| Submit your comments on this article |
| Axis of Evil |
| U.S. decries Iraqi ’’human shields’’ |
| 2003-01-16 |
| The United State's top military officer decried Iraq's apparent plans to recruit civilians to act as human shields around high-value targets if there is a war, but said in some cases -- particularly where self-defense is concerned -- those targets would be attacked anyway. "I think there will be some situations where military necessity, if it's a case of defending ... friendly forces, that you'd have to take action, probably. And there are other cases where, if you can avoid it, you would, of course," Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday. "You know, the object is clearly to not engage noncombatants." "We're not into killing," Myers said at a Pentagon news conference. "That, I think, is one thing that separates us from the al Qaida, certainly from the Iraq regime. ... We don't want to take on civilian populations, we don't want to take on noncombatants, and we'd take every measure to avoid doing that." Military officials say Iraq already puts civilian populations at risk when it stations anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles in residential neighborhoods in the northern and southern no-fly zones. That practice has led the U.S. military, which enforces the zones, to adopt an indirect response when its aircraft are fired on. Rather than automatically bombing the source of the fire, the jets sometimes wait and go after large, stationary command-and-control headquarters or communications facilities that have only the most tenuous links to the missile batteries. Of course, cutting the links also reduces the effectiveness of those missle batteries and AAA guns. Baghdad announced in December it was seeking civilians to act as human shields for certain targets to dissuade a U.S. attack. Myers said if any civilians were injured as human shields, the Iraqi officers that oversaw their recruitment and use would be considered war criminals under the Geneva Conventions. Heh, heh |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #10 Islamists creates suicide boomers, the bimmers creates suicide targets |
| Posted by: john 2003-01-16 19:28:35 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |