« A Dwarf is Awakening | Main | Enemy from Behind »


??? The Silence of the German Media Lambs ???

there's a bigger problem now: international conventions of warfare are violated by us-forces. i'd call this "the silence of the blog"...

Not that the Iraqi "resistance fighters" would care that much about international conventions of warfare...

I think there should be a proper investigation, and if turns out that this soldiers killed this Iraqi without a proper reason, he should be punished severely.

But. This is a war. These soldiers are in an extraordinary situation. And there has been no war in history (at least to my knowledge) where things like that have not happened. To try to make another Abu Ghraib out of it (Abu Ghraib WAS something special and deserved to be treated harshly by the media, although I think it was not acceptable to imply that it was done systematically, whereas to this day there is no proof for it, quite the opposite) is nonsense.

And I keep wondering why the media make every effort to portray the Coalition forces as ruthless killers and war criminals, whereas the beheadings, mutilations and terrorist attacks of the "resistance" are reported matter-of-factly. Every TV station showed the NBC tape. But who has shown the hostage "slaughter houses" in Fallujah - except for Fox? Who has shown more of the beheadings than a still picture? Who has said anything about the terror regime of the "resistance" in Fallujah, where women were threatened with death if they dared leave their home without being veiled from head to toe? It was mentioned in the Times, but where was it in Germany?

I agree that if this Iraqi really posed no threat (no hidden bombs etc.), it was a crime to kill him and the soldiers should face a war crimes trial. And I think it's okay for the media to show it, so that people are reminded of what war can be about. But I cannot accept the double standards where single incidents are projected upon the whole of the US troops, whereas the "resistance" does hundreds of such things on a daily basis that get much less media attention or outrage, although, in their case, they are done systematically.

yihaaaa welcome to the united german caliphate:


Germany's media are its military and attacks to draw blood. On the other hand, Germany's military considers all aspects of a situation before rendering a judgment. This role reversal destroys the credibility of both.

The rules of engagement are very simple:

If an enemy has a weapon is coming toward you …..You Kill Him.
If an enemy has a weapon and running away from you…. You Kill Him.
If an enemy has a weapon and is wounded and still continues to resist…..You Kill Him.

If an enemy has no weapon, is wounded and makes no hostile action….You take him prisoner.

Now from the camera angle it is impossible to tell just what this particular Marine was looking at or saw or thought he saw. In all cases such as this, this incident will be fully investigated and all Marines who were present will be questioned.

If this Marine was wrong, then he will be punished. If he was correct in his actions, then he will be excoriated.

It is an unfortunate consequence of war that split second decisions have to be made concerning life and death. In most cases, there are no second chances.

I think you are being much too harsh on Germany.

Once Germany become a permate member of the UNSC, none of these things will happen.

Joe, you are correct,
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Eccoriate Ec*co"ri*ate, v. t. imp. & p. p. Excoriated; p.
pr. & vb. n. excoriating. L. excoriare; ex out + corium
hide. cf. Scourge; see Cuirass.
To strip or wear off the skin of; to abrade; to gall; to
break and remove the cuticle of, in any manner, as by
rubbing, beating, or by the action of acrid substances.

"No Blood for Cocoa!"

Hmm, just doesn't have the same punch to it.


Well you realize the french marched off to the Ivory Coast long before this issue ever came before the UNSC.

I found the silence from Berlin to be deafing.

But you are right. just does not have that punch to it.

Hey guys,

Screw the worthless terrorist bastard that was shot by the Marine! Where are your sense of proportionality. Poor Margarette Hussein was found cut up in 5 pieces. Her only crime was to be the top administrator of CARE in Iraq for the last 25 years.

For you Germans who have not received the true story from the German press:

- Terrorists in Fullduja are planting bombs on their own dead and seriously wounded.

-A member of this Marine's unit was wounded when he checked a dead Iraqi to see if he was still alive....the body blew up in his face.

- The same Marine who pulled the trigger was shot in the face the previous day. He recovered quickly from his wounds and was sent back to duty. It does not mean that he was not psychologically stressed when he went back to duty.

- The same Marine who pulled the trigger yelled..."he is fakeing being dead"...You need an intent to have a war crime. This Marine was obviously in fear of his life and was legitimately defending himself.

When Americans hear hysterical criticism from foreigners, such as above, it reinforces our belief that the World Court would be a kangaroo court to punish Americans politically. There is no way that the US will allow its citizens to be tried by such a court.

Thank you for the information about the UN. The mainstream media does not care. The mob is not interested in this because the Holy Cow (UN) is involved. They want only shit about Israel and USA.

