Moral objections on warfare.

[Anonymous]

I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well.

How so? It's not a challenge, I'm honestly curious.

Torture, of various degrees, is used routinely. Cultural humiliation is used constantly. No rights of any kind are accorded to the captives. To subvert our own laws on this subject, we conduct these actions on non-US territory. Even worse, we often hand over captives to other governments that we know engage in more severe forms of torture than we are willing to engage in ourselves.

I believe that first and formost, anything we are willing to have done in our name, we should be willing to do ourselves on our own soil. Second, I only believe torture should be used in cases involving imminent specific threat - example: you have captured a terrorist you have solid knowlege has placed bombs in unknown locations that have not yet exploded.

Even more than this, the intentional disrespecting of the captive's culture, by doing things like putting women's undergarments on their heads and smeering them with feeces, as a general practice, not to gain any specific information, is intolerable. Inevetiably these practices leak out and drive boarderliner's over the line and into the camps of the enemy, because they see it as insulting to their cultural and religious heritage.

And finally, because in the end very little of value is obtained through such practices. More than anything else, when all is said and done, these things are done out of spite.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Well, here's my take on this topic... surely some will agree some will disagree.

Shooting at an aircrew while they are in a parachute or on the ground, well techinically speaking, they are not yet captives, so it is certainly acceptable and legal to do so.

Actually no it is against the Geneva Convention today. However the only people who actually go by the Geneva Convention dont fight each other like the US and England.

Well, in WWII it was certainly not against the Genevia Convention. And today, well, as you said only certain nations support and abide by the "rules of war". Those countries also are the ones who make the rules, and it serves them to have rules which protect their aircrews as much as possible while over enemy territiory since the enemy is extremely unlikely to ever have aircrews over their territory.

By any reasonable standard of war, all enemy combatants are legitimate targets of fire until they actually surrender or are otherwise taken into custody.

Killing an enemy soldier after he's surrendered is a war crime, pure and simple. Anyone doing so should have been hanged after the war. And any town that had a significant number of its people participate in killing a downed airman should have been burned to the ground after the war and its people made homeless.

Agreed, except for the town part being burned, there was never a town where the whole population participated in it and if you burn down and town and make the people homeless for that reason you are no better then the fools who committed the crime and you too (the person who burned the town) should be burned to the ground.

Perhaps so - the price of such behavior is only born by the loosers. Again this comes down to active vs. passive responsibility, a topic we've already discussed. You would say that if there are 100 people in the town and 51 of them vote to kill the captive, only those 51 are responsible for their actions. I would say that all 100 are responsible, unless the 49 do all they can to prevent the killing. Simply saying "okay, we lost the vote, so he dies" is not sufficient. Of course, I'm being kind of extreme here, I suppose the proper thing to do would be to find out who commited the crime - but if the people of the town refuse to turn testify against thier neighbors, or are found to being lying, then of course their homes should be burned down too.

As for Abu-Ghraib, I think it shames us that our military conducts itself this way, even if it is only a small part of our military that does so. I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well. In the end, we will regret this part of how we are handling the WOT.

Disagree but I am not going to get started on this one.

LOL - yes it would probably be better if you and I did not get into a direct discussion on this topic.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Perhaps so - the price of such behavior is only born by the loosers. Again this comes down to active vs. passive responsibility, a topic we've already discussed. You would say that if there are 100 people in the town and 51 of them vote to kill the captive, only those 51 are responsible for their actions. I would say that all 100 are responsible, unless the 49 do all they can to prevent the killing. Simply saying "okay, we lost the vote, so he dies" is not sufficient. Of course, I'm being kind of extreme here, I suppose the proper thing to do would be to find out who commited the crime - but if the people of the town refuse to turn testify against thier neighbors, or are found to being lying, then of course their homes should be burned down too.

Again disagree 100% however I am not going to get started on this one either because this one is just plain stupid.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

RG_Luntic: The 1929 Geneva Convention did apply to a downed flyer en route to earth via his parachute. Its application included:

"... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ..."

 

[Anonymous]

RG_Luntic: The 1929 Geneva Convention did apply to a downed flyer en route to earth via his parachute. Its application included:

"... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ..."

This except clearly does not tell the complete story. It is clear that shooting a enemy soldier that was wounded was perfectly okay if he was not also detained or otherwise fully cut off from his sides support. You were under no obligation to allow him to crawl back to his trench, even if you could see his arm had been blown off.

