More killing of wounded!

sovtek

Sparks posted a clip not too long ago showing the killing of a wounded Iraqi man (not sure if soldier or insurgent).
Evidentally it's happened more than once. One has to wonder if pervasive.

[URL=http://]http://tyndallreport.com/[/URL]

" CANNON FODDER The crash of a Blackhawk helicopter, possibly downed by guerrillas, made the conflict in Iraq the lead story in a light week—the Top Ten was the year’s fourth smallest (123 min v 168 avg). ABC’s Martha Raddatz snared exclusive access to night-vision gun-camera videotape from an Apache helicopter of three men in a field north of Baghdad last December. We saw one of them drop an object in a field that the crew assumed was a weapon. In response the helicopter unleashed 100 30mm cannon rounds killing two and wounding the third. As the wounded man crawled away, the crew was ordered to kill him too: “The army acknowledges that the cannons used were far bigger than needed,” reported Raddatz, “but it is the smallest weapon Apaches have.”"

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
[URL=http://]http://tyndallreport.com/[/URL]

Linky brokey. Fixed http://tyndallreport.com/

Video footage [WARNING: PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN THIS VIDEO]http://www.barrierislandgraphics.com/forumfiles//224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

gandalf

Err Victor can't get that video ? Did you download it?

Gandalf.

Victor

Originally posted by gandalf
Err Victor can't get that video ? Did you download it?

Doh! I deleted the "h" from "http" in my own link

Exit

****ing hell, that was violently unnecessary!

spongebob

It looks bad but it was hardly an AC130 attack . Arguably the US army is better equipped to fight at night than during the day and has evolved its military doctrines accordingly.

M

gandalf

Apart from the Human rights side of things in killing the wounded person logic would dictate he would be worth more alive for the information that he could have given them.

Gandalf.

Skyclad

They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Dave

spongebob

I suspect is was leaked footage to show that the night belongs to the Americans psy ops for the benefit of Al-Jazeera most like.

It was a lot more discriminate than that attack on the house in Mosul where the US shot it to pieces in a residential area to kill Saddams sons.....no regard for collateral damage to the civiian neighbourhood there at all was there ?

M

Sparks

Originally posted by Skyclad
They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.
Dave

You may think so - but the Geneva Convention, which the US ratified in '49, specifically prohibits this kind of action. It is, in other words, a war crime. And if we hang/imprison people for war crimes....

Hobbes

Wow its a good thing the US didn't sign up for the ICC.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
You may think so - but the Geneva Convention, which the US ratified in '49, specifically prohibits this kind of action.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hors%20de%20combat
Out of the combat; disabled from fighting.

If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Skyclad
They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Dave

Typical gung-ho comment.
The aim of war is to win the war, not kill every enemy you see.
It certainly doesn't mean killing wounded men.

The man posed no threat to anyone after he was hit the first time (a round 3 cm in diameter will drop you pretty quickly)

The point about landing the helicopter is ridiculous. They wouldn't land there anyway, a helicopters job is to close air support of troops on the ground and ground troops would have already been on the way to the scene who could then secure the wounded man.

Killing wounded men who pose no obvious threat is against the Geneva Convention

And releasing the video at all shows a total lack of respect for human like.

MrPinK

Originally posted by Skyclad
And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Putting the whole ethical issue to one side, even from the miltary point of view there is nothing to be gained from shooting a wounded man. Tactically speaking, an incapacitating wound is better than a kill. Not only is the wounded guy taken out of the action, but someone else will have to carry him out of there, temporarily removing them action. Then the enemy have to waste their resources treating him. That's why landmines are designed to blow off a guys legs but still leave him alive and screaming for help.

There's nothing to be gained from shooting a wounded man crawling on the ground. It's just plain cold blooded.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Assuming they were armed and were insurgents or terrorists or whatever. Hilarious. Try saying that with a comedy japanese accent.

Meh

Originally posted by Redleslie
[IMG-http://fanboy.frothersunite.com/imag/comics/pigs.jpg[/IMG]

That's funny, I don't remember seeing any doctors, hospital beds or medical equipment in the video. What exactly does this cartoon have to do with this thread?

bonkey

Originally posted by Skyclad
nd, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys.

Are you saying that given the choice, the US would have refused a surrender from the Iraqi's saying "sorry lads - this is a war, and that means we have to kill you. Surrender just isn't an option"????

Indeed, the entire existence of the Geneva Conventions concerning POWs etc would seem to imply that the aim is not to kill them, given that the rules cater for dealing with enemy soldiers who are captured? If the aim was to kill them, the GCs could be reduced to "Just kill them".

Anything else is just cynical,

First time I've heard someone refer to the Geneva Conventions - albeit indirectly - as cynical.....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

I find it stunning that you could actually go and pull point one of Article 3 of the Convention (which you posted) and not have read point two of the same Article.

