It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is an captured insurgent not a POW?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
"...The U.S. military said it was expanding its investigation into the fatal shooting of a wounded man by a Marine in a Fallujah mosque over the weekend. The investigation will also look into whether other wounded men in the mosque were also shot and killed, a spokesman said.
The probe was prompted by videotaped pool pictures by NBC that showed the shooting during an operation of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in the mosque on Saturday.

Allawi is ''very concerned'' about the shooting, his office said. American and Iraqi authorities have been trying to stem outrage over the shootings among Iraqis, particularly the Sunni Arab minority, and Arabs across the region. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte expressed regret over the shooting but said it should not undermine U.S. efforts to remove guerrillas from the city."~ AOL COVER STORY

Okay, very simply, when is a POW not a POW? Is anyone here an expet on Military Law? HELP!




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
They are termed "Enemy Combatants" because they are not government sanctioned. From what I can tell, the Geneva convention is very vague about how they should be treated.

A POW is a soldier sanctioned by his/her government for war, and is captured in the process.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Its in the definition of the combatant. An "insurgant" isnt technically part of a recognized force I.e. not part of an "official" state sponsored military. I think its stuff like this that creates all these grey area's.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I've been in the Military, and was taught that unless a captured combatant surrenders, he's fair game. Appearently, this shot insurgent didn't surrender...he was playing dead. This is proven by the fact that the Marines had already made a sweep through the same room earlier, and the man was faking his death then.

Am I right? Until one party says, "I surrender"...is anyone a prisoner?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
"...The U.S. military said it was expanding its investigation into the fatal shooting of a wounded man by a Marine in a Fallujah mosque over the weekend. The investigation will also look into whether other wounded men in the mosque were also shot and killed, a spokesman said.
The probe was prompted by videotaped pool pictures by NBC that showed the shooting during an operation of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in the mosque on Saturday.

Okay, very simply, when is a POW not a POW? Is anyone here an expet on Military Law? HELP!


International law has arisen as an international standard after WW2. As far as i know the caracterization of enemy partisans as being non-legal fighters was exactly the excuse the Germans used in WW2 to justify their atrocities against the russians (the russians didnt use any excuse at all). As Nazi Germany has become, after the Nuremberg trials the example NOT to follow, I'd say that the US policy of not treating enemy combatants according to human rights standards is legally invalid.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I guess what we really need is a new legal term for a civilian with a gun trying to kill uniformed soldiers. Partisans is the best term, terrorists another one. Geneva has no stance on this, since true terrorists did not exist at the time, and have been in existance for only around 40 years(thanks, Yasser, may you burn in Hell).

What is the Geneva stance on soldiers that do not follow the conventions of war? Fake instances of surrender, trapping corpses, and wearing civilian dress are all very dangerous habits, because they make it difficult to protect the civilian populace adequately while safeguarding yourself. These guys are using tactics that we did not even see in Vietnam, one of the nastiest wars ever. It's all too gray when you don't know which side is which. That is the true attrocity.

Anyone find out is that guy was even Iraqi? btw?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I think the big point is that he didn't surrender. Over the past week, supposedly dead insurgents have lain in wait for coalition forces, then blown themselves up to take out the "infidels." So, it's not a question of whether he was wounded or not, but a question of what to do with them when they surrender, which is bind them, remove them from the area, and interrogate them which is a part of the Geneva Convention. But, if the insurgents/partisans are going to fake their death to wound or kill other soldiers, I feel that they have not surrendered, and or a threat.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
When is an captured insurgent not a POW?

perhaps when US said so, US is running the show in Iraq so whatever they declared anybody that is against the Coallition forces is an enemy combatant and that is it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join