Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/7/2002 10:40:37 AM EDT
According to the rules of war (or the Geneva Convention), I understand that if, in time of war, anyone who possesses weapons that is not in uniform may be shot on sight with no trial. From what I understand, there are absolutely no protections for the un-uniformed who take up arms in time of war. I did not read this anywhere, but was told this by a (tabbed) Army Ranger. Anybody else know details about this?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:44:32 AM EDT
What about citizens militia uniforms? Are they uniforms under the Geneva convention?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:45:41 AM EDT
So where are you going with this?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:49:21 AM EDT
so, since we're "at war", we could be shot while loading our guns into the car before setting out for the range? or maybe just having them in our homes?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:52:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan: So where are you going with this?
View Quote
There was a pretty active thread earlier this week about "targeting civilians" so I asked my buddy (the Ranger) about this. According to him, in times of war, if you are caught by your enemy out of uniform but armed, you may be summarily shot. My buddy said that is the situation in Afghanistan right now. The Al Quaida dipshits have arms but no uniforms so they technically are not POWs. You can't be a POW if you are not uniformed. He says that's why spies get executed on sight. I'm just curious if anyone else has heard this.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 11:19:04 AM EDT
All of this presumes there's a war going on. We haven't declared war on anyone ... only Congress can declare war, I don't recall hearing they have, so all bets are off. It's just some of our guys shooting some of their guys.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 11:32:57 AM EDT
Celt, Sometime either 9-12 through the 15/16. "A State of War exists between the United States of America and any nation/group determined by the President of the Unites States to be a terrorist or abiding Terrorists. Congress hereby authorized the President of the United States to Use any and All means ..... That is the jist of it. I can't remember where I saw that. And I can't remember the exact wording, but the above is very close. The US has declared War. Benjamin
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 11:41:09 AM EDT
Wobblin - thats where I thought you were going. I think the deal is you have to be the enemy, and behind enemy lines with no uniform and then you are a spy and can be shot on site. As Celt said war has not been officially declared. In this messed up situation I don't think we could declare war anyway becuase we are fighting against terrorists and not a real "government". Also, in this kind of f**ked up fighting is there a "battleline" that you can be on either side of ? Having said all that, I think we should just shoot ever pajama wearing mfer over there who has a gun.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:06:08 PM EDT
Wobblin-Goblin, generally speaking, you are correct. Typically, if you are armed and not in a uniform, you can be shot on sight.
You can't be a POW if you are not uniformed.
View Quote
Usually true, but not always. The Geneva Convention seeks to protect innocent civilians by keeping soldiers in uniform, but it does recognize the fact that all soldiers might not have uniforms available to them such as in the case of a quickly organized defense in response to an invasion. As I remember it, there are four requirements. I'm at work, so I'm away from my books and can't quote the text. I think I have this correct. You have to serve in a force under the command of a person responsible for subordinates. You must have a clear insignia or sign recognizable at a distance. You must carry your arms openly to establish your combatant status. Finally, you must conduct yourself within the Geneva Conventions.
What about citizens militia uniforms?
View Quote
If you meet all of the four requirements above, then yes. If you do not meet any one of the four, then no.z
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:17:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:21:11 PM EDT
So we're at war. But then Navy Seal Neil Roberts, who was, I presume, in uniform when he was executed, didn't get the benefit of the Geneva Convention? But we should somehow pay some sort of attention to it? The Geneva Convention is just as big a joke as the UN ....