Allow me to save you having to click on your own link :

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

Note - "cared for" is not an established euphemism for "blown apart with 20mm fire".

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Note - "cared for" is not an established euphemism for "blown apart with 20mm fire".

So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Even if he doesn't have a gun? Now that would be something.

Anyone with a 30mm diameter hunk of hot steel inside them poses no threat to anyone.

Plus I'd imagine the soldiers would have sufficient training to take in 1 wounded prisioner.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

That's your own (ridiculous) interpretation of the convention.

Those with a scratch or a cold would still pose a significant threat if armed.

Those rolling around the ground in agony dying probably do not.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
That's funny, I don't remember seeing any doctors, hospital beds or medical equipment in the video.

I don't remember seeing any weapons either. I couldn't find any WW2 comic strips featuring evil japs killing unarmed and wounded civilians. Apologies. Unarmed and wounded (but still able to pull a trigger!) soldiers had to do.

What exactly does this cartoon have to do with this thread?

Your moronic comment suits the cartoon perfectly don't you think?

What next? Meh defends the Mai Lai massacre? 'The marine shot the 12 year old girl up the fanny because there might have been a VC tunnel complex up there.'

Meh

Originally posted by Kananga
That's your own (ridiculous) interpretation of the convention.

No, it's bonkey's interpretation. According to him, if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime.

Those with a scratch or a cold would still pose a significant threat if armed.

Those rolling around the ground in agony dying probably do not.

Looked to me like he was crawling, not rolling.

Originally posted by Redleslie:
I don't remember seeing any weapons either.

Plenty of other people did.

sovtek

Originally posted by Meh
So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

I think a guy crawling AWAY could well fit the description of hors de combat .

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
Plenty of other people did.

I thought you'd direct me to a report that said that weapons had been recovered from the scene, which still wouldn't justify killing wounded people, but no. All that's mentioned is that the crew thought they saw something like a "tube-shaped object". Maybe it was a tube? With an unwanted Britney poster in it?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
No, it's bonkey's interpretation. According to him, if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime. Looked to me like he was crawling, not rolling.

You're right. And if a 10 year old kid is walking towards a market with a backpack, then you can shoot him in the head because he may or may not be a suicide bomber.
Hell, better shoot them all, just in case.

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

This was not Bonkey's interpretation of the convention, it was a quote of the convention.

your interpretation of that was

So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime?

Nobody said

if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime.

If someone is incapacitated, and you bloody well would after a volley of 30mm cannon rounds, and unable to fight then it is against the Geneva convention to kill them.
It really is simple, if someone doesn't pose a significant threat to others, and he didn't (he had an attack helicopter's gun trained on him, what would you do?),
then you do not kill them.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
Plenty of other people did.

Yeah and they had thrown that into a field minutes before!!!!!
He wasn't armed WHEN THEY SHOT AND KILLED HIM!!!!!

jank

meh seems to be more at home in sites like these

National Review

Right Wing News

Ann Coulter

what im reading from him is that "if he can breath he can fight", so basically take no prisoners is the point here, armed or unarmed, wounded or not

Sand

How do you propose an apache gunship takes prisoners? Like submarines and bombers they really cant. By the time ground forces arrive any wounded may have been rescued by their comrades, living to fight and kill another day.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger, still throw a grenade and probably would enjoy killing any American who came close enough to try and take him prisoner, 72 virgins and all that. He wasnt incapcitated.

The question is not whether the pilots should have landed to try and take him prisoner, but rather whether they should have engaged at all. Whilst the pilots were there and actually saw the weapon the man was carrying, I cant see why they targeted the 2nd man and the tractor driver without any other cause than they were talking to the apparent insurgent. Again like I said they were there so maybe they had cause which wasnt detailed in reports, the shooting of the 1s/3rd man being the issue for most it seems.

Their rules of engagement sound very loose - that can only lead to mistaken identity and tragic mistakes which will hurt the coalition effort in Iraq more than killing a few guerillas/terrorists will help it.

Moriarty

mpeg link returns a 404

MrPinK

Originally posted by Sand
By the time ground forces arrive any wounded may have been rescued by their comrades, living to fight and kill another day.

It wouldn't really matter if he was rescued. A seriously wounded man is not an asset, he's a drain on resources. He was gunned down by an Apache helicopter , it's not like he's going to be patched up and be out fighting again in a week's time. If he were rescued by comrades, it's most likely that he'd just have been dumped outside a hospital where the Americans could pick him up fairly easily. Someone with a load of 30mm cannon rounds in them would stand out from the usual Kalashnikov victims.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger, still throw a grenade and probably would enjoy killing any American who came close enough to try and take him prisoner, 72 virgins and all that. He wasnt incapcitated.

