NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to clear things up, the Article 4 of Geneva Convention:

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.


Said insurgents/terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere could potentially be protected under Geneva convention POW rules if they fulfilled descriptions number 2 and 6.

Clearly, the insurgents in Iraq and Gitmo do not qualify as Militia because:

i. They do not have a discernable sign, uniform, or identification as militia, so as to differentiate militia from civilians.

ii. Do not carry arms openly, but rather hide them among women and children (despicable)

The Insurgents in Gitmo and Iraq do not qualify as Geneva-protect fighters in description number 6 because:

i. They do not respect the laws of war, with no Rules of Engagement (ie they behead captured civilians, which is AGAINST the Geneva convention)

Therefore, said Gitmo/Iraq insurgents are treated as spys under the convention, and can be dealt with as a nation sees fit. If the US decides to treat such people humanely, it is only because of the US's benevolence, because the Geneva convention does not apply.

I fail to see how this is still under debate...although some may rant that "The US has killed so many people in Iraq they're the war criminals!" What you're forgetting is that 1.US goes out of its way to avoid civilian death (they did not carpet-bomb Baghdad into submission, for instance), and 2. Soldiers who break ROE are punished and court marshaled. Who exactly punishes or investigates the beheading and market suicide bombings?

Does anybody have some other interpretation of the above article I don't know about, that makes the Iraq/Afghanistan insurgents protected fighters under Geneva?


P.S. The article above I think you'll find is accurate, retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

That sounds very straight forwards,
I understood the whole thing,
and have to say that I do agree with your interpretations,
America does everything reasonably possible in a war to avoid
hurting civilians,
if some one wants to look up a nation who fights terrorists without
reguard for civilians in the area,
How about good old RUSSIA?
And their campaigns in Chechnya and Georgia?
Frazes like "Do the whole #@$% village!," Don't even start to cover what
they did.

For my response, I go to the very next section, Article 5 which states;

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

:)

For my response, I go to the very next section, Article 5 which states;

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

:)

Ah, but is there doubt among the military doing the capturing? If said insurgents just adopted a combat uniform and only fought in that uniform, our soldiers and command would treat them much much better. Unless, of course, you don't believe that our military follows such standards. In which event, you're probably so blindly anti-military that this discussion has no purpose.

For my response, I go to the very next section, Article 5 which states;

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

:)

Why Do You Hate Freedom?™

Why Do You Hate Freedom?™

Why do you love the imperialist American Empire?©

Ah, but is there doubt among the military doing the capturing? If said insurgents just adopted a combat uniform and only fought in that uniform, our soldiers and command would treat them much much better. Unless, of course, you don't believe that our military follows such standards. In which event, you're probably so blindly anti-military that this discussion has no purpose.

Calling LG of all people anti-military? Booy you are really pulling a Corny here.

Ah, but is there doubt among the military doing the capturing? If said insurgents just adopted a combat uniform and only fought in that uniform, our soldiers and command would treat them much much better. Unless, of course, you don't believe that our military follows such standards. In which event, you're probably so blindly anti-military that this discussion has no purpose.
Trust your government, they know what is best.

Ah, but is there doubt among the military doing the capturing? If said insurgents just adopted a combat uniform and only fought in that uniform, our soldiers and command would treat them much much better. Unless, of course, you don't believe that our military follows such standards.

Doubt exists if they dispute their categorization. If the field personnel were competent to make such distinctions, there wouldn't be a need for a competent tribunal.

In which event, you're probably so blindly anti-military that this discussion has no purpose.

Nice. That's why I served a five year term in the U.S. Navy. Rabid anti-militarism. :p

Why Do You Hate Freedom?™

I don't hate it. We just don't seem to hang out in the same places anymore. :(

Calling LG of all people anti-military? Booy you are really pulling a Corny here.

Aw, c'mon. He had no way of knowing.... which is why he made a blanket, generalistic and uninformed accusation. It adds weight to his debate. Like an anvil tied to his leg. :)

Doubt exists if they dispute their categorization. If the field personnel were competent to make such distinctions, there wouldn't be a need for a competent tribunal.



