Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 1/2/2004 12:14:15 PM EDT
OK, it's been about 18 years since I was in the Corps, but when did they change the rules about enemy troops having to be in uniform, or else be shot for espionage?

I haven't seen too many of the people who have taken to shooting at us wearing uniforms.  Therefore, I do not understand at all why we are treating captured Taliban and Fedayeen Saddam as POWs, rather than being chemically interrogated and then killed for espionage.

Believe it or not, this is a serious question.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:43:26 PM EDT
Bumpity.

4 1/2 hours without a single answer.  Not even a smart-ass one.  Must be a new ARFCOM record.

C'mon, guys, I feel that if this doctrine is still valid, we need to make it public, so the public doesn't get brainwashed by the Commie News Network that we are mistreating "POW"s.  They are captured spies and saboteurs, and should be treated as such.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 9:11:45 PM EDT
Not shot for espionage, but as illegal combatants.  There were some changes suggested back in the 70's maybe 80's, it was a sop to various "national liberation forces" and fuzzy thinking leftists that wanted to ensure that guerillas wouldn't get shot out of hand.  Don't recall what came of it.  Along that line did you ever see a US Civilian uniform.  To be worn by civilians working with the Armed Forces to avoid the complication of possibly being caputred in civilian clothes.  Field engineers used to wear them (primarily collar devices on khaki shirts) on some of the ships on the gun line and I saw some that were used during Gulf War 1.  They were bdu's/fatigues (can't remember if they were plain dark green or cammies)  They had a triangular IIRC insignia on the shirt pockets, and a few other things that were supposed to be sufficient to prevent the inadvertant execution.

Not what the rules are but what public and internation opinion and reaction to our "legally" executing illegal combatants probably drive our policy.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 9:35:14 PM EDT
I don't know about the original question, but I've certainly seen the "US CIVILIAN" and "RED CROSS" name tapes on BDUs from pictures in Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 9:54:12 PM EDT
Aren't they "irregular militia"?
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 10:14:11 PM EDT
What was the question?

You mean being able to shoot armed people that are shooting at you is illegal?

[i]I am confused.[/i]
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 10:32:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2004 10:33:29 PM EDT by kpel308]
No.  The question is why are we treating these a-holes who are not in uniform yet ARE armed as POW's?  If you aren't in uniform, yet are engaged in combat, you are not covered by the Hague Convention or the Geneva convention, as I understand it.  And NO, I did NOT fall asleep during my Naval Science classes in NROTC.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 11:24:36 PM EDT
It's because we have decided to treat them that way.  If you engage and kill them in an engagement that's not a political problem.  Executing prisoners that have surrendered is a political problem, even if the Hague Convention allows it.  However it is going to take Court Martials or Military Tribunals to do it.  If it ever gets done, then you know damn well even if all the I's are dotted and T's crossed the Democrats, News Media and everybody in Europe are going to have cows over it.

A notable exception are the guys that disguised themselves as the Press.  I expect a lot of folks in the media won't mind them getting fried.  They just made targets of every reporter in the field.

Link Posted: 1/3/2004 1:33:58 AM EDT
The Hague is best ignored.
Top Top