They Watch our Backs
05 December 2011
The US Army is today in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. This was first pointed out to me by a very smart, highly experienced senior military person. Though he has never steered me wrong, this seemed a bit much. And so over the past month I looked into it.
He was right. We are in violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. The explanation is straightforward.
Our forces take casualties every day. US Army “Dustoff” helicopters evacuate wounded troopers seven days per week. The Dustoff crews courageously fly over enemy territory to rescue our wounded. Our Dustoff helicopters fly straight over enemy heads. The Dustoff helicopters are clearly marked by the Red Cross and are unarmed.
The various enemies in Afghanistan are not signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We have no expectation that they know or will follow the Conventions, and in any case the Taliban and others have not obligated themselves by agreeing to uphold the Conventions.
But our Army says that we are following the Geneva Conventions by sending unarmed helicopters marked with Red Crosses into enemy territory, flying straight over the heads of the enemy. We say the enemy is in violation when they fire upon the clearly marked helicopters.
In fact, the enemy is within the law to shoot down the Dustoffs. Importantly, the enemy is not signatory to the Conventions. Most importantly, Dustoff helicopters violate Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan and behave as combatants.
Dustoff helicopters behave as combatants by flying over routes not agreed up between all the parties to the conflict. Dustoff further violates the Conventions by flying over the enemy and over enemy terrain, and thus behave as combatants. Dustoff will never obey a summons to land to be inspected by the Taliban, and thus are behaving as combatants.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Art.22. Aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases or for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between all the Parties to the conflict concerned.
They may be marked with the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949. Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy occupied territory are prohibited.
Such aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.
And so there it is. We are in violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan and are deceptively using the Red Cross. Is this prosecutable as a war crime? I do not know. Is it a violation of the Conventions? Yes.
The Marines, Air Force, British, and US Army Special Operations Forces do not sport the Red Crosses.
The US Army is forcing Dustoff crews to violate the Geneva Conventions. American troops are trained not to violate the Geneva Conventions. Our troops are trained to disobey orders that violate the law.
The Army has publicly communicated in writing that the Dustoffs wear Red Crosses in Afghanistan to abide by Geneva Conventions. This could obligate Dustoff crews to disobey unlawful orders, or put themselves at risk of violating the Conventions.
It could happen tomorrow. A Soldier might say, “Sir, I want to go to Afghanistan, but I am afraid that by violating the Geneva Conventions, I could be accused of a war crime. I am caught in a bad place. I cannot violate the Geneva Conventions and so there is no need to send me to Afghanistan to fly. I must refuse that unlawful order. If ordered, I will go to Afghanistan but I cannot fly in violation.”
A Soldier is obligated to obey the law. A Soldier is obligated not to obey unlawful orders.
What would you do?
Order your copy today.
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
Comments
Thanks for the attention to this issue. Hopefully you have made enough of a splash that it will eventually be addressed.
You are getting a bit squirrely. If you do "generate some heat" you will be the one to feel it.
When reason and quiet "diplomacy" don't work, then you are left to build a coalition that can make noise and raise the issue publicly to get the job done.
This is too serious a matter to allow it to be swept under the rug, or to vilify the messenger (which is happening in several circles).
If Obama REALLY supports the troops he'd haul the Joint Chiefs of Staff into the Situation Room and demand that they stay put until this is solved with a unified policy.
Still, it really ought to get tended to, sharpish!
From other reports, it appears that there are multiple layers of internal power struggles happening behind the scenes - some of which may be decades in the forming. Having been personally in contact with Chazray Clark's widow, I'm pretty confident that she couldn't care less who in the US Army "owns" the skies. What matters to her is that her husband might still be alive today if Army policy didn't keep its rescue copters grounded unnecessarily long.
This is life and death stuff here, and the President be made aware of this problem and he should act to have it resolved.
But then again, getting rid of obsolete markings doesn't look as good for politicians as a couple of pictures of them with veterans and their families in the papers. Couple that with the potential political backlash (claims of endangering the wounded when you remove the Red Crosses) and most politicians will probably feel that saving the lifes of people they don't even know isn't worth even a minor setback in their career.
Politicians. We can't live without them, and we can't live with them.
"From other reports, it appears that there are multiple layers of internal power struggles happening behind the scenes - some of which may be decades in the forming."
