisoners were not a threat, and they were treated like that needlessly. The Americans screwed up, not badly, but it was a mistake all the same. I am not against harsh treatment of prisnors, but I think they went just a bit too far. What they did was excusable though, and I agree that everyone should simmer down just a bit.

Firstly I would like to say I have no problem with the Americans, however they are not perfict, but America is never the brunt of any of my jokes, nor do I think they are bad for international peace, quite the opposite in fact.
Also I do agree with you, it is not wrong to treat someone harshly when they could be a threat, however these prisoners were not a threat, at least from what I saw. How could they have been, they had not only just been captured on the battlefield, and it was clear that the prisoners were not a threat, and they were treated like that needlessly. The Americans screwed up, not badly, but it was a mistake all the same. I am not against harsh treatment of prisnors, but I think they went just a bit too far. What they did was excusable though, and I agree that everyone should simmer down just a bit.
Where were they captured though? In Iraq a 'battlefied' can be anywhere.

Okay, I've had a better look at the pics and can see that those aren't war crimes at all, and no, the yanks have not screwed up. In some pics I think, hey, they didn't need to do that, but war is war. I still maintain my point however that the Americans still need to strictly adhear to the rules of war, and they may have slipped a bit here. Again, the americans have made mistakes, but that should not overshadow what they've done here. But still, did those people really present much of a threat?

Okay, I've had a better look at the pics and can see that those aren't war crimes at all, and no, the yanks have not screwed up. In some pics I think, hey, they didn't need to do that, but war is war. I still maintain my point however that the Americans still need to strictly adhear to the rules of war, and they may have slipped a bit here. Again, the americans have made mistakes, but that should not overshadow what they've done here. But still, did those people really present much of a threat?
Considering we have no idea what the situation was, maybe.

Okay, I've had a better look at the pics and can see that those aren't war crimes at all, and no, the yanks have not screwed up. In some pics I think, hey, they didn't need to do that, but war is war. I still maintain my point however that the Americans still need to strictly adhear to the rules of war, and they may have slipped a bit here.
But how have they slipped?

The worst thing one can see in these photos is a man with a bloody nose (and no clear indication of how or why he got it).

There's nothing wrong with strip searching/binding/and blindfolding your prisoners.
Why?
What's the first thing you do after you make sure a prisoner isn't a threat?

You make sure the prisoner won't become a threat.
How you ask?
Well, binding their hands is a good start. It's hard to fight with your hands behind you back. Blindfolding is also helpful (hard to fight if you can't see).

As for strip searching, it's not an uncommon practice. Moreso when the enemy has a habit of hiding IED's beneath their clothing. Had the soldiers chosen to skip this step in the interest of not offending someone's sensibilities half a world away, the pictures would likely be of a group of dead soldiers, not prisoners.

The only thing that even remotely resembles misconduct is the bloody nose (which we don't even know how it came to be).
These pictures don't show a breach of the Geneva convention. Hell, they don't even come remotely close to toeing the line.

Again, the americans have made mistakes, but that should not overshadow what they've done here. But still, did those people really present much of a threat?Yes, yes they do. You must be on highest alert in an environment like that. If you drop your guard and start acting like they aren't a threat, then you'll find your fool ass dead.

War is not pretty but I dont see anyone posting links to the 30 somthing videos of people being beheaded, not just having their heads swiftly chopped off but sliced into like you would cut an orange. I hate socialists.

I can mention one fairly substantial crime. It is against internatonal law to invade a country that that did not threaten the invading country. In what way did Iraq threaten the U.S? The Americans went in based on theorys that would, for any other country, not hold up in an international court of law.Saddam violated a cease fire agreement. We could (and rightfully so) have invaded at any time.

As for the photos, yes it is a war, and bad things do happen, however I do think the soldiers did go to far. It is against the rules of war to mistreat prisnors. Remember Nuremburg, did it accomplish nothing? Where did they go to far?

But obviously it's completely okay for the enemy to do that to our soldiers.

my god, that's terrible: I can't believe what I'm seeing with my own two eyes -- men, being handcuffed ~ oh the humanity! The HORROR!!

"Saddam violated a cease fire agreement. We could (and rightfully so) have invaded at any time."

Wrong. The No-Fly zones were not part of the cease fire. And thus is the reason Saddam never(willingly) went along with it. It was something we ourself added after the war because of the slaughter of the kurds(think).