Nice. That's why I served a five year term in the U.S. Navy. Rabid anti-militarism. :p

Maybe guys in the Navy have no respect for ROE, but the Army guys I know would treat enemy soldiers according to Geneva rules mainly because they would want the same thing to happen to them if captured. ;) The marines, though, I don't know...


Maybe you missed the qualifier? I wasn't calling you anti-military, only people who are convinced that our military commits atrocities as SOP. I sure hope you don't have evidence to the contrary, and that you're not a babykiller :D

Maybe guys in the Navy have no respect for ROE, but the Army guys I know would treat enemy soldiers according to Geneva rules mainly because they would want the same thing to happen to them if captured. ;) The marines, though, I don't know...

Regardless of which branch of service caught them(many of the detainees were caught by private 'contractors' and turned over to military forces) or which service runs Gitmo, it's the Government's responsibility to live up to the Geneva Convention. These people have had no opportunity to dispute their prisoner of war status or lack thereof.

Nice. That's why I served a five year term in the U.S. Navy. Rabid anti-militarism. :p

Your words don't fool me LG. You're actually an agent of the Clownicus Scholasticus, who infiltrated the US Navy to steal secrets and cause havoc. Don't deny it. We have evidence as to who was responsible for those random pieing incidents, the toilets booby trapped with motion sensing cherry bombs, the plastic wrapped shower heads, the pie launcher in your C.O.s coffee cup, everything.

We even have proof that your Inter-Continental Ballistic Mud is being developed based on naval blueprints.

:p

Your words don't fool me LG. You're actually an agent of the Clownicus Scholasticus, who infiltrated the US Navy to steal secrets and cause havoc. Don't deny it. We have evidence as to who was responsible for those random pieing incidents, the toilets booby trapped with motion sensing cherry bombs, the plastic wrapped shower heads, the pie launcher in your C.O.s coffee cup, everything.

We even have proof that your Inter-Continental Ballistic Mud is being developed based on naval blueprints.

:p

It goes deeper than that. It goes all the way down to the Foolluminati.

Your words don't fool me LG. You're actually an agent of the Clownicus Scholasticus, who infiltrated the US Navy to steal secrets and cause havoc. Don't deny it. We have evidence as to who was responsible for those random pieing incidents, the toilets booby trapped with motion sensing cherry bombs, the plastic wrapped shower heads, the pie launcher in your C.O.s coffee cup, everything.

We even have proof that your Inter-Continental Ballistic Mud is being developed based on naval blueprints.

:p

It goes deeper than that. It goes all the way down to the Foolluminati.

If you could prove anything, you would have been converted by now. *nod*

Isn't it odd how your so-called 'evidence' keeps getting irrevocably folded into origami genitalia? Pity. ;)

Why Do You Hate Freedom?™

See response here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13547099&postcount=27).

If you could prove anything, you would have been converted by now. *nod*

Being the anti-LG, conversion is rather impossible.


Isn't it odd how your so-called 'evidence' keeps getting irrevocably folded into origami genitalia? Pity. ;)

Isn't odd that all the folded "evidence" was actually made of slow acting soap?

I win again LG. :p

Regardless of which branch of service caught them(many of the detainees were caught by private 'contractors' and turned over to military forces) or which service runs Gitmo, it's the Government's responsibility to live up to the Geneva Convention. These people have had no opportunity to dispute their prisoner of war status or lack thereof.

Of course, soldiers can only follow the ROE, while the government sets it.

And you've got a great paradox: any spy who can argue that he's a soldier will, for POW protection.

That said, I'm in agreement with you. They should be held in a nice, comfy camp with satellite TV until we can formally declare them either a protected POW or, uh, an, IDK, enemy combatant?

If you could prove anything, you would have been converted by now. *nod*

Isn't it odd how your so-called 'evidence' keeps getting irrevocably folded into origami genitalia? Pity. ;)

What's the world's Second Oldest Profession? Clowns.

Court Jesters: Clowns with the ears of kings and emperors.

Travelling circuses? Mobile clown headquarters.

Random pie attacks on famous figures? Clown sleeper agents.

Spokesman for one of the world's biggest corporations? A clown.