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:33:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2002 1:28:30 PM EDT by BostonTeaParty]
Edited to add: OOPS! Thanks, Zak, I don't know what I was thinking. This sounded so much like what Congress should have done I guess I just assumed they did. Oh, well, off to look for the real thing. ------------------- Congress declared war on September 13, 2001, in H.J. Res. 63. They explicitly invoked their Article I, Section 8 constitutional power to declare to war in the resolution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed 4 civilian aircraft, crashing 2 of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C. (2) Thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the 4 aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the Pentagon , rescue workers, and bystanders. (3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged the Pentagon. (4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve. (5) Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF WAR. Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF ARMED FORCES. The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:36:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2002 12:37:28 PM EDT by trickshot]
So every CIA and SEAL guy on the news wearing jeans in combat over there is out of uniform (yes, I'm aware that jeans are sometimes worn in the Navy, but not Levis). All we have here is our bullshit imperialist country setting up the rules. It only solidifies the "evil empire" label to treat people in this manner. Since WWII, total war has made civilians targets. I'd still rather be an armed resister and not an unarmed victim of whatever violence is coming my way.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 12:44:32 PM EDT
If you're in Afghanistan and armed, you're somebody's potential target. But the way I understand it, if you're in Afghanistan and NOT armed, you're somebody's potential target. The choice seems easy to me. Stay out of Afghanistan if you can. If you must go there, try to remain well camouflaged, travel in armed groups, and be armed yourself. Interesting question: Suppose I, a civilian, had to go to Afghanistan for some currently unknown reason. My work requires that I work alone or in a small group. I choose to wear US issue surplus tricolor camouflage (or surplus desert storm era desert camo) because it apparently works in that environment. I choose to carry an AR-15 (converted to full auto, of course! [:D]] ) for personal defense should it become necessary. I'd also carry a field pack and be generally quite similar in appearance to 'our boys' though I'd wear no insignia. I can guess how the Taliban and Al Qaida force may respond if they saw me...they'd shoot. Hopefully, I'd duck and shoot better. But they'd do that if I didn't appear to be one of them under any circumstances, or so I gather. And I can't easily manage that. The question is, how would our troops handle encountering what could be described as a US civilian 'wannabe' in an area of operations? Shoot? Interrogate? Detain? Disarm, declothe, release? Laugh? Just curious. Incidentally, in Desert Storm, journalists and newsmen in the field often wore camo. But they were accompanied by our troops, usually. CJ
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:07:52 PM EDT
It is called a Levee en Masse, or a spontaneous armed uprising of the people to defend their nation. Basically, if caught by the rules of war, participants of a Levee en Masse are to be treated as another combatant. However, in most cases they are just shot as spies or saboteurs.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:20:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: Congress declared war on September 13, 2001, in H.J. Res. 63. They explicitly invoked their Article I, Section 8 constitutional power to declare to war in the resolution.
View Quote
Uhh, according to Thomas' "Bill Summary and Status:"
9/13/2001: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations
View Quote
So no, Congress hasn't declared war.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:35:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: It is called a Levee en Masse, or a spontaneous armed uprising of the people to defend their nation. Basically, if caught by the rules of war, participants of a Levee en Masse are to be treated as another combatant. However, in most cases they are just shot as spies or saboteurs.
View Quote
Thing is neither taliban or al Quieda are a goverment or the army of a goverment. And they seem to have neither heard of and certainly dont obey either the Geneva or Hague conventions. The proper interpretation here is that already taken by the Bush Admin in the case of the people held at Gitmo. It just doesnt apply in this situation, it was NEVER INTENDED to apply in this situation, this situation was never considered when they were formulated. And because of this those journalists there really ought to be carrying guns...
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:36:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak:
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: Congress declared war on September 13, 2001, in H.J. Res. 63. They explicitly invoked their Article I, Section 8 constitutional power to declare to war in the resolution.
View Quote
Uhh, according to Thomas' "Bill Summary and Status:"
9/13/2001: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations
View Quote
So no, Congress hasn't declared war.
View Quote
Wrong, that bill was signed the same day by Bush. Thomas is wrong. It was on TV.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:38:09 PM EDT
Okay, here's the real thing that became law, Senate Joint Resolution 23, passed by Congress on 9/14/2001 and signed by the President on 9/18/2001 to become Public Law 107-40. Congress acted under the War Powers Act rather than declaring war under Article I, Section 8.
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:45:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By Zak:
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: Congress declared war on September 13, 2001, in H.J. Res. 63. They explicitly invoked their Article I, Section 8 constitutional power to declare to war in the resolution.
View Quote
Uhh, according to Thomas' "Bill Summary and Status:"
9/13/2001: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations
View Quote
So no, Congress hasn't declared war.
View Quote
Wrong, that bill was signed the same day by Bush. Thomas is wrong. It was on TV.
View Quote
Zak was right, I was wrong. Thomas is the Library of Congress server, so they'd better have it right, because that's the way it's going into the law books. The way I found the right bill (and should have searched this way the first time) was to go to [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url], click on "Public Laws by Law Number" under Legislation and look through the Public Laws by law number in sequence. There are only two bills that were signed into law that are relevant. One is S.J. Res. 22, which basically just expresses outrage and commends the rescue personnel and our allies, and the other is S.J. Res. 23, which I quoted above.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:58:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2002 2:00:08 PM EDT by Zak]
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: Zak was right, I was wrong. Thomas is the Library of Congress server, so they'd better have it right, because that's the way it's going into the law books.