Now, he did violate UN sanctions. However, that point is kinda moot when you defy the UN and attack them anyway.

As for those pictures. Since the faces are not shown, then there is nothing illegal about them and certainly no war crime. The closest thing to a war crime in those pictures would be showing the faces of a POW. Which they did not, so there is no crime.

As for the ones who keep mentioning the beheadings. It does not excuse our soldiers to do whatever they like had these pictures been crimes. Also, there is nothing we as citizens can really do ourselves to punish those people. However, it is up to the citizens to make sure our government upholds the law, and it is our duty to call them out when they don't.

Thankfully, that isn't the case in these pictures, but I'm so sick of people who instead of looking at something objectively, just point fingers at something else.

Not to mention the fact that just because some of them did the beheadings, doens't mean they all did. Would it be fair if you held every US soldier accountable for the prision scandal thing? No. So your just plain out ignorant to point the fingers in other directions.

"Saddam violated a cease fire agreement. We could (and rightfully so) have invaded at any time."

Wrong. The No-Fly zones were not part of the cease fire. And thus is the reason Saddam never(willingly) went along with it. It was something we ourself added after the war because of the slaughter of the kurds(think). My bad. I wasn't neccessarily implying that though. Wasn't using poison gas on the kurds on a violation of the cease fire? Was kicking UN inspectors out a violation of the cease fire?

Now, he did violate UN sanctions. However, that point is kinda moot when you defy the UN and attack them anyway. Pardon my ignorance on issues of the UN sanctions/cease fire agreement. How are they different? Wasn't the cease fire agreement written under the umbrella of the UN? Especially considering the multi-national force present?

Pardon my ignorance on issues of the UN sanctions/cease fire agreement.

It would be a lot easier to pardon your ignorance if it wasn't for your incessant babbling: people with limited information shouldn't be so quick to offer up their opinion.

Funny i did not see any terrorists with the head being cut off, or being hung from a bridge and set on fire.

You have shown pictures of concientous warriors doing a hard job of keeping animals in place.
Why dont you take up arms against the occupiers? Chicken?

I think it's pretty stupid that the person who started this thread is a bit stupid for considering those pictures to be "proof of war crimes", but try not to refer to people like that. You do not know who they are or what they have done. Do you know for a fact that they are terrorists? No? Then don't call them animals.

Pic warning. here (http://www.alchahed.net/warcrimes/041204.htm)Thats disusting

Simply put: This is not evidence of US war crimes. There are indications that these people had injuries and were photographed during detention. I do remember a clause or two in a treaty about not spreading around photos of POWs, but the legal status of these men is unclear as is the identity of who took and diseminated the pics.

How they recived their injuries is key here as well; did they recieve their injuries before or after their arrest/detention? These photos provide no information on that regard. If they were injured resisting arrest, there is no crime. If they were beaten after being detained, then it becomes a question of why the troops thought further force was needed to subdue them.

It seems unlikely that this can or will be taken as evidence of war crimes.

The Kurds were gassed in 1988, and at the time, the US and the UK did not mind.
Saddam Hussein did not kick UN inspectors out, US President Clinton launchged operation desert fox and the UN asked the inspectors to leave because they might have been killed along with Iraqis. The 'no-fly-zone' was set up outside of UN authority, it was illegal, Saddam did not break any ceasefire. But the USAF and the RAF bombed Iraq on average at least 3 times a week since 1998. To say there was any ceasefire is to ignore the history of the situation.

Why don't you post a link to that old helpless woman being tormented with fear, and then being shot in the head by Islamic militants?

As far as I'm concerned, if you're caught shooting at US troops, or caught building bombs to use against US troops, you can't expect to play your games and then not expect a little payback. At least we try and focus our payback on the men who are doing the dirty deeds.

In the case of the militants, they're really good at catching civilian truck drivers and old women.

A man who trusts an unofficial internet source is a fool. I don't even trust some of the offical stuff.

Funny thing about these Arab sites. They show a prisoner with what appears to be a bloody nose and it is an afront to Islam!!! But beheadings and the desecration of dead hostages is seen as doing the work of God.

These "insurgents" are cowards. Individually, they are weak and powerless. Only when they form into a "gang" do they seem to manage some form of "bravery" that gives them the power to take on helpless hostages. They did not do so well when up against those who can defend themselves.

Like the dogs they are, they will be hunted down and dealt with in time.