One of the primal fears of children? Clowns.

Batman's greatest enemy? A clown.

This is just the start, but soon I'll expose the dirty oversized laundry of the Foolluminati for the whole world's eyes to gaze upon and recoil in horror from.

I don't care if I have to dodge pies, rubber chickens and whoopie cushions for the rest of my life. The clowns are going down!

Of course, soldiers can only follow the ROE, while the government sets it.

And you've got a great paradox: any spy who can argue that he's a soldier will, for POW protection.

That said, I'm in agreement with you. They should be held in a nice, comfy camp with satellite TV until we can formally declare them either a protected POW or, uh, an, IDK, enemy combatant?

Yep. ANd if they are officially designated unlawful enemy combatants, then Article 10 comes into effect:

"Article 10

The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.

When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.

No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.

Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article. "

Sometimes taking the high ground sucks, doesn't it?

Fortunately, the high ground is a burden the current Administration seems to have set aside. Let's hope that in future wars, our enemies don't do the same.

Being the anti-LG, conversion is rather impossible.



Isn't odd that all the folded "evidence" was actually made of slow acting soap?

I win again LG. :p

It cost me a lot of mud, I'll have you know. but it is a well documented fact that there is more mud than soap on Earth. *nod*

Spokesman for one of the world's biggest corporations? A clown.


Don't forget: Ruler of one of the most powerful nations today. Although it could be a monkey masquerading as a clown.

It cost me a lot of mud, I'll have you know. but it is a well documented fact that there is more mud than soap on Earth. *nod*

Not once this mighty battle-soap becomes fully operational. Then the Clown Alliance will tremble at its awesome cleaning might.

Yep. ANd if they are officially designated unlawful enemy combatants, then Article 10 comes into effect:

"Article 10

The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.

When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.

No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.

Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article. "

Sometimes taking the high ground sucks, doesn't it?

Fortunately, the high ground is a burden the current Administration seems to have set aside. Let's hope that in future wars, our enemies don't do the same.

Given that the Dems definately won't continue the Bush policy and McCain's treatment in the POW camp some years ago, I think we can assume the next administration will change said policy :)

Given that the Dems definately won't continue the Bush policy and McCain's treatment in the POW camp some years ago, I think we can assume the next administration will change said policy :)

Yes, McCain's experiences gives him a pretty personal view of prisoner of war treatment. In fact, he's bucked the party line on torture so much, it almost alienated him. It was only his support of military force in Iraq and encouraging more military force that quieted the rumblings. It's safe to assume that either way, we can expect the detainees to start seeing courts sometime in early to mid 2009. That should be quite a spectacle.

Just to clear things up, the Article 4 of Geneva Convention:


Said insurgents/terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere could potentially be protected under Geneva convention POW rules if they fulfilled descriptions number 2 and 6.

Clearly, the insurgents in Iraq and Gitmo do not qualify as Militia because:

i. They do not have a discernable sign, uniform, or identification as militia, so as to differentiate militia from civilians.

ii. Do not carry arms openly, but rather hide them among women and children (despicable)

The Insurgents in Gitmo and Iraq do not qualify as Geneva-protect fighters in description number 6 because:

i. They do not respect the laws of war, with no Rules of Engagement (ie they behead captured civilians, which is AGAINST the Geneva convention)

Therefore, said Gitmo/Iraq insurgents are treated as spys under the convention, and can be dealt with as a nation sees fit. If the US decides to treat such people humanely, it is only because of the US's benevolence, because the Geneva convention does not apply.

I fail to see how this is still under debate...although some may rant that "The US has killed so many people in Iraq they're the war criminals!" What you're forgetting is that 1.US goes out of its way to avoid civilian death (they did not carpet-bomb Baghdad into submission, for instance), and 2. Soldiers who break ROE are punished and court marshaled. Who exactly punishes or investigates the beheading and market suicide bombings?

Does anybody have some other interpretation of the above article I don't know about, that makes the Iraq/Afghanistan insurgents protected fighters under Geneva?


P.S. The article above I think you'll find is accurate, retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


To clear things up even further:You've chosen the wrong Protocol to apply. If they are not POWs, they are civilians, and entitled to the protections of the 4th Geneva Protocol, not the 3rd.

