War Crimes

2010-02-21 07:54:31

#76

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

CapnNismo wrote:
Well that would depend on whether or not there exists proof that shows Obama still authorizing torture on inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay or not.

I doubt torture goes that high up in the chain of command... I don't consider waterboarding torture. Beats cutting off toes and acid burns tbh.

Well using civilians as human shields doesn't grant you protection from GC as well.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-02-21 07:58:44

#77

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

Cybargs wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Well that would depend on whether or not there exists proof that shows Obama still authorizing torture on inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay or not.
I doubt torture goes that high up in the chain of command... I don't consider waterboarding torture. Beats cutting off toes and acid burns tbh.

Well using civilians as human shields doesn't grant you protection from GC as well.

^^

smrt azn

2010-02-21 07:58:49

#78

Karbin: Member; +42|6580

Ok Capt
The 24-48 hours is the standard I was told on my NCO's course......20 years ago. With in 24-48 hours such groups should have had contact with
the regular armed forces. At a minimum, be wearing a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. Example would be from the allied advance on Paris from the last world war. You can find film and photos of people with a white arm band with the free French cross on it and carrying arms in the open.
Next, Al Qaeda is NOT covered. They do NOT operate with in Para 2 sections a,b,c or d

2010-02-21 08:20:02

#79

Benzin: Member; +576|6284

Cybargs wrote:
I doubt torture goes that high up in the chain of command... I don't consider waterboarding torture. Beats cutting off toes and acid burns tbh.

Well using civilians as human shields doesn't grant you protection from GC as well.

Bush's cabinet members sought legal advice on the operations at Gitmo before starting them there and they should be reporting to him. A leader is always responsible for his subordinates, no?

Fine, we can leave the word torture out. Inhumane treatment - sound better? I am not saying I think the water boarding or whatever is necessarily bad, I'm simply arguing whether or not the whole thing is legal and if detainees fall under POW status.

Bombing residential neighborhoods well removed from any government or military center at the beginning of hostilities doesn't exactly help the case of the US either.

Karbin wrote:
Next, Al Qaeda is NOT covered. They do NOT operate with in Para 2 sections a,b,c or d

I disagree - I think Al Qaeda does fall under A and C.

11 Bravo wrote:
fine. we are still in iraq though. what say you about that, eh?

As I recall, Obama has set a relatively clear time line for the reduction and eventual removal of troops from the theater of combat in Iraq. American soldiers already began pulling out of Iraqi cities as of June 29th, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8125547.stm Obama was not the one that started the conflict, however, merely the person that has to clean up the mess that Bush and his cronies left behind.

2010-02-21 08:21:33

#80

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

nice try nismo. he said after a year its on him. welp....obama is a war criminal then.

oh and units are still deploying to iraq all the time so..........ya.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-02-21 08:32:37)

2010-02-21 08:21:57

#81

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

CapnNismo wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
I doubt torture goes that high up in the chain of command... I don't consider waterboarding torture. Beats cutting off toes and acid burns tbh.

Well using civilians as human shields doesn't grant you protection from GC as well.
Bush's cabinet members sought legal advice on the operations at Gitmo before starting them there and they should be reporting to him. A leader is always responsible for his subordinates, no?

Fine, we can leave the word torture out. Inhumane treatment - sound better? I am not saying I think the water boarding or whatever is necessarily bad, I'm simply arguing whether or not the whole thing is legal and if detainees fall under POW status.

Bombing residential neighborhoods well removed from any government or military center at the beginning of hostilities doesn't exactly help the case of the US either.

Karbin wrote:
Next, Al Qaeda is NOT covered. They do NOT operate with in Para 2 sections a,b,c or d
I disagree - I think Al Qaeda does fall under A and C.

11 Bravo wrote:
fine. we are still in iraq though. what say you about that, eh?
As I recall, Obama has set a relatively clear time line for the reduction and eventual removal of troops from the theater of combat in Iraq. American soldiers already began pulling out of Iraqi cities as of June 29th, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8125547.stm Obama was not the one that started the conflict, however, merely the person that has to clean up the mess that Bush and his cronies left behind.

Gitmo is pretty nice actually comparing to a US prison... Lol Hajji wouldn't last a day if he was in a US prison.

2010-02-21 08:48:26

#82

Karbin: Member; +42|6580

Captn.
Having people wear and use vest pack explosives is NOT carrying arms openly. It's a violation of Para 2 c.
Having your command authority not order a stop to such attacks or, as AQ dose, authorise such attacks, IS a violation of Para 2 a.

2010-02-21 08:50:44

#83

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

isa that retard really trying to say that AQ are legal combatants?

Tu Stultus Es

2010-02-21 08:59:33

#84

Karbin: Member; +42|6580

eleven bravo wrote:
isa that retard really trying to say that AQ are legal combatants?

Sound like it to me.

Bravo, lets be civil Opinions are like a$$ holes, everyone has one.

2010-02-21 09:02:04

#85

Benzin: Member; +576|6284

I'm simply arguing a view point from a legal stand point. Al Qaeda are most certainly not legal combatants, but some of the militias and former Iraqi military groups certainly could be.

2010-02-21 09:03:10

#86

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

CapnNismo wrote:
I'm simply arguing a view point from a legal stand point. Al Qaeda are most certainly not legal combatants, but some of the militias and former Iraqi military groups certainly could be.

Still didn't wear an uniform and hid amongst civilians... Even using mosques and schools.

2010-02-21 09:04:40

#87

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

I could admit to the fact that certain militias would be considered legal combatants unless of course they are using tactics against international law. like IED's, blending in civilian populations, use of torture and targeting of non combatants.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-02-21 09:05:07)

Tu Stultus Es

2010-02-21 09:07:20

#88

Benzin: Member; +576|6284

It was mentioned by someone here that the French resistance fit the definition of the GC (the POW part wasn't written until 1949, though), but I would be willing to bet that they weren't always following the code of conduct to the letter.

2010-02-21 09:15:28

#89

Karbin: Member; +42|6580

CapnNismo wrote:
It was mentioned by someone here that the French resistance fit the definition of the GC (the POW part wasn't written until 1949, though), but I would be willing to bet that they weren't always following the code of conduct to the letter.

The French resistance would NOT be covered under the GC.
The example I used was the uprising in Paris with the Free French and U.S. army's advancing on the city. Using the armband was so those forces would not fire on the wrong party's... still happened.

2010-02-21 09:50:43

#90

Benzin: Member; +576|6284

My mistake then.

2010-02-23 16:48:07

#91

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrzcBMbVXs

Gitmo is pretty nice actually comparing to a US prison... Lol Hajji wouldn't last a day if he was in a US prison.

He makes some good points, but there's something about that guy that just screams "douchebag." He's so white and fratboy-esque that it's painful to watch.

2010-02-26 22:22:22

#92

Karbin: Member; +42|6580

Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.". In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Combatants who do not qualify for POW status
A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet

BF2S Forums War Crimes

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Karbin wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Karbin wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Board footer