Geneva convention ramblings

[Rumba]

Marine shoots wounded guerilla in mosque. Mosques used as weapons caches. And more.

I have to admit, I'm having a tough time sorting out my feelings on these things.

I'll google for the text of the Geneva conventions and give it a read. But my understanding is that the conventions apply to uniformed militaries fighting one another, and establish guidelines for both sides to follow that are intended to reduce the impact on non-combatants as well as governing the treatment of POWs and the use of certain types of weapons.

My gut feeling is that, regardless of the strictly legal interpretation of the conventions, there is a moral element that they speak to that we are violating. And we are violating it because large uniformed militaries sent in to fight guerillas put individual fighters on both sides into positions that leave few good options (and daunting obstacles to success for the uniformed side), which also implies a practical element to which the administration seems oblivious.

This is why I find it hard to sort out my feelings about the mosque shooting video. I think we should be taking the moral high ground, but I can't put myself in that Marine's shoes. I don't know what was going through his mind. Yeah, he might have wanted payback. Yeah, he might have been exhausted and freaked and genuinely in fear. Probably a mix of the two.

Both sides seem to be committing actions that violate the geneva conventions. Fighting out of uniform can get you shot as a spy under the conventions, can't it? But what options are available to guerillas? But if you can't tell the combatants and non-combatants apart, and you're in a world of shit, what would you do?

"Just following orders" is a lousy excuse, say, for locking 300 civilians in a building, setting it on fire, and machine gunning those who try to escape (as happened in WWII). That's not the same thing as following orders to your unit to take a guerilla stronghold. Urban combat, with restricted lines of sight and lots of individual potential strongpoints, has to be some of the worst assault conditions imaginable. (Shooting unidentified targets swimming across a river on the other hand seems closer to the burning building execution scenario.)

So I'm... well, not confused. But torn. The moral, ethical, legal and practical issues are so interwoven and very messy. And the reason they are so, is not the fault of the individual troops, it's the administration policies and the strategies (or lack thereof) that have dumped them in a world of shit.

No conclusion. Just trying to put some words to the feelings and ideas bouncing around in my head.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Ok here we go... on the conventions

the reason why this marine violated the convention was that he shot somebody who was deemed to be neutralized (to use the frank language)

Now the previous squad leaving them in the mosque for another squad to pick them up is legal, but the troop shot one who was deemed neutralized.

If the troop was afrad that the man was rigged, he is allowed to check

He is also allowed to cuff, to protect himself, or take any action to deem the POW secure...

From the transcript he just said, he is still fucking alive, and pulled the trigger.

As a former medic, as in a Red Cross Medic, I tend to look at every thing that is happening with the clinical detached eye that I had to use when I covered calls and took reports from war crime victims. Trust me, this is the tip of the iceberg and many little gnomes are taking careful notes, of what is going on.

As to you being conflicted, I understand... it is not easy, and Red Cross workers have it many times harder than you, as we deal wiht this shit day in and day out... and for the most part we cannot talk about it beyond the coarsets of generalities... yes there are things I sure am taking to the grave, for the people involve are still at risk TODAY.

[Rumba]

2. No argument there

To what degree do the conventions obligate uniformed combatants to trade a degree of their own personal safety if necessary to protect non-combatants (which I think would include civilians, POWs and wounded enemy combatants not yet formally in "custody") from harm?

My impression is that this is at least a principle, if not explicitly stated. Like I said, have to google it and read it through.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I'll put it this way

I am allowed to carry a side arm to defend my patients from any harm... my patients, not enemy combatants or friendly... I am suposed to do all I can to protect my patients....(applies to military medics)

Trust me when in peace time this is not that hard... but when the shooting starts, you start going... oh SHITE....

Red Cross National Society Medics cannot carry ANY weapons but are suposed to do all possible to protect those under their care... this at times includes nice confrontations with military and police officers... as well as others

This is the short and simple of it