Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 01/16/2003 View Wed 01/15/2003 View Tue 01/14/2003 View Mon 01/13/2003 View Sun 01/12/2003 View Sat 01/11/2003 View Fri 01/10/2003
1
2003-01-16 Axis of Evil
U.S. decries Iraqi ’’human shields’’
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2003-01-16 09:04 am|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Is there any legal grounds or argument for regarding volunteer human shields as de facto combatants? They have volunteered for service to, if not in, the Iraqi military in a war zone. And they are not serving any neutral humanitarian function, which would be the case for Red Cross/Red Crescent or NGO staff.



Posted by John Bragg  2003-01-16 09:57:23||   2003-01-16 09:57:23|| Front Page Top

#2 The legal fiction that Iraqis volunteer is cute. Given the current state of their government, it is unlikely that any Iraqi civilian can be considered a legitimate volunteer.
Posted by Chuck  2003-01-16 10:14:52|| [www.simmins.org]  2003-01-16 10:14:52|| Front Page Top

#3 However, the foreigners (Euro,Merkins, Canucks, et al) that volunteer to serve as shields to try and stop a U.S./British attack have forfeited any right to bitch and moan when the storm hits. This would be brought more to their attention if they were issued t-shirts with bulls-eyes on them along with their visas
Posted by Frank G  2003-01-16 10:21:09||   2003-01-16 10:21:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Forcing your own people to be human shields, isn't this enough reason at the UN for a war?

As for the foreigners, the more the merrier. Bet you won't see the al-qaeda guys volunteering, all those ex-Afghan war veterans.
Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-16 10:47:10||   2003-01-16 10:47:10|| Front Page Top

#5 I do not think that there is anything in the Geneva convention that distinguishes between offensive, defensive, and support staffs in an armed force. These guys, when captured, can be treated as POWs, and if they refuse to surrender, but persist in a defensive role to protect military assets, are legal targets. They don't have to pick up a gun, wear a uniform, or carry a military ID, to *effectively* serve in an army.
Posted by Ptah  2003-01-16 11:18:55||   2003-01-16 11:18:55|| Front Page Top

#6 However, the foreigners (Euro,Merkins, Canucks, et al) that volunteer to serve as shields to try and stop a U.S./British attack have forfeited any right to bitch and moan when the storm hits.

Where's Raed who's an Iraqi blogging out of Baghdad asks these same said human shields to stay the hell out of Iraq.

If they want to help, he suggests that they keep to the border with supplies to help refugees.

-Vic
Posted by Vicarious  2003-01-16 13:28:03|| [vicariously.blogspot.com/]  2003-01-16 13:28:03|| Front Page Top

#7 I only meant the furriners. Any Iraqi human shields would be conscripts, I suppose. But is there any legal precedent, argument or theory on the subject?
Posted by John Bragg  2003-01-16 13:43:54||   2003-01-16 13:43:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Most likely have to add a new catagory. Nobody has ever been quite this stupid before.
Posted by Steve  2003-01-16 14:15:31||   2003-01-16 14:15:31|| Front Page Top

#9 I think the Geneva Conventions make the assumption that civilians want to avoid becoming involved in hostilities. That's why it's against the conventions to use them as human shields, as the Iraqis like to do. However, if they volunteer, then it's an entirely different story. The rule's against intentionally targeting them, not against them intentionally becoming targets. If we know they're there, even in large numbers, and it's a legit target, they're legit toast.
Posted by Fred  2003-01-16 14:21:50||   2003-01-16 14:21:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Islamists creates suicide boomers, the bimmers creates suicide targets
Posted by john  2003-01-16 19:28:35||   2003-01-16 19:28:35|| Front Page Top

#11 As I understand it, the Geneva convention has two catagories, lawful and unlawful enemy belligerents. Most al-Qaeda operatives do not wear uniforms, have a chain of command and other such characteristics which make them illegal belligerents. In such cases, the Geneva convention does not apply.

Voluntary human shields, it can be argued, fall into that catagory.
Posted by Ben 2003-01-17 03:22:32||   2003-01-17 03:22:32|| Front Page Top

#12 If memory serves me right, it states in your U.S. Passport that if you travel overseas and willingly join (or ally with) a foreign armed service, you run the risk of loosing your U.S. citizenship; thus loosing the protections of the American Judicial system, and your rights during a time of war would be transferred to the Geneva/Hague convention statutes governing enemy belligerents. It might not have said that in the back of Taliban John's though, He was just a kid. This thought of course, is only food for thought for all the actors/rock stars/etc. from the U.S. thinking about jumping on board Sammy's Crew for the "Mother of all Pizzas oops I mean Battles Part II"
Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-17 04:42:48||   2003-01-17 04:42:48|| Front Page Top

17:46 Anonymous
12:16 VAMark
07:56 Ptah
07:10 Anonymous
05:01 Murat
04:42 Anonymous
04:41 Murat
04:23 Caton
03:22 Ben
02:13 Tresho
23:35 Steve White
23:16 Steve White
23:09 Anonymous
23:02 Steve White
22:57 Steve White
22:50 Fred
22:37 Steve White
22:29 Steve White
22:27 Fred
22:21 Fred
22:17 Fred
21:29 TJ Jackson
21:00 Anonymous
20:55 Anonymous









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com