(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. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)

Treat them as POWs or treatr them as detainees, either way, the treatment dished out at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Note also that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.htm) covers the Bush administration's war crimes.

(IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not apply international treatys and laws of war exclusively to one facton or another. Yes, terrorist war criminals should be tried and punished. As should US war criminals. Torture of person captured in war time, whether military or not, is a crime under many levels of law, and the Bush administration has, to all appreances, approved it. Thus, they should be appropriately tried for said crimes.)

To clear things up even further:You've chosen the wrong Protocol to apply. If they are not POWs, they are civilians, and entitled to the protections of the 4th Geneva Protocol, not the 3rd.



Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)

Treat them as POWs or treatr them as detainees, either way, the treatment dished out at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Note also that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.htm) covers the Bush administration's war crimes.

(IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not apply international treatys and laws of war exclusively to one facton or another. Yes, terrorist war criminals should be tried and punished. As should US war criminals. Torture of person captured in war time, whether military or not, is a crime under many levels of law, and the Bush administration has, to all appreances, approved it. Thus, they should be appropriately tried for said crimes.)


Awww... I was saving that for my third salvo. :(

Doubt exists if they dispute their categorization. If the field personnel were competent to make such distinctions, there wouldn't be a need for a competent tribunal.



Nice. That's why I served a five year term in the U.S. Navy. Rabid anti-militarism. :p

Hey, LG, leave some pieces of him for me to play with, will ya?

Hey, LG, leave some pieces of him for me to play with, will ya?

SOrry. I so rarely get one almost completely to myself. I guess I got carried away. :)

SOrry. I so rarely get one almost completely to myself. I guess I got carried away. :)

It's fine. Hey, I can split HSH with you in the other thread if you want. I mean, Neo is playing too, but he likely has to share his opponents with his co-workers in a law firm, so I don't think he'll mind.

Awww... I was saving that for my third salvo. :(

My apologies. Take comfort in that that was tapped out with hands covered in smilie faces... (End of term for da kiddies = Dais-Sensei gets more ink-stamps, markered smilie faces, and the like than usual. The left hand big red smilie is particularly funny...)

My apologies. Take comfort in that that was tapped out with hands covered in smilie faces... (End of term for da kiddies = Dais-Sensei gets more ink-stamps, markered smilie faces, and the like than usual. The left hand big red smilie is particularly funny...)

Yay! :)

if they are not prisoners of war, what right do we have to keep them?

if they are not prisoners of war, what right do we have to keep them?

Didn't you hear? Our government has the ability to declare anyone non-human and thus subject to anything they feel like subjecting them too! Whoo! USA! USA!

In all seriousness, we don't have a right, we never should have done what we've done, and we'd damn well better start making up for it as soon as possible.

Didn't you hear? Our government has the ability to declare anyone non-human and thus subject to anything they feel like subjecting them too! Whoo! USA! USA!

In all seriousness, we don't have a right, we never should have done what we've done, and we'd damn well better start making up for it as soon as possible.

we can hope that that will start in january when we inaugurate a new president.

Just to clear things up
This has been done before, and the arguments you present were stomped on then as well.

Said insurgents/terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere could potentially be protected under Geneva convention POW rules if they fulfilled descriptions number 2 and 6.

Clearly, the insurgents in Iraq and Gitmo do not qualify as Militia because:

i. They do not have a discernable sign, uniform, or identification as militia, so as to differentiate militia from civilians.

ii. Do not carry arms openly, but rather hide them among women and children (despicable)

The Insurgents in Gitmo and Iraq do not qualify as Geneva-protect fighters in description number 6 because:

i. They do not respect the laws of war, with no Rules of Engagement (ie they behead captured civilians, which is AGAINST the Geneva convention)
First of all, there aren't any Iraqi insurgents in Guantanamo.
Secondly, you forget that it's an individual assessment and not subject to a sweeping generalization as you do here. There are plenty of insurgents who would be protected by the Geneva conventions.


Therefore, said Gitmo/Iraq insurgents are treated as spys under the convention,
No. Who is a spy is regulated in Protocol I, Art. 46. It's not a "minimum" definition to be used when all else fails.