How about this? The 2nd WW was fought in part by the US with an Army, Navy, Marines etc., and the Army Air Force would you believe? The discombobulatio n was solved by the formation of the US Air force.
Is it impossible to combine the efforts of all the present medic fleets with one master-coordina ted Field Recovery Force, fully armed-piss on the conventions when necessary-and move immediately on call-Force?? Am I thinking too clearly here? I see a whole lot of frontliners in this discussion, with obviously hurtful memories of the noise. If you were Panetta today, what would you do?
Thank you Mike.
Have you gotten any response(s) from those in authority who could make it right?
It sounds to me as if they take would take more interest in "Dancing with the Stars" than troop welfare if given the opportunity, I think.
This is not the type of way that the conventions addressed. You said they have not agreed to play by the rules, so it's a mute point. Report on something worthwhile, and quit trying to be a dramatist like Jerry Springer.
Drink a lot of fluids, maybe you can wash out that bug up your butt you have for the Army medics who are doing the best they can under the circumstances. I was a big supporter of your efforts in this area until this garbage dispatch.
This dispatch illustrated that the the U.S. policy with Army DUSTOFF missions has been inconsistant with the Geneva Convention itself. He has also stated that since our "enemy" is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, it's rules are null and void.
Please ensure you have all available information before posting comments that are naive at best.
It's not a "mute point" unless you're referring the point helicopters don't speak. It's a moot point.
And, yes, I took Michael's point to be tongue in cheek. It's fun to take a laughable, at best, reply and show how even the non-plausible explanation is still technically wrong. It shows the level of incompetence involved.
...and increase the Blackhawks. Are there enough available? If the generals don't have them, they can't send them.
This is probably one of the best things Michael has ever drawn attention to, except for the troops on the ground and their progress. I'd say this problem is within the same category as the soft skin Hummvees that were driven around in Iraq for years, providing easy targets for terrorists there.
Secondly, the linked commentary indicates permission to fly over enemy territory may be requested. Since the Taliban are unlawful combatants and the recognized government is that of Afghanistan, blanket permission to fly exists.
Never-the-less, the commentary doesn't say a request to fly must be granted before a flight can take place. It does say the enemy may request the plane to land for inspection but the request to land may be ignored. If the request to land is ignored, the enemy may attempt to shoot down the aircraft.
See Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the following commentary for details.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600026?OpenDocument
Everything in the Geneva Convention seems specifically geared between state to state conflicts. I assume, although I am not sure, that we have agreements with Afghanistan itself to fly our helicopters.
In practical terms, if the Taliban invite a Dustoff to land for inspection and it complies, is there any chance they won't merely kill everybody inside?
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the laws of war are designed for the real world, and it's legitimate to take reality into account. If a recognized specialist in the law of war agrees with your position, this is very serious.
Can you direct us to the opinion of such a specialist? Your opinion is worth more than mine, but that's not saying much.
Since the Taliban are not a party to the Geneva Convention, can they legally summon a Dustoff flight to land for inspection?
I think a lot of the legal issue revolves around the display of the Red Cross on the Dustoff birds. Paint them over and the problem goes away.
I can tell you this - if you were laying in a rice paddy with your guts sshowing through your ODs back in the 60s, you wouldn't have given a rat's ass about anything bet getting evaced. I would think our guys in D-bagistan feel the same. Just my humble opinion.
I'm assuming you're referring a portion of Michael's readership/supp orters and not Mr. Yon himself; that would be ignorant.
Based on that assumption, exactly what part of the concept of Civilian leadership over the military did you miss in the Constitution?
- the USMC, USAF and British forces evacuate wounded troops with armed helicopters not bearing the Red Cross symbols
- the US Army evacuate the wounded with unarmed helicopters emblazoned with Red Crosses. Because they are unarmed, they must wait for an armed attack copter to fly high cover for them before they can be dispatched. Yon documented this can result in unnecessary delays in retrieving grievously wounded troops.
- The Army's defense is that the Geneva Convention requires medical evacuations be carried out by non-combatants in clearly marked vehicles/aircraft.
- The issue can be fixed by taking the Red Crosses off the Army copters and putting guns on them
- Today Yon reports the Army violates the GC simply by flying evacuations over random flight paths at random times. If you are violating the GC already, then go all-in and save lives. Go armed. Go NOW!