So they focus on this new theme: Did a soldier kill an innocent and unarmed Iraqi TERRORIST?

MY questions about this:
1. Why is the camera man there in both times and making these pictures?
2. The camera man is there before the soldiers went in. Why??? And why does he not report about it to the soldiers who may loose their lives?
3. Did the same camera man make the pictures from the first and the second day?
4. Why is this all in public before investigation?

The Arab media is reporting about it and does not present all facts. IT IS ALREADY a war crime. The Arab people like the European have already made up their minds. Perhaps it will create more hatred. More soldiers will die before the facts are clear. But I wonder why people feel more sorrow with a terrorist than with a soldier.

It is a war. War crimes happen, they should be investigate. But what is wrong with people who hate the US for it instead of hating the terrorists?

I am grateful that these soldiers risc their lives to stop the terror in Iraq. The terror soon will be next door. Such journalists won't defend you. They make only a picture of you in your blood.

So give the military a chance to investigate.
Oil for food scandal as a fact - nobody cares.
Possible one mistake in war by a US-soldier - EVERYBODY has already an opinion. They think always the worst. Headlines about it everywhere.

I call this irresponsible journalism.

Where are the critical questions from journalists about this???

And what kind of society is this where we live in?

The media in the Arab world can increase the hatred against the US.

The media lost the balance in reporting. I worry about this development.

Danke für diese Reaktion:

So funktioniert der Mob in Deutschland. Genau hingucken. Dieser Mensch ist deutscher Durchschnittsbürger. Kein Einzelfall. Das hat System. Und die Medien sprechen genau diesen Mob an, damit sie tüchtig verkaufen können.

Das sollte JEDER lesen:


Suche den Tod!
Die Indoktrinierung palästinensischer Kinder, den Tod für Allah zu suchen – Shahada
Von Itamar Marcus

Aus einem Interview mit Leon de Winter:

"In dem Bekennerschreiben heißt es, die Juden hätten die Weltherrschaft übernommen und seien auch in Holland die einflussreichste Gruppe. Das ließe sich nur ändern, indem die muslimische Weltgemeinschaft in ihrem Glauben zusammenrückt.

Gibt es in den Niederlanden eine Diskussion über den Antisemitismus im Islam?

Man hat bisher einfach nicht den Mut aufgebracht, sich dazu zu äußern. Man weigert sich, das Phänomen des massiven Antisemitismus in der arabischen Welt überhaupt zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.

Auf wen oder was wird Rücksicht genommen?

In Holland will man den Antisemitismus nicht mit den Opfern des Kolonialismus in Verbindung bringen. Antisemitismus wird höchstens als eine Nebenwirkung des Nahost-Konflikts begriffen. Aber seit letzter Woche setzt eine neue Debatte ein. Dieser Brief hat vielen Menschen die Augen für den Antisemitismus geöffnet."

Jungle World 48 - 17. November 2004
URL: www.jungle-world.com/seiten/2004/47/4334.php

Das lese ich zum ersten Mal, daß es auch hierbei um Antisemtismus geht. In den deutschen Medien wurde dies nicht erwähnt. Das wundert mich!!!

Ich habe online mehrere Zeitungen zu diesem Mord durchsucht. Dieser Hinweis fehlte, daß der Mörder sich über die Weltherrschaft der Juden ausläßt.

Amihasser, Judenhasser sind unter uns, auch wenn die Medien sie verschweigen wollen.

@ Amihasser

Ich habe Typen wie du waehrend meines Wehrdienst in Deutchland kennen gelehrnt. Sie hassen die Amies, weil die Amies ihre Schwestern und Feundinein verseuchen sollen. Tatsache: Diese Typen haben gar nichts unter die Hosen getragen. Die Frauen wurden sie so wie so nicht achten! Deswegen waren sie immer boese. Wenn Amies nicht in der Stadt waere, wuerden anderen sie beleidigen: Tuerke, Zigeuner, Ruesse und naturlich, Juede.

Amihasser, es ist jetz Zeit. Du muss mit deiner Mutti rechnen: Dein Papa war kein U.S. Soldat. Wenn dein Papa U.S. Soldat waere, mindestens wuerdest du Ehe, Mitleid, Intelligenz und Tolerenz geerbt haben.

The UN Oil for Food scandal? Yawn... Who gives a damn. The Americanazis are committing genocide right now in Eye-rack and you waffle on about such an irrelevant topic. Bla bla bla... The only foreign militants in Eye-rack are the GI's, the invaders. You people really have a chip on your shoulder about the German media. If only the US HAD real media - instead of the little puppies that lap up everything the BushFührung throws at them. Jesus, Hermann Göring would have loved having the likes of FoxNews Channel back in the 30s...