And luckily, the US does not treat Iraqi insurgents as spies either, so they disagree with you there.

and can be dealt with as a nation sees fit. If the US decides to treat such people humanely, it is only because of the US's benevolence, because the Geneva convention does not apply.
Not at all. Even without the protection of the Geneva convention other treaties apply, as does other parts of international law - see for example the post by Daistallia 2104 above.

I fail to see how this is still under debate...although some may rant that "The US has killed so many people in Iraq they're the war criminals!" What you're forgetting is that 1.US goes out of its way to avoid civilian death (they did not carpet-bomb Baghdad into submission, for instance), and 2. Soldiers who break ROE are punished and court marshaled. Who exactly punishes or investigates the beheading and market suicide bombings?
It's good to see you hold the US soldiers to the same level of standards as you expect of suicide bombers.

Does anybody have some other interpretation of the above article I don't know about, that makes the Iraq/Afghanistan insurgents protected fighters under Geneva?
The ICRC does:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.
ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument)


Ah, but is there doubt among the military doing the capturing? If said insurgents just adopted a combat uniform and only fought in that uniform, our soldiers and command would treat them much much better.
Horseshit.


Unless, of course, you don't believe that our military follows such standards. In which event, you're probably so blindly anti-military that this discussion has no purpose.
US veterans gathered in Maryland this past weekend to testify at Winter Soldier, an eyewitness indictment of atrocities committed by US troops during the ongoing occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers spoke of free-fire zones, the shootings and beatings of innocent civilians, racism at the highest levels of the military, sexual harassment and assault within the military, and the torturing of prisoners.
JON MICHAEL TURNER: Good afternoon. My name is Jon Michael Turner. I currently reside in Burlington, Vermont. I served with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines as an automatic machine gunner. There’s a term, “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” But there’s also the term, “Eat the apple, F the corps, I don’t work for you no more.”

...

JON MICHAEL TURNER: On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed killed. This man was innocent. I don’t know his name. I called him “the fat man.” He was walking back to his house, and I shot him in front of his friend and his father. The first round didn’t kill him, after I had hit him up here in his neck area. And afterwards he started screaming and looked right into my eyes. So I looked at my friend, who I was on post with, and I said, “Well, I can’t let that happen.” So I took another shot and took him out. He was then carried away by the rest of his family. It took seven people to carry his body away.

We were all congratulated after we had our first kills, and that happened to have been mine. My company commander personally congratulated me, as he did everyone else in our company. This is the same individual who had stated that whoever gets their first kill by stabbing them to death will get a four-day pass when we return from Iraq.

My name is Jason Hurd. I recently completed ten years of honorable service to my country in both the US Army and the Tennessee National Guard. I served in central Baghdad from November of ’04 to November of ’05.

...

Individuals from my unit indiscriminately and unnecessarily opened fire on innocent civilians as they’re driving down the road on their own streets. My unit—individuals from my platoon would fire into the grills of these cars and then come back in the evenings after missions were done and brag about it.
Link (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/17/winter_soldier_us_vets_active_duty)

Damned anti-military veterans and active-duty soldiers!

*Shakes fist*


Given that the Dems definately won't continue the Bush policy and McCain's treatment in the POW camp some years ago, I think we can assume the next administration will change said policy :)

Too late. The damage is already done. Your acceptance of this - along with a lot of others - will come back and hurt American soldiers in the future. While the responsibility lies with the criminal Bush administration, you do not escape blame as you are one of those who make excuses for their undermining of the Geneva convention.

You will, unfortunately, reap what you have sown, and that will be the case no matter who the next president will be.

Maybe guys in the Navy have no respect for ROE, but the Army guys I know would treat enemy soldiers according to Geneva rules mainly because they would want the same thing to happen to them if captured. ;) The marines, though, I don't know...

We Marines don't like capturing people at all, its inconvenient...
:p

if they are not prisoners of war, what right do we have to keep them?

Article 5 of Protocol IV states:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

In other words, once detained, terrorist may be put on trial, but must be afforded the same rights as a civilian.