And that DOES NOT apply to a pilot in a chute, especially one over his side's territory. He is still combat capable, he may be armed, etc.. What is the difference between a man bailing out of a plane and one abandoning a pillbox and running away from the battle? They are both legitimate targets. Both, if allowed to escape, may return to the field of combat in the future. The rule you've sited clearly applies to the enemy when they are no longer capable of combat AND are within your control. I'm sure if the whole context of that statment were given, it would be clear that this is what is meant.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(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 judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

On another note, you said: "You were under no obligation to allow him to crawl back to his trench, even if you could see his arm had been blown off." You also said, "I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well."

Will the real RG_Lunatic please stand up. I think it would be shameful to kill a man attemting to crawl into a hole, ostensibly to die, for any purpose other than to put him out of his misery. And yes, under the Geneva Convention of 1929, there is an affirmative duty to gather up and treat wounded soldiers from the other side. (Even a soldier with an arm blown off.)

At any rate, clearly the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanimo pales in shamefulness to the killing a man with a blown off arm (which you would defend), in shock and in abject terror, who is trying to instinctively crawl into a hole in the ground.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Further reading concerning international law on the subject as well as current U.S. policy::

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
ARTICLE XX
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Rules of Engagement and Lawful Targets (LOAC aka "Law of Armed Conflict") as set out by the Staff Judge Advocate , Robbins AFB, Georgia:

DON'T SHOOT AT A PARACHUTE UNLESS IT HOLDS A COMBATANT
Consider individuals parachuting from burning aircraft helpless until they reach the ground. You should not fire on them while they are in the air. If they use their weapons or do not surrender upon landing consider them combatants. Paratroopers, on the other hand, jump from an airplane to fight . They are combatants and you may fire upon them while they are still in the air.

Also, from the Staff Judge Advocate, Columbus Air Force Base RE: Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

QUESTION: We know enemy combatants are lawful targets. Suppose an enemy troop is descending in a parachute. Can we shoot him?

ANSWER: It depends. If it is a paratrooper, the answer is yes (a member of the fighting force who is armed and ready to fight). If it is a pilot who punched out of an aircraft, the answer is no (the pilot has abandoned his or her weapon (the aircraft) and is defenseless).

 

[trackend]

The Geneva convention had some very good ideals but such is the way of war rules always tend to go out the window the more agressive the conflict the futher they are thrown
on the Channel Island of Sark, some German soldiers were found with their hands tied behind their back. They had been shot. Their deaths were blamed on commandos who had raided the island
Hitler in his fury ordered that any commandos caught after this, should be summarily shot without a trial - the 'Commando Order'.

 

[Anonymous]

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(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 judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

On another note, you said: "You were under no obligation to allow him to crawl back to his trench, even if you could see his arm had been blown off." You also said, "I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well."

Will the real RG_Lunatic please stand up. I think it would be shameful to kill a man attemting to crawl into a hole, ostensibly to die, for any purpose other than to put him out of his misery. And yes, under the Geneva Convention of 1929, there is an affirmative duty to gather up and treat wounded soldiers from the other side. (Even a soldier with an arm blown off.)

At any rate, clearly the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanimo pales in shamefulness to the killing a man with a blown off arm (which you would defend), in shock and in abject terror, who is trying to instinctively crawl into a hole in the ground.

You don't see the difference? The wounded soldier crawling for his foxhole or trench is not captured - he is still a combatant. If he makes it to his buddies, he may well heal from his wounds and continue to serve in whatever capacity. Certainly if he is not crawling for his lines, the obligation is to take him prisoner and provide medical assistance - but only after he surrenders or is otherwise captured.

The "detainees" have been captured. Therefore, they fall into that catagory and should be treated properly.

It's a very simple line. Captured/surrendered vs. not captured/surrendered.

And getting back to the original point, an airmen floating down in a chute behind his own lines is in no way captured or surrendering - he is a legit target! It's ugly but real war is ugly.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[GT]

It has been an interesting discussion about this topic and that was my intention when I posted it. Many wisely words has been written and the morals about it.

Cheers
GT

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

At any rate, clearly the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanimo pales in shamefulness to the killing a man with a blown off arm (which you would defend), in shock and in abject terror, who is trying to instinctively crawl into a hole in the ground.

And this is why I disagree with RG, and think it is stupid but okay I really am not going to get started.