I think Joe summoned it up quite nicely:
it is possible, that there was a war crime. In this case the responsible soldier/Marine will be punished accordingly. I at least am certain of that. But it may also have been simple bad judgement or even panic after similar findings proved to be dangerous for the soldiers of this group. It is not comparable with the murdering of American soldiers by SS units during the battle of the bulge or, as recently, of groups of Iraqy soldiers and policemen by "resistance forces". UNTIL there has been an investigation of the matter, the soldier in question can only be accused and not sentenced by anyone, even by the media or "no comment" and others. And it also striking, that nobody of the liberal and left wing of our society has called upon the International Court of Justice to investigate in war crimes or crimes against humanity by the terrorist groups.

Like Joe, I am not defending a soldier who may have killed an unarmed and defenseless,wounded combatant. That is despicable and a crime. But we should wait for more info.

As to why the camera was there: looks like it was some "embeded" NBC man, hence no conspiracy theory here as far as I can see. But than I do believe that Armstrong landed on the moon and not in some movie studio like some do.........

I did not believe that the terrorist would drop so low as to kill Mrs. Hassan....... but then again women don#t count much in their religion/society.

Has anyone read those interesting articles in the SPIEGEL (journal, not online) about Islam fundamentalism in Germany and the treatment of Muslim women here in our country? There was such an outcry about poor "Florida-Rolf" squeezing money from our welfare-system in all papers, I wonder when the aproar will start about our laws and courts helping in the mistreatment of women....... And I wonder when someone will dig out older SPIEGEL article in favour of multi-culti and against those cruel German laws calling for acceptance of our system, society and believes.

Cheerio for now

@ Ted

"The UN Oil for Food scandal? Yawn... Who gives a damn. The Americanazis are committing genocide right now in Eye-rack and you waffle on about such an irrelevant topic. Bla bla bla."

What genocide? Do you mean the Africans that were killed by the French last week? Why is it that France can unilaterially invade an African country and you Germans remain silent?

Perhaps Fischer/Schroeder are Chiraq's poodles? Their silence on the topic of the Ivory Coast proves that they have signed on to Chiraq's "abenteur" in Africa.

You can not legitimately critisize Fox news. If it wasn't for Fox, the death of Margarette Hassan would not have been reported during this news cycle.

I mean the genocide in Falluja. The Iraqis are defending their town as it gets demolished by the Yanks. You would defend your town likewise. Pull the wool from your eyes, George M. I'm not German by the way. What rediculous comment are trying to make about the FoxNews Channel?

George M.,

I agree with you: But why do you enter into a discussion with Amihasser or no comment; they dump some empty phrase and never come back in order to defend their rant: When school is out they go home and start their private internet activities; be sure there will be no response, for these guys do not even dare to discuss this topic with you. They have no arguments, only insults (the one) and nitpicking (the other) to offer. Ignore them unless they bring forward arguments.


"You would defend your town likewise"

Honestly, not if my town :

1) was being used as a safe haven for foreign fighters
2) was also a safe haven for people (terrorists) who blow up my people (iraqis)
3) was disproportionately a beneficiary under Saddam
4) I knew I was going to loose and die defending it
5) was host to torture and beheding facilities
6) lawless

They were supposed to be dead. He moved. Are we sure he was Iraqi?

He wanted death, he got it.

Don't ever let it be said Americans don't give you what you want.

Quit using mosques as armories and that solves 1 problem.

Ted, Iraqis are "defending" Fallujah?

ONLY Iraqis?????

And do you agree w/the lifestyle they imposed on the citizens of Fallujah?

Until the number reaches 1 million, there is not genocide. I think Amnesty or HRW decreed that w/in the past 2 years.

All we're doing is taking out the ME version of The Sopranos.

And no comment??? Mosques aren't supposed to be used as armories, either. Where's the outrage?

Spiegel Online now has an article about Oil for Food online. It leaves open the possibility that the allegations are just a "right-wing smear job".


But what is really interesting is that they are hiding within half of a sentence the allegation of the House Committee that Saddam gave Oil for Food money to Palestinian terrorists. Well, I can imagine why they are doing so. It's not that easy, after months of claiming that Saddam had no links to terrorism whatsoever, to admit that he probably even used UN money for sponsoring terrorism.

In other news:

Am I the only one how hasn't heard about this on the German media, while they are still showing the NBC Fallujah video on heavy rotation?