So in order to be wounded enough for the Geneva convention to apply, you have to be completely unable to move?

halkar

I am sure if it was an American on the ground wounded, this would have been a different story or another propaganda patriot hollywood movie in 2-3 years down :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
How do you propose an apache gunship takes prisoners?

Very good question.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really help your case any more than asking how you could carpet-bomb a city without killing civilians makes the killing of the civilians in question OK.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger,

Really?

Funnily enough, the GC offers protection for soldiers who ahve laid down their arms and are attempting to leave the field of combat. Was any attempt made to see if this person still armed...if indeed they were armed in the first place? No. Was any attempt made to determine the seriousness of the injury? No. What ocurred was an identification of the fact that the target was injured, immediately followed by an order to hit him again to take him out.

Just because these things may have been difficult (or indeed impossible) to do in concordance with the limits set down by the GC, which the US have signed on board to does not mean the US - or any other nation - should have a carte blanche in their usage. They signed up to a treaty. Just because its not always the most convenient thing in the world to obey doesn't excuse ignoring it when it suits.

After all, I'm sure Sand wouldn't excuse suicide bombers on the grounds that their methodologies made it difficult to observe certain formalities of war. Nor, I'm pretty sure, would Meh support the slaughter of - picking a simple example - the stranded and wounded US soldiers in Mogadishu who were attacked and killed in the real-world event which inspired Black Hawk Down.

I guess whaqt it all boils down to seems to be that there would appear to be a somewhat pervasive belief that because the US are nominally the good guys, they must be doing things right and should not be questioned.

I have no doubt that the vast majority fo US actions are entirely within the boundaries set down by the GC etc. but that does not mean that those which are borderline, or indeed in breach should be ignored.

After all, most murders spend most of their life not killing people. I don't see anyone queueing up to argue that this logic would be an excuse for murder.

jc

Sand

Unfortunately, that doesn't really help your case any more than asking how you could carpet-bomb a city without killing civilians makes the killing of the civilians in question OK.

Sure it does. Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors? If a bomber hits a bunker where the enemy are supposed to be but only damages it should they land to pick up survivors or come around again to make sure? When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere? This isnt expected of them in the real world though. Where the G.C. then?

In contrast you ask me about carpet bombing cities - afaik they havent done this since the bombing of North Vietnam? As for the killing of civillians it doesnt matter what military unit caused their deaths in such a case; unlike the apache taking prisoners.

Funnily enough, the GC offers protection for soldiers who ahve laid down their arms and are attempting to leave the field of combat. Was any attempt made to see if this person still armed...if indeed they were armed in the first place? No.

You cant claim that the insurgent did lay down his arms or was unarmed, nor even that he was attempting to leve the field of combat. Short of landing and asking the insurgent, the soldier is in the right to make a judgement call on the first man that he was carring an RPG and almost certainly a small arm ( if hes carrying a bloody RPG then its safe to assume hes got at *least* a pistol ).

What ocurred was an identification of the fact that the target was injured, immediately followed by an order to hit him again to take him out.

Which is not exactly Captain America in style but as the man was not incapcitated and was as far as anyone knew still armed perfectly fine under the G.C. If an apache targets a tank and badly damages it, are they entitled to fire again to ensure its killed or should they land to check out the status of the crew first? They might be wounded.

Just because these things may have been difficult (or indeed impossible) to do in concordance with the limits set down by the GC, which the US have signed on board to does not mean the US - or any other nation - should have a carte blanche in their usage. They signed up to a treaty. Just because its not always the most convenient thing in the world to obey doesn't excuse ignoring it when it suits.

Thats a great view to have Bonkey but is it realistic? Killing the insurgent didnt break the G.C. imo. Seeing as no ones taken a case against the soldiers in question then the lawyers out there must agree with me. Whilst it would be nice to have wars fought in such a manner whereby theyd raise the white flag every few minutes to run over and check whether people are wounded or not/armed or not and ring up the lawyers back in the pentagon to get them to take a look at the fine print theyre not fought like that. Especially when fighting insurgents who will happily use a grenade to take a coalition soldier to paradise with them.

After all, I'm sure Sand wouldn't excuse suicide bombers on the grounds that their methodologies made it difficult to observe certain formalities of war. Nor, I'm pretty sure, would Meh support the slaughter of - picking a simple example - the stranded and wounded US soldiers in Mogadishu who were attacked and killed in the real-world event which inspired Black Hawk Down.

Ive absolutely no problem with suicide bombers when they target military/security forces. Its an unorthodox weapon but so long as theyre not deliberately targeting schoolbuses fire away.

