The status of Al Quida and Taliban fighters (mis-termed insurgents by much of the media) is unlawful combatants. To help clear the air about all this, here’s an excellent and I think unbiased article by a Columbia Univ. law professor:
(b),(c) &(d) appear trivial to many people, but they’re there for a very good reason. Those requirements are meant to attempt to minimize civilian involvement and casualties by combatants blending into the population thus using them as cover and as shields (and then claiming that we deliberately killed such civilians).
I have family in the military. Apparently a favoured tactic of the Taliban is, when they know the british are approaching, to run into houses and attack the residents, forcing them to flee out into the streets where they can use them as cover and attack the British troops.
Our currently engagement policy (afaik) is that we must ‘challenge’ someone before we can engage them. That is, we basically have to yell at people ‘Are you Taliban?!’ before we engage because there’s no way to tell them apart from regular civilians. Remember that large numbers of people in Afghanistan carry weapons (well, it is basically a warzone, wouldn’t you?) so even if they are obviously packing, you can’t just blow them away
As a strategy, it certainly gives them an advantage. If they were to play by the UN rules, they would be wiped out by now (think how unequal military resources are). It is unreasonable, in some respects, to assume that weaker side will play by the same rules as outlined by UN and overseen by Security Council (ruled, of course, by the big 5), and be expected to even have a chance at winning the war. So, it chooses to level the combat field in it’s own way and become an underground resistance movement (or an underground crusade movement).
So the tactic is ok, and when we capture them, we should just let a NY lawyer use their considerable funds to get them off on technicalities`so they can kill again–which the ones we have released have done.
These rules aren’t UN rules, they are the rules of the Geneva Convention which have been ratified by 194 countries. These particular rules are to protect the civilians, not give the big guys an advantage, which is the only real reason to have rules of war at all. If these tactics weren’t so awfully destructive to innocent bystanders who suffer enough as it is, there would have been no impetus for this many countries to sign on.
Well, if we went really old school, and fought in lines slowly marching towards each other, there would be essentially no civilian casualties. Of course, if we’d always done that the US probably wouldn’t be an independent nation today. I think Pandora’s point is valid: if they played by the rules, they would lose. Why should they play by the rules? The moral high ground is easy for the larger and better equipped army.
It could be true under the new administration. That’s why I think Obama is either very naïve or very clever. The damage that United States has done to some countries will not be forgiven that easily. Have you ever asked yourself why certain groups turn to “terrorism”, or even why they hate America?
And who gets to enforce them?
That is arguable. Maybe it is true to some degree, but such reasoning can be easily used as a cover to invade a foreign country that is seen either as threat or control over which is seen as VITAL. It is the same superior morality of the power nations (that get to use sanctions on others…among other things) which contributed to the rise of Hitler, and the creation of the Iraqi insurgency.
What’s more probable: that America cares about the Iraqi people and their well-being, or that cares about having access, by whatever means, to a major oil supply, on which it depends?
If these tactics were not employed, what would happen to the bystanders and their children in the longer run? Liberty? Democracy? American Utopia? As I recall, America did not care that much about the slaughter of innocents when it was in its interests to be friends with Saddam.
Also, signing doesn’t mean anything; if you sign it, you don’t have to follow it. And even if you ratified you are pretty much excused from following it…provided you’re one of the major powers. I would argue that countries accept international law based on how it would benefit THEM and not for some humanitarian ideal.
Little guys are pretty much stuck in choosing between the two evils (masters).