If you want to hide behind rules, make sure you know the rules first.
Clearly, in a theatre such as Afghanistan, the "rules go out of the window if your opponent doesn't abide by them.
Get the red crosses off and weapons in!
Thank you for pointing this out Michael.
Unfortunately the peaceniks would rather replace the Red Crosses with bull's eyes and put speed limits on the copters so they are easier to shoot down. Heck they probably want to send all of Ghaddfi's weapons to the rebels and providing training.
Time to let the military fight the fight and win.
If Mr. Yon bothered to read the rest of GCIV then he would see that "Parties" is a defined term and means a signatory country which the Taliban is not. Furthermore, "enemy" means the forces of a signatory country. This is not "enemy territory." It is not "enemy occupied territory." It is the territory of the country of Afghanistan and the ISAF operates under their explicit approval. I would try to explain it further but Mr. Yon's logic is so spurious I don't even know where to begin.
No one who actually knows international law would say that this is a violation of GCIV. It may be stupid, and I think it's bad policy but it is ***NOT*** illegal.
What if, as in VN, Iraq and Afghanistan territory is disputed and changes hands literally with the rising and setting of the sun - what does the GC require?
The Army is tying its own hands by designating the copters as MEDEVAC copters. Just change their designation to casualty evacuation copters or un-designated copters that happen to provide medical evacuations.
Self-defense is not a valid defense under the GCs. So even though they shoot us we have to take the fire. (The alternative is Mr. Yon's suggestion which I endorse to drop the Red Cross and grab the guns.) But if you carry the Red Cross (or equivalent such as Red Crescent) you cannot carry any armament.
That's actually my point: it's not enemy territory here because it's battlefield, not established enemy territory.
The Army is certainly tying its own hands, but contrary to Mr. Yon's assertion, it is not a violation of international law to do so.
Do they get issued flashcards to let them know when they can and when they can't defend themselves?
- Foot in the copter? Don't fire!
- Foot on the ground? OK to fire!
- Taking fire while in the air? Duck & Cover!
- Taking fire on the LZ? Blaze away!
Back to the REAL point. Why should American troops spend one second longer than necessary waiting to be evacuated when the rules could simply be changed by the Army and still conform with the GC?
Take the Red Crosses off, put mini-guns on. Then whenever a call comes in, any available copter could take off immediately without waiting for air cover.
I don't know the ROE for when crewmen/medics can use their personal weapons.
All I know is that Yon's original argument about the GC and international law is incorrect.
I don't know the actual ROE for when crewmen/medics can use their personal weapons. I do know that Mr. Yon is wrong in his original argument.
I agree with his policy recommendation, but he's just wrong about the law.
So tell me- what utility does having guns bring WHEN the point of the dustoff is to land? Helicopter guns aren't worth squat on the ground. So the dustoff is going to suppress by raining down fire with its miniguns on the LZ and then dashing in and snatching the casualty while Mohammed is too stunned to return to the fight? Or maybe you think that you are going to hose away while sitting on the ground with Rotors turning? Like there is a chance that the door gunner will hit anything while he is also loading a stretcher? The problem isn't guns on a dustoff- it's having someone to fly cover while the dustoff is going in to a hot LZ.
Give it a rest Michael. Sadly- you have no cred left after this one.
According to Mike, Dustoff sits on the pad because they won't go into "hot" LZs? But the PJs, Marines and Brits do? You say they'll go in with cover. Are the AF, USMC and Brits getting all the air cover? What does that say about the Army?
The Army insists on delaying the departure of its MEDEVAC copters until an armed escort is available. If the attack copters are supporting infantry elsewhere, how long might it be before they are re-tasked to MEDEVAC support? Should they leave ground forces that needed them in the first place in order to fly cover elsewhere? Will the escort need to return to base to refuel or replenish ammunition? Delay. Delay. Delay.
In a UK National Health Service article about the armed UK MERT copters, They talk about the golden ten minutes for combat casualties, while we talk about a golden hour.
So, if the USMC, USAF and UK fly in as soon as the call comes in because they have armed copters, then why doesn't the Army want to adopt their policies? It is just a policy the Army can change.
Its one thing to point the finger, its another to provide an alternative.