I guess whaqt it all boils down to seems to be that there would appear to be a somewhat pervasive belief that because the US are nominally the good guys, they must be doing things right and should not be questioned.

Or on the resverse it could be argued that because the U.S. are nominally the good guys we hold them to unrealistically high standards beyond that even laid down in the G.C. so when they fail to hold to those standards - i.e. in the real world - we can criticise them above and beyond other factions and military forces. Afterall, Ive wasted many an hour trying to explain why suicide bombers targeting bar mitzvahs are terrorists - not a "symbol of palestians utter desperation in the face of oppression".

I am sure if it was an American on the ground wounded, this would have been a different story or another propaganda patriot hollywood movie in 2-3 years down

Probably - theyre human too, theyre hardly going to start cheerleading for the other side as it wont fill cinema seats.

So in order to be wounded enough for the Geneva convention to apply, you have to be completely unable to move?

You need to be wounded so that you are incapable of fighting. Otherwise anyone with a cold is classified as wounded and covered by the G.C. The guy could still move so he could still pull a trigger or throw a grenade.

It wouldn't really matter if he was rescued. A seriously wounded man is not an asset, he's a drain on resources. He was gunned down by an Apache helicopter , it's not like he's going to be patched up and be out fighting again in a week's time.

Or he could be preparing homemade grenades and landmines. Whose to say?

If he were rescued by comrades, it's most likely that he'd just have been dumped outside a hospital where the Americans could pick him up fairly easily. Someone with a load of 30mm cannon rounds in them would stand out from the usual Kalashnikov victims.

Your saying the insurgency would leave a comrade to the tender mercies of the evil americans whod torture him until he revealed the names of the other insurgetns and their bases? Not likely.

MrPinK

Originally posted by Sand
Sure it does. Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors? If a bomber hits a bunker where the enemy are supposed to be but only damages it should they land to pick up survivors or come around again to make sure? When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere? This isnt expected of them in the real world though. Where the G.C. then?

The GC doesn't require them to immdediately capture and treat such wounded if it's not practical, just that they don't finish them off if they no longer pose any threat. If someone tries to surrender infront of an apache helicoptor, it's not possible for them to accept their surrender and take him into custody, but they still can't shoot the guy.

Or he could be preparing homemade grenades and landmines. Whose to say?

Someone surrendering might be strapped with explosives. Who's the say? When you sign up to the GC you accept the risks that following it following it might involve. You don't agree to only adhear to it whenever you're positive it's completely safe.

Your saying the insurgency would leave a comrade to the tender mercies of the evil americans whod torture him until he revealed the names of the other insurgetns and their bases? Not likely.

It's not the kind of wound that can be treated with a first aid kit and a guy reading a medical book. 90% of people admitted to state-of-the-art american hopsitals with gunshot wounds from handguns die. I don't know the percentage for 30mm cannon wounds in third world countries, but I doubt it would be too high. The man would most likely have been dead by the time anyone found him. If he were still alive, bringing him to a hospital would be his only chance. Even if he got there, he probably still would have died.

halkar

If it's an American killed they are heros, if it's Iraqis no one gives a $hit. Here is another sample of how these things are handled by so called Americans thinking that they are there to give Iraqis freedom. War against terorism my ass, they have killed more civilians since Sept 11 than terorists did. In the name of what? And Osama is still laughing his a$$ off. The guy that started all :rolleyes: Bush probably killed more Iraqis in a year than Saddam did in a year, we just don't know. They should have learned something from Lebanon and I don't expect anything to get better for Iraqis in the coming years. They will just milk the country, use them as slave labour and eat the cream themselves.

Sparks

*watches video again*
So, we've got two lads standing by a massey-ferguson (or the Iraqi equivalent). In a ploughed field. Not carrying any firearms that I can see. And one walks from the tractor back towards the truck (which looks just like every other truck I've seen on farms), carrying no weapon, and the apache shreds him with 30mm cannon fire. The two men hide, the first putting the tractor between himself and what to him must have looked like an explosion - unfortunately the apache is to his right and it shreds him and the tractor with cannon fire. It then wanders over to the truck and where's the third guy? Nowhere to be seen. Oh dear. Oh no, wait, there he is, crawling out from under the truck to see what the hell's just happened! Quick, nail him! And the truck and him, are shredded. The dust clears and his body's lying a few feet from the truck. And then he flops over, evidently wounded. The crew of the Apache know he's wounded - the first says "he's wounded" then the second says "get him", the first says "he's wounded" again and the second repeats his order and the man and the third vehicle (some kind of small car/van thing) is also destroyed in the process.

Yeah, that's definitely heroic anti-terrorist US action. Three farmers, a truck, a car and a tractor, all destroyed in broad daylight.

*disgusted look*

Victor

All this does is OK the killing of any Coalition wounded.

