4 ms·
Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected
by Alex63 16y ago
Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
So your question comes down to whether the crew of that gunship suspected the van of containing persons who threatened the security of the Afghan state. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
- mcantelon 16y agoWatching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.
- Alex63 16y agoI'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
- mcantelon 16y agoMy guess is a court would find "suspicion" unwarranted without reason for it. As the military hasn't cited any reason for the killing of the civilians in the van (no daily intel briefing warning of white vans was revealed in defense of the military), it would seem that there isn't one. Obviously civilians can be killed if there is a rational reason for it (i.e. aggression), but it's fairly certain that killing civilians without reason is not legal under international law otherwise death squads would be considerably more popular.
- russell_h 16y agoWhat interpretation? Your disagreement seems to be with the Geneva Convention itself.
- mcantelon 16y agoWhen a law allows certain activity based on "suspicion" it means reality-based suspicion, not suspicion based on an individuals hunches or psychic prowess.
- ErrantX 16y agoGiven the wider context of the video it seems the suspicion could have been legitimate in good faith Anyway; the point of this aside was that legally the deaths could have been, well, legal. But they were certainly morally/ethically problematic. Which is the point about whistleblowers; they don;t necessarily just air illegal acts but morally wrong ones as well. This is probably not the thread to get back into the whole debate of "were those deaths illegal" :)