A man who trusts an unofficial internet source is a fool. I don't even trust some of the offical stuff.


I think a certain amount of cynicism is needed for all sorts of sources (official or otherwise) but to discount them completely would also be highly unwise just because they are in a different language or from the internet. In this case yes the pictures could have been taken anywhere but the one thing people have touched on quite a bit is that these pictures compared to some of the others that we have seen is that they are not "that" shocking. If this is the case why would people put fake pictures that were less shocking than real ones which might give the case a "bit" of backing.

Funny thing about these Arab sites. They show a prisoner with what appears to be a bloody nose and it is an afront to Islam!!! But beheadings and the desecration of dead hostages is seen as doing the work of God.

These "insurgents" are cowards. Individually, they are weak and powerless. Only when they form into a "gang" do they seem to manage some form of "bravery" that gives them the power to take on helpless hostages. They did not do so well when up against those who can defend themselves.

Like the dogs they are, they will be hunted down and dealt with in time.
That's the second time I read someone dehumanizing the other side by calling them animals in this thread. What is wrong with you people?

You may find their action disgusting but treating them like they were done by animals is not a good response. First, it it doesn't help the situation in any way whatsoever. There is also a psychological aspect of denying that their actions is the work of human that hinder your personnal growth and may lead you to do atrocious acts yourself because "hey! they're dogs and need to be put down".

Show some respect. Just because they are ennemies doesn't mean they are not humans beings.

People who kill or behead innocent people for any reason are evil. We got that over with, good.
Now for the average Iraqi to fight against a foreign army in his country is not terrorism. There is a section under the Geneva convention that states:
" ...an individual living in a country that has been invaded by an occupying force has the right to resist and engage in combat with said force..." don't remember the code number but learned this in history class.

Also.. one of the outcomes of the Nuramburg trails was the outlawing of preemptive warefare, so in essence the war on Iraq is an illegal war. Many people don't seem to see the situation from the point of view of the Iraqi people.

Imagine if your country is invaded by a foreign army that says they are going to free you from the dictator who is ruling your country( a dictator who was once a friend of theirs). When the army arrives in your capital the only place they guard are your oil ministry offices while the rest of the city is buing looted and set on fire. They initiate curfews for 9:00pm( under the dictator there excisted no curfews) anyone seen after this time is shot at. Now, your family hated the dictator and are thankfull for his removel, however on a priticular sunday right after mass your father, brother, and uncle are killed when a tomahawk from an offcoast ship plows into a suspected "terrorist" hide out flattening 2 city blocks including the church they were at. You go to the commander of the invading forces seeking answers and the only replay you get is " collateral ". What will you do? What will you do when the libirator kills more of your people then the dictator?. What will you do when the libirator sets up a government run by former friends of theirs who will be promptly removed ten, twenty years down the road?.
If the Americans really wanted to help the Iraqis they would have done so in 1991. They didn't do that, they instead slapped on a 12 year sanction which was killing 5000 Iraqi children each month, when they knew full well that this wasn't going to remove Saddam. After 9/11 they try to connect the attacks with Iraq but not a single Iraqi was involved.
There will never be peace in that country so long as they are there. Democracy can't be force feed at the barrel of a gun.
Let as all work for peace.

You'll note that the US flattens mosques only if you shoot from them.

Let's take it as "fair" that if you shoot from a hospital or mosque, I'm going to level the building with you in it. By firing from a place of sanctuary, you give up the right of sanctuary.

Getting upset after the building is blown up is not justified, at least not of the basis of "you blew up the mosque".

I take it as fair that if I invade, you'll shoot at me. In combat, I always waited until I was sure that my opponent was really shooting at me, not just firing in the air. And then I shot them while they reloaded. I take that as fair.

If you don't want me to shoot at you, put your gun down and go home to your mother.

If you don't want me to shoot at the mosque, stop shooting at me from the mosque.

If you don't want me to shoot wounded men lying on the ground, don't booby trap yourselves. If a booby trapped wounded man is fair, then so is wasting every wounded man I find.

If one does not want to be shot at, one should go home to one's own nation.

You have shown pictures of concientous warriors doing a hard job of keeping animals in place.

No, no. The Americans are running free. Are you blind?

If one does not want to be shot at, one should go home to one's own nation.

Don't mess with Texas...

Don't mess with Texas...

Isn't that an anti-littering slogan?