Be careful what you do to your enemy - what goes around comes around.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You need to be wounded so that you are incapable of fighting. Otherwise anyone with a cold is classified as wounded and covered by the G.C. The guy could still move so he could still pull a trigger or throw a grenade.

And if he wasn't moving but had a heat-signature, then he could be faking and still capable of moving, pulling a trigger or throwing a grenade....

Otherwise (taking a parallel to your ridiculous "anyone with a cold" example) anyone lying down and playing possum is also covered under the GC.

So, the end conclusion would have to be that only the dead are actually protected by the GC under your "self-safety first" logic?

Thats brilliant.

If being injured and incapable of movement is the only protective situation you see, then how can that ever be ascertained? The simple truth is that it can't, and that ultimately your logic leads to the GC playing no active part in hostilities whatsoever, and only applying to those who are found outside the actual field of combat.

jc

Sparks

Sand's comments seemed quite familiar till I realised what they reminded me of:

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

vibe666

whether we argree on if they were justified or not (and i very much doubt they were in this case) the big question is, who's going to do something about it?

bush and his cronies have still failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction in the months sinc etheir occupation of iraq began, and lets be honest, with a free run of the place if what they were telling us when they first invaded was true, they would have come up with something by now if it was there wouldn't they? that makes the invasion an unjustified act in itself. they lied to congress, and to the rest of the world to try and justify what they were doing, and killed thousands of people for no good reason. lets face it if they can find saddam hussien hiding in a hole in the ground they should be able to find chemical and biological weapons factories shouldn't they?

they killed lots of civilians and there are plenty of rumours about some very dubious behaviour during the whole thing, and as the commander and chief of the US military Bush is responsible, which makes him as much of a war criminal as Saddam, so who's going to try him?

the americans themselves said they'd remove by force and US serviceman who was imprisoned and tried for war crimes, which if the UN or similar did it would mean the US invading Holland wouldn't it?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sparks
Sand's comments seemed quite familiar till I realised what they reminded me of:

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

A couple of quotes from Lt.Calley's testimony at the My Lai court martial.

"Well, I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job on that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified the same, and that was the classification that we dealt with, just as enemy soldiers."

"I didn't discriminate between individuals in the village, sir. They were all the enemy, they were all to be destroyed, sir...."

:ninja:

It took soldiers like Calley months of intensive dehumanising training followed by a fairly brutalising sojourn in a war zone to develop that kind of mentality. A few people here seem to have been born with it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
A few people here seem to have been born with it.

There are rules about attacking other posters. Simply deciding to omit names and issuing blanket-insults like the above is not an acceptable alternative.

jc

Sand

The GC doesn't require them to immdediately capture and treat such wounded if it's not practical, just that they don't finish them off if they no longer pose any threat.

Actually to abandon the wounded and leave them without medical care is against the geneva convention, so yes, they would have to take them prisoner under the geneva convention assuming they were covered by it.

From Chapter 2 Article 12

"they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care,"

If someone tries to surrender infront of an apache helicoptor, it's not possible for them to accept their surrender and take him into custody, but they still can't shoot the guy

Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?

Someone surrendering might be strapped with explosives. Who's the say? When you sign up to the GC you accept the risks that following it following it might involve. You don't agree to only adhear to it whenever you're positive it's completely safe.

False surrenders like the above are forbidden under the G.C. Article 37, section 1. Id reckon where soldiers suspect a false surrender theyre perfectly in the right to not risk themselves and be very cautious - does that mean double tap to make sure, no. Does mean when the guy is not incapacitated you dont have to take extraordinary risks to take him prisoner when hes shown no interest in surrendering.

Which leads me on to....Article 41, Section 2

2. A person is hors de combat if:
(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

Well in this case:

a didnt apply. b didnt apply as he didnt raise any white flag or make any other obvious moves to surrender. c doesnt apply as he was not unconcious, he was able to move, hence he was not incapable of defending himself and it can be argued that even if any of the above apply he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

The reason no ones calling for a war crimes trial for the U.S. over this incident is that the U.S. didnt break the Geneva Convention. Yeah, it wasnt Captain America stuff as I said but it would be incorrect imo and apparently that of the lawyers out there to claim they broke the G.C. The "finishing off" was perfectly above board according to the rules of war. The issue, as sparks has also noticed is that did the Apache have due cause to open fire in the first place? Id agree they had a right to nail the first guy with the apparent RPG but the other 2 were on a tractor and were only talking to the first guy. Thats extremely loose rules of engagement.

The man would most likely have been dead by the time anyone found him. If he were still alive, bringing him to a hospital would be his only chance. Even if he got there, he probably still would have died.

Yeah it likely he would have died regardless but why then would his buddies in the cause risk the Americans chatting with him? Im sure theyve seen a lot worse casualties and afaik they arent deposited at hospitals?