I am concerned that Yon's attempt to use Army hypocrisy re GC compliance against them as another approach to get their attention got the discussion sidetracked. Let's all agree that Yon is wrong about what he posted today. It does nothing to diminish the importance of addressing delays in rescuing wounded troops.
This site is supposed to prove a place for people wanting the Army to change its policy re evacuating wounded troops. In that regard nothing has changed.
What argument do YOU think will win the day and get the Army to relent?
Armed, unmarked copters with medics or paramedics can depart immediately upon receipt of a 9 line report. They arrive on scene sooner and get wounded troops to higher level medical care faster than unarmed MEDEVAC copters currently delayed by policy.
Fewer Minutes = lives saved
What I am saying is pointing the finger and raising this issue is purely sensationalism which is why I avoid mainstream media and follow sites like Michael's in the 1st place. I found this story a little too "mainstream sensationalist" . That's all.
The Army is hiding behind the Geneva Convention as to why its slow to launch copters have the markings and are unarmed.
The Army could match the other forces and call the newly unmarked, armed copters CASEVAC and responds to calls for help sooner than with MEDEVAC copters. Everything else could remain the same; same crews, same level of care, etc.
The GC restriction was drafted to prevent "trojan horse" attacks under the cover of medical assistance/medi cal evacuation activity and to allow medical care for the wounded. Hence the requirement to be marked and unarmed.
As long as you aren't wearing Red Crosses, you can be armed while evacuating the wounded. Which is what the Marines, Air Force, and UK do.
Yon is exploring other reasons why the Army is resisting this change?
All I am saying is now that others with apparently greater understanding of the GC and its application have said Yon was wrong, let's re-center the conversation about the core issue and seek a way to break through to the Army.
I wonder why they insist on being unreasonable.
Nice write-up.. to fix everyones problems just call me and my boys....Pedro's in HOT
The arguments in favor of removing the insignia are compelling: flying unarmed puts evac men and equipment at risk; waiting for armed cover puts wounded at risk; requiring armed cover removes it from combat availability.
All the talk about Geneva is a smokescreen - ignore it. What is the REAL reason for maintaining the insignia? Sell more Apaches? Increase command size (promotability) ? What are we missing in all this?
(1)Who in the Army controls helicopters in a combat zone - the combat arm AND the medical arm on their respective missions? Or does the combat command control all flights, through the use of the armed escort requirement?
(2)There is a shortage of attack copters in Afghanistan meaning there can be an "either-or" decision to be made as to their mission disposition at any given time: fly combat cover for ground forces or fly cover for MEDEVAC. Maybe they can do both in some cases, but in others they can't.
So, there are internal power incentives at play as well as the desire by the Army combat command to buy more attack helicopters and the desire of industry to sell more of them. If troops are dying due to a lack of enough attack helicopters to escort every MEDEVAC mission immediately as the call comes in, then Gold Star families and others will seek a political solution and the copters will be bought.
Not that any of that has anything to do with the issue at hand, does it?
2. If you do indeed live in the midst of a large muslim populace, try sharign the gospel with someone, or give a gospel or a Bible to someone and let your next of kin tell us how it worked out for you. the priests and ministers I have known, who have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a portion of Cyprus, have all stated without reservation that they were warned by both government officials and civilians that they had better not discuss their faith openly anywhere in the city where they lived or they would be at least deported, more likely imprisoned.
I rather doubt you have seen that behavior amongst any civilized people in the modern world. Only muslims controlling their nations.
Speak out against radicals of any stripe, but don't paint all of a similar religion as radical enemies.
Your assertion is factually and irrevocably contradicted by history past and current.
"Fewer Minutes=lives saved"
" 50 Minutes=MONEY saved"
What a PERFIDY and stupid GC LAWS.
We need to change the policies, but Yon doesn't need to muddy the waters by making false arguments. (Especially not when there are tons of perfectly valid arguments to be made.)
When Yon says stupid stuff like that then the people in charge tune him out. In order to get this changed valid, powerful arguments should be used, not flawed, false and insulting ones.
(p.s.: that is a good post. Look for it below)
"From other reports, it appears that there are multiple layers of internal power struggles happening behind the scenes - some of which may be decades in the forming."