View Quote
I love Thomas. It's probably the best use of taxpayer money that congress has come up with yet. :)
The way I found the right bill (and should have searched this way the first time) was to go to [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url], click on "Public Laws by Law Number" under Legislation and look through the Public Laws by law number in sequence. There are only two bills that were signed into law that are relevant. One is S.J. Res. 22, which basically just expresses outrage and commends the rescue personnel and our allies, and the other is S.J. Res. 23, which I quoted above.
View Quote
(edit: The house version of this bill is HJ Res 64) Anyway, we're apparently not at war, just in a state where the use of military force is authorized. While (for our enemies, anyway) those amount to the same thing, for domestic reasons, they are quite different (no suspension of habeus corpus, for example.)
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 7:17:59 PM EDT
That is not a declaration of war. Declaring war, requires us to invade a foreign country with the intent of overpowering and displacing the seat of authority. Terrorism is not a nation, it is a tactic. We are hunting down and killing suspects. My question is, how will we know, when all the suspects have been nuetralized? waterdog
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 7:53:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: According to the rules of war (or the Geneva Convention), I understand that if, in time of war, anyone who possesses weapons that is not in uniform may be shot on sight with no trial. From what I understand, there are absolutely no protections for the un-uniformed who take up arms in time of war. I did not read this anywhere, but was told this by a (tabbed) Army Ranger. Anybody else know details about this?
View Quote
"Take up arms" is not the same thing as "possesses weapons". The first implies a participation in the act of combat. The second merely implies possessing weapons, for reasons that may or may not include combat. In Afghanistan, for instance, with the turbulent law and order situation, nearly everyone possesses weapons. They don't become combatants just because they possess them. Shooting them on sight would likely have unpleasant consequences for the shooter, legal or otherwise. The Geneva Convention deals with the rights of prisoners of war who have conducted themselves according to the rules of war. The real requirement is that of "having a fixed sign recognizable at a distance", not necessarily of being in uniform. The Convention doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about people who do not meet the definition of lawful prisoners of war. You will not find anything in the Convention about having the right to shoot them on sight. Look at it this way - since our country is at war in Afghanistan, and since you (presumably) possess weapons out of uniform, are you, personally, a combatant? I don't think so.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 8:57:10 PM EDT
I know what it is , wobblin goblin is over 35 and can't go join. But he wants to go fight for the good ole US of A. ??? Huh huh am I right?? If he can find a way where he can be labeled as a combatant then he can go fight. Then if caught by the Americans , which he would be hopeing to find and join, they will question him and he can quote the Geneva Convention and they will let him stay. Ben
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:36:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: I know what it is , wobblin goblin is over 35 and can't go join. But he wants to go fight for the good ole US of A. ??? Huh huh am I right?? If he can find a way where he can be labeled as a combatant then he can go fight. Then if caught by the Americans , which he would be hopeing to find and join, they will question him and he can quote the Geneva Convention and they will let him stay. Ben
View Quote
I know WObblin Gobblin. Wobblin Gobblin is a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Wobblin Gobblin. j/k [:D] [}:D] WG is UNDER 35, and could kick the arse of many many people under 35, BOTH because he is physically fit AND sheer will power, if kicking somones arse ever became something that needed doing. [:D] Actually, WG is a strongly patriotic family man who loves his wife and young daughter. He'd fight if he could, and like me regrets never having served in the Armed Forces, but has NO death wish. He would go if his country called him, but he ain't lookin' to be a merc wannabe. I applaud your desire to see a conspiracy here B0001, as generally conspiracy theorists are right, but in this case its not warranted. [:D] He's just a good ole boy, never meanin' no harm.... (unless somebody NEEDS killin' }:D] ) Peace and love (unless somebody NEEDS killin... [:D] ) garandman
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:08:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 1:26:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: The truth of the matter is that in a conflict, anybody with a weapon, shooting at you, is shot at. Anybody with a weapon who's not obviously on your side has some fast talking to do at the very least. IIRC, the Germans, in WWI, would execute any civilian found in possession of a firearm. I believe the phrase was "franc tireur".
View Quote
Agreed. However, the Germans were barbarians, in WWI and WWII. I hope and trust that we always remain different.
Top Top