All this does is OK the killing of any Coalition wounded.

If the same situation was to arise with Americans on the receiving end then the Iraqis would be perfectly entitled to "finish off" any non - incapacitated soldier not covered by the definitions of out of combat.

And yes, of course the US would decry it as a travesty. Theyd simply be doing what so many do - seeing things from their point of view.

So, the end conclusion would have to be that only the dead are actually protected by the GC under your "self-safety first" logic?

See above, the G.C. includes definitions of those considered out of combat.

The simple truth is that it can't, and that ultimately your logic leads to the GC playing no active part in hostilities whatsoever, and only applying to those who are found outside the actual field of combat.

Actually I feel the creative analysis of the G.C. is an example of where international law is full of holes and can be used to argue pretty much any point. In the situation presented the "finishing off" wasnt against the G.C. as looking at it reveals. If enough people shout that it is ( under the mistaken belief that the G.C. is a set od ideals that can be stretched and morphed rather than a set of rules ) then the natural result is that the G.C. itself becomes devalued.

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

That sounds to me like Everything I know about international law I learned from the movies. Each to their own.

the americans themselves said they'd remove by force and US serviceman who was imprisoned and tried for war crimes, which if the UN or similar did it would mean the US invading Holland wouldn't it?

Given the fact that people are willing to try and convict them for committing a breach of the G.C. that they did not commit under the definitions of the G.C. maybe theyd have a right to be suspiscious of international justice and political bias seeping into trials of their servicemen.

Someones got to pay for Bush invading Iraq after all. Why not the servicemen he sent?

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
.....Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?...

How can one surrender while taking few bullets and they are not just ordinary bullets? you saw what those bullets done to the truck and the pickup. Considering all happened in few seconds no one was given chance of surrender so surrendering is not an option in Iraq?
I am sure things like this are happening everyday in Iraq these days, democracy, freedom my a$$, Saddam and Bush and Blair should be put in same cell.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?

Who would he surrender to Sand? The Apache crew was over a kilometer away. They never even saw who killed them - and you can tell that from their reactions. After the first man is killed, the others hide from where he was standing - not from the helicopter, because they never saw it.

False surrenders like the above are forbidden under the G.C. Article 37, section 1.

Does mean when the guy is not incapacitated you dont have to take extraordinary risks to take him prisoner when hes shown no interest in surrendering.

The man has several 30mm holes in him from apache gunship cannon fire.
Frankly sand, to suggest he's not hors de combat is insulting to anyone's intelligence. Would you be happy to explain to his family that he was shot because he was still able to fight?

a didnt apply. b didnt apply as he didnt raise any white flag or make any other obvious moves to surrender. c doesnt apply as he was not unconcious, he was able to move, hence he was not incapable of defending himself and it can be argued that even if any of the above apply he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

That's so at odds with the videotape that I can't believe you're saying it.
He flops over Sand, once. He's not crawling. He's not moving. He's identified as wounded twice by the apache crew. That man is hors de combat, he's protected by the Geneva Convention. Killing him was a war crime. End. Of. Story.

Id agree they had a right to nail the first guy with the apparent RPG

What apparent RPG? He's not carrying anything.

If the same situation was to arise with Americans on the receiving end then the Iraqis would be perfectly entitled to "finish off" any non - incapacitated soldier not covered by the definitions of out of combat.

Indeed? We heard the diametric opposite view from the US and UK when their troops were killed in combat, didn't we?

Actually I feel the creative analysis of the G.C.

Sand, the only one here doing creative analysis is you.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank

Having taken a penetrating hit, tanks and other armoured vehicles have the nasty habit of blowing up and taking their crews / passenger with them in the ensuing fire / explosions. I've seen some photos from 1991 that wouldn't make the news.

Originally posted by Sand
or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors?

Actually whoel battallions surrendered to heicopters in 1991.

Originally posted by Sand
If a bomber hits a bunker

Same as tank, it is invariably all or nothing.

Originally posted by Sand
When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere?

I'm not sure of the exact protocol, but civilian crews are meant to be given the facility of abandoning ship. Military crews are protected once they are in the water / life rafts - they are not to be machine-gunned. This create a marginal anomally insofar as you can't shoot at a parachuting pilot, but you can shoot a parachuting paratrooper.

Originally posted by Sand
he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

To escape, one needs to have been captured. Technically he was fleeing - in this case from the fire of the vehicles, not the helicopter.

Sand

Who would he surrender to Sand? The Apache crew was over a kilometer away. They never even saw who killed them - and you can tell that from their reactions. After the first man is killed, the others hide from where he was standing - not from the helicopter, because they never saw it.

