Moral objections on warfare.

[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'.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

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.

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

It's ugly but real war is ugly.

And you would know?

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

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]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

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.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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?

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

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.

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

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!

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..........