4 ms·

I don't know if anyone would suggest that the US's indiscriminate summary executions of civilians for the crime of riding a bicycle justified anyone torturing a

• nickff 6y ago
  Well, we don't know how many of the people on Highway 1 were carrying military supplies. This is exactly why the North Vietnamese avoided displaying insignias; they were using their civilians as human shields, and pretending that everyone not wearing a uniform was innocent.
  • celticninja 6y ago
    This may have been part of the reason, the other is that there was a significant portion made up of irregulars, the equivalent of militia members in the states. They didnt have uniforms or insignia covered vehicles with which they could transport weaponry, and they weren't going to spray the cow with an insignia were they. Don't be a fool for the PR, they didn't purposely not wear uniforms, in the same way that the Taliban dont wear a uniform. In general these are not armed forces but irregulars, locals protecting their homeland. If the US was invaded do you think every gun owner is going to sign up and dress in military fatigues? Or are they going to fight back regardless of what they happen to be wearing?
    • nickff 6y ago
      The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms. Similar clothing or large enough patches would suffice. There are exceptions for people who spontaneously take up arms to defend their homes or towns. If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms. True. > If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions). Both claims are false. With regard to the second, such combatants are not entitled to protection as POWs under Geneva (III), but, as a consequence, they are protected as civilians under Geneva (IV). A key difference is the latter may be criminally charged for engaging in combat while the former may not, but there are still procedural and substantive protections.
        • nickff 6y ago
          My first claim is that the side which is (basically) using human decoys/shields is morally responsible for civilian deaths, which I don't think you've demonstrated to be false. My second claim was overbroad; I meant it in the common sense of talking about the third Geneva Convention relating to PoWs, but I concede that I didn't specify that, though I could argue that North Vietnam was effectively not bound by the Convention (thus excluding their nationals from protection).
          • dragonwriter 6y ago
            > My first claim is that the side which is (basically) using human decoys/shields is morally responsible for civilian deaths, You said the side not using insignia (which neither implies nor is implied by using human shields) becomes responsible for all civilian casualties in the conflict. Certainly, a side violating the laws of war in any way bears full responsibility for the civilian casualties (and any other harms) actually resulting from that wrongful act and no other wrongful act by another party. But they don't become responsible for the impacts of acts due to other unrelated violations of the laws of war by another party, and to the extent that they are responsible impacts of related violations of the laws of war by another party, that responsibility is shared with the other party. Nor does the violation make them morally responsible for civilian casualties in the conflict that don't result from the violation, in the first place.