Maybe they should equip apaches with big flashing neon signs so they can be seen and surrendered to?

As some guy above said it may be difficult or even impossible to keep within the G.C. That doesnt reduce or increase anyones obligation to keep to the G.C. The fact is the Iraqis made no move to surrender. The 1st/3rd guy was under the truck, not making any obvious moves to surrender. When he crawled out from the truck he still didnt raise his hand or make any move to surrender. Not against the G.C. to target him under that rule.

The man has several 30mm holes in him from apache gunship cannon fire. Frankly sand, to suggest he's not hors de combat is insulting to anyone's intelligence. Would you be happy to explain to his family that he was shot because he was still able to fight?

Care to mention how many 30mm holes he had in him, seeing as he was under the truck and any wounds he suffered could be more from the truck above him than the rounds fired?

As for his family the issue isnt as I said that he was "finished off" - that was above board according to the G.C. His family would have to accept that he went off to kill coalition soldiers ( the rpg? ) and unfortunately for him he got killed. Their grief still doesnt make it a breach of the G.C.

That's so at odds with the videotape that I can't believe you're saying it.
He flops over Sand, once. He's not crawling. He's not moving. He's identified as wounded twice by the apache crew. That man is hors de combat, he's protected by the Geneva Convention. Killing him was a war crime. End. Of. Story.

He didnt flop over once - he got out from under the truck and was a good 2-3 meters from it by the time they shot him again. One of the pilots says hes wounded once, the co-pilot say to shoot him twice. He wasnt hors de combat under the terms of the G.C. It wasnt a breach of the G.C. No lawyer or authority has opened proceedings against the U.S. or their servicemen for a breach of the G.C. from this incident. We must assume that in their opinion ( which Id reckon trumps yours...end of story or no ) there is no case to answer. Which imo is correct when you read the G.C. and see what it says rather than what you want it to say. Your argument is with the international justice system and its laws, not me.

What apparent RPG? He's not carrying anything.

He threw away an RPG in an attempt to hide it according to the crew just before the video starts rolling. If a guy is carrying an RPG its safe to assume hes got a small arm as well.

Indeed? We heard the diametric opposite view from the US and UK when their troops were killed in combat, didn't we?

Yes and I anticipated this in the next paragraph to the one you posted, which you happily ignored. Read it again.

There was no G.C. breach and Indymedia is not the official mouthpiece of the coalition governments so theyre obviously going to be more concerned about their own soldiers and apply the same slanted viewpoint to a similar situation in which theyre on the receiving end. I dont hear rending of hair and gnashing of teeth in sorrow and moral outrage when a coalition solider gets killed by a suicide bomber ( which is a breach of the G.C. apparently as weapons have to be openly displayed by soldiers ).

Sand, the only one here doing creative analysis is you.

International law apparently disagrees.

Having taken a penetrating hit, tanks and other armoured vehicles have the nasty habit of blowing up and taking their crews / passenger with them in the ensuing fire / explosions. I've seen some photos from 1991 that wouldn't make the news.

Of course, but if a near miss only inflicts apparently slight damage but the tank slews off to the side of the road and halts are the apache crew in the right to fire again to make sure the tank is killed?

Actually whoel battallions surrendered to heicopters in 1991.

Did they manage to fit all the wounded in the chopper? If so Guinness Book of Records would like to talk to them Im sure.

I'm not sure of the exact protocol, but civilian crews are meant to be given the facility of abandoning ship. Military crews are protected once they are in the water / life rafts - they are not to be machine-gunned. This create a marginal anomally insofar as you can't shoot at a parachuting pilot, but you can shoot a parachuting paratrooper.

Thats true, hence troop transport which would imply a military vessel and crew. Assuming a military ship sank so fast or didnt carry enough life boats and the crew had to go into the water - is the sub then obliged to surface ( this is extremely risky ) and fit what would almost always be a far larger crew into the legendarily confined sub? Situations like this have happened.

To escape, one needs to have been captured. Technically he was fleeing - in this case from the fire of the vehicles, not the helicopter.

Either way he doesnt fall into any of the 3 defintions of hors de combat.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Maybe they should equip apaches with big flashing neon signs so they can be seen and surrendered to?

Maybe they shouldn't shred farmers in a field from a kilometre away with 30mm cannon fire?

As some guy above said it may be difficult or even impossible to keep within the G.C.

That isn't the case here. There was no threat to the US forces, the nearest US forces were a kilometre away in an Apache gunship, and the Iraqis were farmers ploughing a field. You can look at the video footage Sand, that's blatently obvious that that's all that was going on there.
There was no threat - and yet the trigger-happy yahoos killed three people.

The fact is the Iraqis made no move to surrender. The 1st/3rd guy was under the truck, not making any obvious moves to surrender. When he crawled out from the truck he still didnt raise his hand or make any move to surrender. Not against the G.C. to target him under that rule.

