6 ms·

According to the Geneva Conventions, you are not allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the battle... period. End of story. It also specifically p

According to the Geneva Conventions, you are not allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the battle... period. End of story. It also specifically provides protections for civilians who are trying to assist wounded soldiers, so it's immaterial whether or not they were official responders or not. Either way this is a war crime and needs to be prosecuted as such. Those who conspired to suppress it should also be charged as co-conspirators.

clammer 17y ago
I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to target only unwounded combatants? And in Iraq what is the difference between a civilian and a combatant as far a dress goes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you. In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.
  - clammer 17y ago
    That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.
    - rbranson 17y ago
      > Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. Blatantly wrong. You are throwing away the rest of your point with this garbage.
      - clammer 17y ago
        No, I looked it up...98.5% of people voted for McCain or Obama. You must think I'm wrong in some other way...please explain. Getting out of Iraq wasn't part of either candidate's platform. So, how was I blatantly wrong?
        rbranson 17y ago
        You are drawing a false conclusion. Even if 98.5% voted for McCain or Obama, this does not mean 98.5% support the war. It just means that 98.5% voted for a candidate that supports the war. I do not support the war, yet I voted for Obama. That fact alone spoils your conclusion.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. At the same time, your life in a gunship as the operator of a 30mm cannon is also rather more secure than that of of wounded individual reduced to crawling on the ground, or of unwounded people who choose to assist the wounded individual rather than first trying to secure the area (eg taking a shot at the helicopter). Of course it is difficult to weigh such subjective factors in an objectively dangerous situation but that is part of the training for a professional rather than conscripted military force, IMO. Did not vote on your comment - don't agree with your perspective but it seems like a sincere effort to further rather than stifle debate.
mattmaroon 17y ago
As for your second sentence: it's a little outdated now though. They were written at a time when it was easy to delineate civilians from combatants. That's not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan now. I'm not saying that justifies the shootings, just pointing out that the conventions need a refresh.
- bilbo0s 17y ago
  Former Marine here. Outdated or not, that's the law. The destruction of the Van was clearly murder. If I had done that, a Marine Corps Colonel would have had his boot so far up my ass after seeing that video, that there would not be much left of me to execute. You know what the correct response is from a CO in a situation where a van arrives to pick up bodies? Hint: It's never 'Roger. Engage.' Your guys told you that a van arrived to pick up bodies, and they ask for permission to engage. Correct response: 'Do they have any weapons?' or 'Negative.' Now sometimes there is so much trust between a CO and a particular guy, that clarifying information will not be asked for. This is rare, but it may have been the case here. Which still calls that CO's ability to judge character into question. Bottom line. In the Marine Corps, there would have DEFINITELY been consequences for this action. (the destruction of the van). Also, I noticed that the individual who said they 'had no idea how the children were hurt' was a Major. Now I know there is no way a Marine Corps Officer would tell a lie like that. They would just not say anything. You lose a lot of respect for Army Officers after seeing something like that.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Yeah I certainly wasn't trying to justify the shooting, as I disclaimed. It's morally wrong, and certainly SHOULD violate laws. I'm just pointing out that you can't criticize it using outdated conventions. Out of curiosity suppose you're the soldier in that situation and your CO says to engage. Do you refuse to do so? That itself has to violate military protocol right? Do you say "but they're unarmed, are you sure?" then follow whatever instructions you're given? From what I've read/heard of Marines, the people in the field are expected to make more of their own decisions than in other branches of the military. There's less micromanagement I suppose would be a good way of summing it up, and as a result this would have been less likely to have happened in the first place in that branch. Is that true?

clammer 17y ago

I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to target only unwounded combatants? And in Iraq what is the difference between a civilian and a combatant as far a dress goes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you. In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.
- clammer 17y ago
  That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.
  - rbranson 17y ago
    > Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. Blatantly wrong. You are throwing away the rest of your point with this garbage.
    - clammer 17y ago
      No, I looked it up...98.5% of people voted for McCain or Obama. You must think I'm wrong in some other way...please explain. Getting out of Iraq wasn't part of either candidate's platform. So, how was I blatantly wrong?
      - rbranson 17y ago
        You are drawing a false conclusion. Even if 98.5% voted for McCain or Obama, this does not mean 98.5% support the war. It just means that 98.5% voted for a candidate that supports the war. I do not support the war, yet I voted for Obama. That fact alone spoils your conclusion.
anigbrowl 17y ago
In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. At the same time, your life in a gunship as the operator of a 30mm cannon is also rather more secure than that of of wounded individual reduced to crawling on the ground, or of unwounded people who choose to assist the wounded individual rather than first trying to secure the area (eg taking a shot at the helicopter). Of course it is difficult to weigh such subjective factors in an objectively dangerous situation but that is part of the training for a professional rather than conscripted military force, IMO. Did not vote on your comment - don't agree with your perspective but it seems like a sincere effort to further rather than stifle debate.

mattmaroon 17y ago

As for your second sentence: it's a little outdated now though. They were written at a time when it was easy to delineate civilians from combatants. That's not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan now. I'm not saying that justifies the shootings, just pointing out that the conventions need a refresh.

bilbo0s 17y ago
Former Marine here. Outdated or not, that's the law. The destruction of the Van was clearly murder. If I had done that, a Marine Corps Colonel would have had his boot so far up my ass after seeing that video, that there would not be much left of me to execute. You know what the correct response is from a CO in a situation where a van arrives to pick up bodies? Hint: It's never 'Roger. Engage.' Your guys told you that a van arrived to pick up bodies, and they ask for permission to engage. Correct response: 'Do they have any weapons?' or 'Negative.' Now sometimes there is so much trust between a CO and a particular guy, that clarifying information will not be asked for. This is rare, but it may have been the case here. Which still calls that CO's ability to judge character into question. Bottom line. In the Marine Corps, there would have DEFINITELY been consequences for this action. (the destruction of the van). Also, I noticed that the individual who said they 'had no idea how the children were hurt' was a Major. Now I know there is no way a Marine Corps Officer would tell a lie like that. They would just not say anything. You lose a lot of respect for Army Officers after seeing something like that.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Yeah I certainly wasn't trying to justify the shooting, as I disclaimed. It's morally wrong, and certainly SHOULD violate laws. I'm just pointing out that you can't criticize it using outdated conventions. Out of curiosity suppose you're the soldier in that situation and your CO says to engage. Do you refuse to do so? That itself has to violate military protocol right? Do you say "but they're unarmed, are you sure?" then follow whatever instructions you're given? From what I've read/heard of Marines, the people in the field are expected to make more of their own decisions than in other branches of the military. There's less micromanagement I suppose would be a good way of summing it up, and as a result this would have been less likely to have happened in the first place in that branch. Is that true?