How about this? The 2nd WW was fought in part by the US with an Army, Navy, Marines etc., and the Army Air Force would you believe? The discombobulatio n was solved by the formation of the US Air force.
Is it impossible to combine the efforts of all the present medic fleets with one master-coordina ted Field Recovery Force, fully armed-piss on the conventions when necessary-and move immediately on call-Force?? Am I thinking too clearly here? I see a whole lot of frontliners in this discussion, with obviously hurtful memories of the noise. If you were Panetta today, what would you do?
If I were Panetta I would put a bullet through my own head and thereby do the USA, the Armed Forces and the Free World a favor. When he was with the Company he demonstrated his utter lack of giving a damn about the men in the field, and he still apparently has no use for the men and women in uniform... plus he has openly revealed his anti-Semitism in recent weeks. We NEED to get the political whores out of the positions of power, and let the men and women who understand warfare, discipline and honor, have their say in the operations of the finest armed forces in the world today.
Quoting John Hopkinson:
Etc,etc.,,
OOOOO..K. Now you have a bullet through your brains. But wtf would you do about Michael Yon's Dustoffs?
The Army should change its policy on how it evacuates the wounded.
Then we discuss what the standards for evacuation are, such as, wounded should be evacuated within 10 minutes of the call.
Then you discuss how that is accomplished. For example, to facilitate evacuation within 10 min evacuation choppers should be armed.
Finally and lastly you discuss the political implications such as collateral damage, civilian casualties, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
As usual the Army seems to have it @$$ backward and is letting the political implications drive its policy.
Of course, that is why you would never reach the rank of General, because you see through all the BS and don't want to do the Funky PC Dance.... but still....well said.
I do see some problems with an actual formal MEDEVAC force, that might prevent its formation. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into that topic, however.
I do want to say that none of this reflects on the crews themselves, all of whom do heroic duty and are all dedicated to saving the lives of our troops. From what I have read in the articles and the comments from MEDEVAC personnel, they are as frustrated as we are about policies that delay departures on these missions.
This is a well-establishe d area of operations research that is based on the concept of service level. There are thousands of OR/MS scientists and practitioners that could guide or review the analysis to keep it honest.
1. The few friends that I still have flying out there today have told me that they quite often still go into “hot” LZs in Afg. Have they been totally grounded unless they have a “cold” LZ or are they limited to hardstand to hardstand, FOB to FOB missions like we were when we first came under the control of the aviation branch?
2. Are their restrictions due to aviation branch rules or is this something bigger?
3. Did the leaders in the Dust-Off company lose more control than when we were under a Medical Evacuation Battalion or have they simply “caved” and just been led astray?
Not to mention that the Taliban doesn't actually control any territory. They are an insurgent group, there isn't any "behind the lines" so to speak.
I think you're reaching and for not good reason either. The enemy is going to shoot at us whether we have a cross/crescent/ Betty Page painted on the aircraft... so what's the point?
https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/23582-1/FM/4-02.2/FM4_02X2.PDF
I'm going to have a T-shirt printed up that I can wear whenever I expect to see a politician or activist.
SUGGEST A SOLUTION!
I like it.
If the sound of machine guns scares you, at least remove the Red Crosses.
I thought long and hard before going that route. The Army is saying it is abiding by Geneva Conventions by sporting the crosses. You and I know that is false. However, if we humor them and say, "Okay, so let's examine it from your [faulty] position," they are breaking the GC. Now we all know that Taliban, Haqqani, etc., do not abide. But again, humoring the Army position, they clearly are breaking the GC.
We know nothing will come of this. What is going to happen? Mullah Omar sue the Pentagon? It's a mental exercise without consequence other than to further expose Army insanity with the Red Crosses.
Insofar as SoF, some from that community reached out last time I was in Kabul but I didn't have time. Had to get to Kandahar. I am told that Afghan SF is sharp. I had dinner with an Afghan SF officer. Did not see him in action, but talking with him he clearly was a very intelligent man.
Generally, I read "Enemy Territory" as the land of a sovereign stage.
In fact, the 1949 Accord mentions "Diplomatic representatives who are in enemy territory on the outbreak of war."
Do we fly overfly OTHER nations outside Afghanistan ?
Love your pictures, man, but this is just crazy talk.