It's completely against the GC to target him. He doesn't make any obvious moves to surrender because he's just been shot up with 30mm cannon fire from an anti-tank cannon on an apache gunship. And he never even knew what the hell was going on - none of them did, you can tell from the manner in which they reacted. They never even saw the apache in all liklihood.

Care to mention how many 30mm holes he had in him, seeing as he was under the truck and any wounds he suffered could be more from the truck above him than the rounds fired?

That's a standard truck, as used on farms. No armour plating. And it was hit by 30mm anti-tank rounds made from depleted uranium, designed to kill T55 main battle tanks. Not to mention the high explosive 30mm rounds (they mix the ammo types in the magazine for the apache's gun). So it's highly unlikely that he escaped injury. And I mean highly unlikely.

As for his family the issue isnt as I said that he was "finished off" - that was above board according to the G.C.

Actually, it's expressly forbidden under the GC. In black and white. It's already been quoted here in fact.

His family would have to accept that he went off to kill coalition soldiers ( the rpg? ) and unfortunately for him he got killed.

See, I'm looking at the video now. (Have you?).
I see one man crossing a field to another man on a tractor. They switch places and the first man continues ploughing while the second walks back over to the pickup truck. He's shredded. The first hides from what he thinks is an explosion - but the apache's a kilometer behind him, so he gets shredded, along with the tractor. The third guy is crouching by the truck hiding from what he thinks is an explosion from when the first guy died, and when he looks around after the second explosion, he's spotted and shredded - and when he's rolling around in shock and agony, he's shredded again.

Nowhere in the film is there anything that looks like a weapon, and nowhere in the film is there anything that doesn't look like normal farming practise. NOWHERE.

So until they prove otherwise, this was a murder of innocent farmers.

He didnt flop over once - he got out from under the truck and was a good 2-3 meters from it by the time they shot him again.

That's not true. He's less than a yard from it and he flops over on the ground while they watch. He's obviously wounded and down, but they shoot him again. He's not crawling, he's not hiding, he's not shooting back, he's not reaching for a weapon, nothing. How could he? He's just been shot with a mix of 30mm DU shells and 30mm HE shells!

One of the pilots says hes wounded once, the co-pilot say to shoot him twice. He wasnt hors de combat under the terms of the G.C.

Only if you rewrite the GC to suit yourself. If you go by the one the US signed in '49, he is out of action. And frankly, I'd love to hear how a man shot several times with 30mm DU anti-tank shells is going to present a threat to an armoured anti-tank gunship a kilometer away.

It wasnt a breach of the G.C. No lawyer or authority has opened proceedings against the U.S. or their servicemen for a breach of the G.C. from this incident.

Yet.

He threw away an RPG in an attempt to hide it according to the crew just before the video starts rolling. If a guy is carrying an RPG its safe to assume hes got a small arm as well.

There are three problems there:
1) You're asking me to take the word of a man whom I've seen murder three innocent men that one of them might have been armed. I see no evidence to support his claim, and lots of evidence to say his word is worthless.
2) Small arms are inneffectual against an armoured anti-tank gunship a kilometre away - and even so, we don't see him reach for any.
3) Everyone in Iraq carries an AK-47 today. Farmers, doctors, civil servants, Everyone. It's perfectly legal and not an indication of any motivation past the desire to be able to defend themselves from the gangs which have been documented by even the US press who are making life inherently unsafe for average Iraqis today.


Basicly Sand, your argument holds no water, and the case against the Apache crew is clear-cut.

The only difficulty is actually prosecuting them, since the US fiercely defends the "right" for it's soldiers to commit war crimes with impunity.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Of course, but if a near miss only inflicts apparently slight damage but the tank slews off to the side of the road and halts are the apache crew in the right to fire again to make sure the tank is killed?

If a tank is only immobilised (damaged engine or tracks) is is usually still capable of fighting and is a valid target.

Originally posted by Sparks
3) Everyone in Iraq carries an AK-47 today. Farmers, doctors, civil servants, Everyone. It's perfectly legal and not an indication of any motivation past the desire to be able to defend themselves from the gangs which have been documented by even the US press who are making life inherently unsafe for average Iraqis today.

Every household is allowed one rifle and one pistol. Theya re not allowed to be carried in public. I don't think this location could be considered "public".

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
Every household is allowed one rifle and one pistol. Theya re not allowed to be carried in public. I don't think this location could be considered "public". [/B]

It's very doubtful it could be considered "public", since the clip is of a man ploughing his field on a tractor (as anyone can see from looking at the clip).
And if you're not allowed carry weapons in public, why do we constantly see doctors having to conduct rounds carrying weapons?