It's ugly but real war is ugly.

And you would know?

 

[Anonymous]

It's ugly but real war is ugly.

And you would know?

It is obvious to anyone but an idiot isn't it?

Very few people have lost more relatives this century to war than I. We have records of over 250 family members on my Dad's side at the turn of the century, by 1950 that number was down to less than a dozen.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It's ugly but real war is ugly.

And you would know?

It is obvious to anyone but an idiot isn't it?

Very few people have lost more relatives this century to war than I. We have records of over 250 family members on my Dad's side at the turn of the century, by 1950 that number was down to less than a dozen.

=S=

Lunatic

And how does that make shooting downed pilots parachuting the ground legit targets, when it strictly states that it is not and we are told not to in basic training when we learn the Law of War. I dont see where you are coming from. Davidicus is right when he says that it is really wiered that you will defend people that kill helpless aviators in there parachutes before they get to the ground but detainees that are treated not even nearly as bad are shamefull. I think it should be the other way around.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very few people have lost more relatives this century to war than I. We have records of over 250 family members on my Dad's side at the turn of the century, by 1950 that number was down to less than a dozen.

=S=

Lunatic

I am sorry for your losses but there are far more families like that than you think. The majority of my family was killed in WW2 and Vietnam as well. My Grandmother had 8 brothers alone and they were all killed and one is still missing from the war. In some countries like Russia and Germany and unfortunatly the Jewish people whole family names and generations were wiped out.

 

[Anonymous]

And how does that make shooting downed pilots parachuting the ground legit targets, when it strictly states that it is not and we are told not to in basic training when we learn the Law of War. I dont see where you are coming from.

But those "laws" have changed since WWII. Furthermore, they have been changed in a way that effectively benefits the USA/Britain/etc... because these nations are the ones most likely to have pilots in parachutes.

In WWII, there was no such specific rule/law. An enemy in a chute was as legitimate a target as any other. The idea that you have to let the enemy re-arm himself before you can shoot him is pretty darn silly. I think it is silly even today really.

What about paratroops in their chutes? Are they legit targets for aircraft?

Davidicus is right when he says that it is really wiered that you will defend people that kill helpless aviators in there parachutes before they get to the ground but detainees that are treated not even nearly as bad are shamefull. I think it should be the other way around.

The difference is simple. Those aviators were not in custody. If they reach the ground (espeically over friendly territory) they will surely continue to be combatants, and thus kill more of those your side. Once someone is in custody, the whole situation is totally different. Once another human being is in your custody, you have a responsibility for them.

You really don't see this difference?

I remember a Spitfire pilots comment on a documentary where they show his guncam footage. He shoots the 109 up, and the pilot bails out. He says (approximately) "I didn't have the heart to shoot him (which he clearly could have done right as he was bailing out) - but I should have. I later found out he was picked up by the Germans in the channel, and returned to shoot down two Spitfires".

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What about paratroops in their chutes? Are they legit targets for aircraft?

No actually I consider paratroops legit targets, they are armed and comeing to attack. The pilot bailing out is helpess and I believe it is dishonorable to take him out and I really dont see the relevence to the detainees at Guantano Bay.

You really don't see this difference?

No I dont. Maybe because I am a soldier I believe in fighting and dieing honorably but I guess that is hard to understand.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

You can lead a horse to water ...

By analogy, consider the following:

You are LG_Lunatic, the certifiably insane captain and commander of a British Destroyer. You engage a German Destroyer within 3 miles of German territory. Your hits disable the German ship and it begins to list badly as it takes on water. German sailors are jumping over board to escape the flame ridden and sinking ship. Dozens are in the water.

Your first officer requests permission to fire on the Germans, in the water, as they tread water and attempt to swim the 3 miles to shore.

As Captain Lunatic, you are certifiably insane yet respect the Geneva Convention. You order that ...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap
Wow interesting scenerio!

 

[Anonymous]

Nope. Maritime rules of war were well defined during WWII. My obligation is to take them prisioner and render assistance. If they are in a lifeboat (lets assume one with a motor) and are trying to escape rather than be taken prisoner, they become legitimate targets.

I certainly see your point about the pilots in the chutes. But my point is that during WWII there were no "rules" concerning this, unlike maritime rules that did exist.

Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'd let them come on board, as soon as one pulls a gun though or breeches our trust they all go..........