I know that one of the “It’s a war crime!” thangs going on lately has involved Iraqi military dropping their uniforms and, amongst the civilian population, taking pot shots at Coalition forces.
It’s a despicable act, of course, essentially the same as using human shields (with the more despicable inference that they really want Coalition troops to incur civilian casualties).
But it makes me think of “resistance” movements in past conflicts. Take WWII, for example. A number of military forces (and others), in Nazi-occupied nations, blended in with the population and continued to wage war on the occupiers — sabotage, ambush, assassination, etc. Were they war criminals, too?
Heck, by that token, were the lovable guys in Hogan’s Heroes war criminals?
Of course, when found, they were summarily executed. But it was the Nazis doing it, of course, so that’s hardly an argument. The Nazis practiced “Kill one of us, we’ll execute ten civilian” style reprisals, too.
I’m sure there’s a legal difference, and I suspect there’s a difference in tactics used, too. But it still bugs me a bit. If this country were invaded, I’d expect non-uniformed resistance “behind enemy lines,” too (cf. Red Dawn). Would that be a war crime?
Another disturbing item I caught just at the end of on BBC news last night. It was an NGO aid worker basically saying that unless the UN got to administer relief programs in Iraq, her organization was not going to provide any aid. It wasn’t out of fear that association with US or British troops might be dangerous. It was simply that working with US or British forces would somehow “legitimize” the Iraqi war, and therefore, on principle, her group would rather stand by and do nothing until the UN got involved.
Talk about war crimes …
The Germans designated resistance fighters as “illegal Combatants”. And held them, tortured them and executed them with out trials. This was, and is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The guy’s on Hogan’s Hero’s “were” spies and could be shot, when found out of uniform. If they had been found in uniform, this would’ve been a little bit of a gray area (they could have climed to have been escaping POW’s (Acceptable within the Geneva Conventions)).
But remember, only losers are war criminals…
Another thought that I had during lunch on this subject: Rumsfeld (et al) sound a lot like the British Generals complaining about the Colonist’s tactic’s during the American Revolution.
Shooting from behind trees and walls, Shooting officers, not fighting like an army is supposed to, hiding weapons in churches and in houses, and other such complaints…only it’s in real time.
From a story I heard on NPR: If you are a uniformed member of an army, you are a legal combatant (it’s ok to shoot at the other side). If you remove that uniform, and then work against the other side (or are not a member of the army), it is considered perfidy. If you take up arms and shoot at the other side(or pretend to surrender and then shoot, or gave up your military uniform), you are an illegal combantant, and have enganged in trechery. The strict rules about uniform in a war zone are partially based on these rules
Legal combantants who are captured or surrender are considered POWs, and should be treated in accordence with the Geneva Convertions. Illegal combatants, as we should recently remember from Afganistan, are a giant gray area. According the the man who was speaking, most often illegal combatants are given treatment in accordance with Geneva, but the conventions were at little hazy on such people.
Stan, I heard a similar comment from a commentator on NPR at lunch. He added that only “the stronger side” wants to play by “the rules.”
There’s probably something to be said for that, and it goes to some of the ambiguity I feel about some of these items. I mean, look at any “commandos behind enemy lines” WWII movie. Dressing as civilians, faking surrender (or faking lying dead by the side of the road), taking shelter with (sympathetic?) civilians — it’s all fine when it’s Lee Marvin or someone like that sneaking around Italy or France or Norway or Greece. That’s ’cause he’s a Good Guy, fighting for the Good Guys.
On the other hand, maybe it’s not that it justfies some (by no means all) of the tactics used by the Iraqis — maybe it means that Lee Marvin(‘s character) actually was a war criminal.
Mary, I seem to recall hearing that non-military personnel are allowed to take up arms ad hoc, or if there’s not enough time to join the army and get a uniform, without it being “perfidy.” It doesn’t seem, of couse, that this is the case with much of what we’re seeing.
I do think that this is a matter that eventually have to be left up to the Iraqi people when this is all over — after all, it’s their country. They will have to decide if being shot at by their own army, being used as human shields, being (perhaps) forced to let the Iraqi army forces mingle among them as pretend “civilians” so they could attack American forces, all to support the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein, is outweighed by what could be seen as the perfectly legitimate effort to repel an invader.
I suspect a number of the individuals who are alleged to have done such acts, even if they escape military reprisal, will meet their fates before an sort of war crimes tribunal is pulled together.