Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy
Can you (according to the Geneva Convention) shoot or hang or otherwise impose capitol punishment on spies or those who are conducting miltary operations while dressed in another country's uniform?
What criteria must be met to be considered a POW and why do you feel that the insurgents meet this criteria?
These are some pretty good questions, Fozzy! I take back everything I ever said about you! .....NOT!!! :lol:
But, I will discuss this without quoting a 'higher source."
As for your base question about whether you can shoot spies (according to the Geneva Convention,) I would say NOT without first giving them two things.
1) The protections of the convention against torture, and
2) A fair trial under, at least, a MILITARY Tribunal. [Which Bush has resisted]
I'll admit, I'm just a little confused about the uniform thing, [not their lack of one, but as to your question] and I'll tell you why:
When I flew on a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane, clearly marked as American, I had "rip-off" patches for my name, rank and unit. Why?
Yet, I was told that, if captured, I would be afforded protection under the Geneva Convention because I was in UNIFORM. There WERE CIA types, wearing civilian clothes and flying in unmarked planes, who might NOT!
I'll have to admit, Foz, that I'm a little confused about this. I KNOW that I was supposed to identify myself as an American Soldier IN UNIFORM, yet I was supposed to destroy certain evidence of this. As I understand it... it was so that I would be treated no differently than any other American soldier, and they wouldn't be able to cross reference my name or unit patch and know that I was "intel." And therefore, if they were signatories to the Convention, they had to afford me general POW status.
But, it comes real close to being a civilian spy, doesn't it?
I think the definition of a "spy" has something to do with trying to blend in with the indigenous peoples, while subverting their government, and IN THEIR country. But, if I got shot down IN their country, even if I wasn't supposed to BE there, I would think it would be important to be dressed in a U.S. uniform. That is supposed to afford me POW status.
So, if an Iraqi "insurgent" is caught wearing a U.S. uniform, and amongst OUR troops, I guess that would be a spy. But, if he's outside the wire, in his OWN country, wearing the "dress" of the average person (which IS their uniform,) he would HAVE to be awarded "combatant" status, AND POW protection under the convention.
The world has changed, and wars are no longer always fought by militaries in uniform. We must accept that. Perhaps, it is time for another "convention" in Geneva. But, the fact remains that, if we want OUR soldiers to be afforded ANY decency that comes with being a combattant, we should also afford them the same thing.
As far as I know, and I'm no expert, the ONLY times in history that people have been lined up against a wall and shot (as a spy,) were when they were caught in the uniform of the shooter, and engaged in gathering intel for the enemy.
Milosevic shot people who were wearing their OWN clothes, just because they were the enemy. But, THAT is why he was being tried for war crimes.
As a point of argument in your favor, I might think that the Iraqi government COULD treat any insurgent, dressed in the common clothes of a countryman, as a spy if they want to. And I'm SURE that we have explored this legal loophole now that we have installed such a government, but it would be against the Geneva Convention for US to shoot them, once captured, as a spy.
Again, we must consider the slippery slope we go down when we treat captives under ANY guidelines that don't conform to the Convention. And any legal maneuverings by our President to do otherwise, is a violation of the TRUST of Humanity that we, as Americans, claim to uphold.
Hobo