The United States Army holds that we must abide by Geneva Conventions. The conventions preclude marked medical aircraft from flying over the enemy, or their territory. One can argue definitions about territory, but there is zero argument that we fly over the enemy. Many Americans like to play lawyer and think that they can define the rules that the rest of the world plays by. Doesn't work. Many Americans will still argue that we never were at war in Vietnam because we did not declare war.
In regard to Afghanistan MEDEVAC, all potential issues are solved by removing the Red Crosses.
If you get the Taliban to be a signatory to the Convention, would that make it safer?
As the last poster indicated, whether they abide by the Geneva Convention or not the Allies need to take the higher moral road or else we are no better than they are.
How do you define people shooting at you in civilian clothes while hiding inside houses using women and children as shields?
What are the rules of war regarding uniforms?
If someone is fighting against you and is not wearing a uniform how are you supposed to treat them if you capture them?
Finally, why do we have to treat our enemies any better than they treat us when captured?
OK, one more thing. If we put captured enemy up in the Ritz Carlton with an unlimited expense account, do you think they would treat us any better if captured?
Look at what the Geneva Convention says
Like a Prisoner of War (that's what you are a Nation at War right??)
Because you are supposed to be better then them, if you are not going to take the high ground how exactly are you different? If you don't take the high ground and treat your prisoners properly (and secret prisons for torture is not proper treatment), then you dont have much of leg to stand on when the enemy kills, dismembers and burn their prisoners.
Who said they have to be put up in the Ritz?? Maybe read up on the Conventions before saying invredibly dumb things.
We are better than they are because they are animals. When we treat them like such we can put this BS behind us and live peacefully.
I think you need to go back to school, or the rock you crawled out from under, because if you treat them poorly you surely can't be surprised that their friends don't like you much.
Even a beaten dog can bite back.
I am so glad that you admit your schooling was substandard, it is the first step on the road to recovery and i wish you well. :)
Point out the flaw in the logic: America is claiming this is a war, Prisoners of War are afforded certain treatments (which they would be the first to complain about if a US Soldier was mistreated) BUT in order to gain limited knowledge they decided that indivudlas captured were not PWs but something else (sorry the word escapes me) and said that torture was an acceptable course of action. Somewhat bizarre way to win friends and influence people.
Good luck on the re-education process, I wish you the best and perhaps you will learn of a world of thought outside your two stop light town.
I hold a degree and physics and mathematics, was vice president of two major corporations, founded a successful biotech company, and hold eight patents.
As to your second point. Anytime you want to equate water boarding with beheading, I suggest you try both and see how you feel about it afterwards. Anytime a sniper requires three levels of approval before shooting an enemy combatant, we are being far more "civilized" than any other country on earth. Anytime you send unarmed men into territory occupied by people who have no compunctions about using women and children as human shields, who slaughter women and children with suicide bombs, who happily murder others because of their religious beliefs, and to whom torture is simply a formality on the way to summary execution by the most vile mean available, I'd say we are acting in a civilized manner that approaches stupidity.
I am truly sorry for the state your education.
I am not arguing that waterboarding is equal beheading. I am arguing just because he did it, I can too is a 4 year old's response to something not someone with an apparent education such as you claim to have. As to your second point, isn't putting FOBs/COBs in the middle of populated ares the same as using women and children as shield?? I mean anyone can surmise that a nice juicy target like a US FOB is an awesome target, and the collateral damage can be blamed on the American response. Which does occur.
The problem with you is that it is all ok, when it is happening to someone else; the second your "sacred" rights are threatened you go running like a little girl to government for help.
Remember, even a beaten dog can come back and bite its abuser :)
It still requires dustoffs to fly at "heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned." It also includes the prohibition on flying over enemy territory without permission the requirement of landing for examination when summoned. They are also required to bear their national colors on upper, lower, and lateral surfaces in addition to the red cross emblem. I'm pretty damn sure dustoffs don't follow these regulations, and thus attacks against them are not prohibited by this Article, which negates any legal reason for continuing to bear the red cross.
The Geneva convention clearly states, "uniformed and organized, enemy."
The Taliban is never uniformed, much the same way, as the Vietcong, were never uniformed. Thus, the Geneva Convention, has no say in this conflict.
They are nothing more than enemy combatants and terrorists.
You and your friend, give these people, too much credit.
RSS feed for comments to this post