No, no. The Americans are running free. Are you blind?

Haha! Good one.

You'll note that the US flattens mosques only if you shoot from them.

Let's take it as "fair" that if you shoot from a hospital or mosque, I'm going to level the building with you in it. By firing from a place of sanctuary, you give up the right of sanctuary.

Getting upset after the building is blown up is not justified, at least not of the basis of "you blew up the mosque".

I take it as fair that if I invade, you'll shoot at me. In combat, I always waited until I was sure that my opponent was really shooting at me, not just firing in the air. And then I shot them while they reloaded. I take that as fair.

If you don't want me to shoot at you, put your gun down and go home to your mother.

If you don't want me to shoot at the mosque, stop shooting at me from the mosque.

If you don't want me to shoot wounded men lying on the ground, don't booby trap yourselves. If a booby trapped wounded man is fair, then so is wasting every wounded man I find.


Bravo. Well spoken. Exept for that last bit. reduce "wasting" to "subduing and neutralizing" and you have it.

I don't like the war. I utterly loathe the bullshit story our president fed us to get the country behind him on the invasion. Bush is a lying sack of... poo.. and he's a hypocritical buttnugget to boot, but I feel the war was inevitable, lies and sneakery or not. I'm intelligent enough to understand that it is a "neccessary evil".

I condemn the handful of American soldiers that actually did mistreat arab prisoners for their actions. Apparently so does our military and legal system, as those persons are being dealt with for their crimes. HOWEVER these few abusive jackoffs are not representative of the majority of our soldiers. I cannot emphasize heavily enough how difficult it is to function in the environment they are in under the circumstances they are in. Those who condemn them are ignorant and arrogant to do so.

And as for you mouthy little kids who think it's cool to call EITHER side "animals" or paint all arabs and muslims with the same shade of terrorist red... you only prove how nasty, immature and UTTERLY contemptable you are. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of muslim and arab families who are friendly, educated, personable and respectable. I am disgusted with people who have the utter GALL to single out decent, hardworking people just because of their nationality or religion for this kind of degrading, ignorant treatment. Go back to your GTA and take out your angst on pixelated hookers and motorists and stop proving that all-too-common big-mouth-tiny-brain condition you have.

Aside from the fact that the treatment of prisoners as depicted does not appear unnecessarily harsh... some details that almost everyone would probably miss:

Look at the gear of the soldiers: it is not standard army or marine gear. For some of them it is not U.S. gear at all. If I had to guess, I'd say there are two Iraqi Commandos (with the scarves and old-style uniforms), two U.S. Spec Ops guys (one with the desert camo M4 carbine and one with the completely non-regulation M1911A1 pistol) and a U.S. National Guard or reserve guy who is probably a medic (has a big flag patch on his chest). Just a guess... and assuming the photos are real and not staged with stolen equipment. The elite Iraqi troops look very similar to U.S. troops these days, but one of the big giveaways is that they have the old-style camo pattern uniform. Don't feel too bad, lots of news reporters have made the same mistake.

The Iraqis are being a lot rougher, one is stepping on a prisoner and another is sitting on one. The US guys are mostly just aiming their weapons or gesturing directions. All in all, looks like a good joint op.

As for the bad guys... this bunch is probably from the ex-Baathist areas south of Baghdad... they are not wearing beards (most religious fighters do) but they have a certain ex-military look. This is probably a joint US-Iraqi night raid to get a couple of HVTs (high value targets) in Latifiyah or one of the nearby cities.

Oh, one more thing... I'm sure someone has or will mention the Geneva conventions. Let's get one thing straight... they only apply to people who follow the laws of war. Laws of war are pretty simple, basically you need to identify your intention to participate (wear a uniform and carry weapons openly), you must not deliberately target civilians, and you must not commit acts of perfidy (such as attacking under a flag of truce). If you do not follow these rules, the Geneva convention does not apply to you.

In other words, if you're a US soldier in Iraq and you see someone in civilian clothes who sets a bomb next to a school, you can shoot them at any time... in the back as they are running away, after they have surrendered, or even after you have tortured them for information. They have shown they do not honor the rules, and there are no rules whatsoever about how you must treat them.

Little known bit of history... when the US troops liberated the concentration camps in Germany, they in several cases killed all the guards who had surrendered (the officers tried to stop them, but they just ignored the orders). And guess what, that wasn't a war crime.