"In the south of Fallujah yesterday, US Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the US Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago."


Still waiting for the Red Cross and the UN to demand that the Iraqi "resistance" respect the conventional rules of warfare and not kill and dismember female aid workers...

Bad news for our Palestinian conspiracy theorists. Their pals at "Le Monde" say Arafat wasn't poisoned.


"Spiegel Online now has an article about Oil for Food online. It leaves open the possibility that the allegations are just a "right-wing smear job"."

I really wonder what is the point of the UN than? If we can't even trust the organisation to ensure that it enforces the objectives that it defined, it really serves as a useless organisation.

Congress just recently demaneded that Kofi Annan supply them with 50 public documents. So far, he's been delaying. He has his son reviewing the UN oil for food scandal you know. You would think that the guy should be able to help his dad out...

What has the UN/Kofi Annan achieved during his tenure?

Sierra Leone
Ivory Coast
East Timor

I estimate more than 2 million people dead in all of these conflicts.

The question that I still don't understand is why the German goverment considers the UN such a holy place? What did they ever do for you? Did they protect you against the Soviets? Did they observe free elections in East Germany? Did they fly food and heating coal to Berlin?

Face it, the UN needs to be overhauled. Here's a few of my suggestions :

Reduce all non-democracies to observer status and allow them no participation otherwise (i.e. rotating membership on the security councile - sorry syria, libya )
Remove France from the security councile
Remove China from the security councile until it leaves Tibet
Invite Japan, Brazil and a rotating Arab member to the Security councile

Here is a little food for thought for all of you peace loving "multi-culti" freaks who are not aware of the danger you are in in Europe. Happy reading! This article was taken from townhall and was written by Chuck Colson.

European elites, like American elites, are having trouble understanding the recent American elections. “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” was the headline in London’s Daily Mirror. Another British paper, the Guardian, actually organized an anti-Bush letter-writing campaign to sway voters in Ohio.

Instead of trying to influence or explain American elections, Europeans ought to be taking a much closer look at what’s happening close to their home, or else one day a headline over here might read, “How Could 457 Million Europeans Have Been So Blind?”

Theo Van Gogh, Vincent’s great grand-nephew, was a filmmaker and, pardon my French, provocateur. He was the kind of artist whose work, if he had been an American, would probably have outraged some Christians, including me.

Christians would have written letters-to-the-editor, picketed his showings, and have insisted that taxpayer dollars not be used to support his work. In reply, Van Gogh’s defenders would have compared us to “Islamic fundamentalists,” even as his provocations made him rich and famous.

Unfortunately for Van Gogh, he was Dutch, not American, and the people he offended were real Islamic fundamentalists, not Christians. On November 2, a man Dutch police describe as “an Islamic fundamentalist with terrorist ties” murdered Van Gogh.

The motive behind the murder is believed to be a movie about “Islamic violence against women” called Submission. The film was produced by Van Gogh and written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch member of parliament and an “ex-Muslim.” Ali’s criticisms of her former faith include describing the Qur’án as “in part a license for oppression.”

Ali now lives under twenty-four-hour-a-day police protection, protection Van Gogh refused, saying that “no one can seriously want to shoot the village idiot.” He was wrong.

The Netherlands and the rest of Europe face an enemy within its borders that will use European freedoms to take away the freedom of Europeans. They will avail themselves of continental tolerance to spread intolerance throughout the continent.

As if to underscore this point, a few days after the murder, someone painted “Thou shall not kill” on a wall as a tribute. Officials sandblasted the message after local Islamic leaders complained that the graffiti was “offensive” and “racist.”

The same British Guardian wrote of a “dangerous rise in racial tension” as a result of the murder and accused the Dutch government of “fanning the flames” through its efforts to better integrate Islamic immigrants into Dutch society.

If this is the best that European elites can do in response to a frontal assault on freedom of speech, heaven help the 457 million people of the European Union. As Bernard Lewis of Princeton, the foremost scholar of Islam, told the German paper Die Welt, Europe faces the possibility of becoming “part of the Arabic West.”

Or as Bassam Tibi, a moderate Muslim leader in Germany, puts it: “Either Islam gets Europeanized, or Europe gets Islamized.” Either way, it’s time for Europeans not to worry so much about the votes in Ohio, but to focus their attention where it’s needed most: their threat at home.

BBC World Service update:
They have been running the NBC clip and story on the top of the hour since it broke, and featuring on all of thir yackity-yack programs. All with no new information. Simply repetition. I'm trying to gage two things: 1) when will they stop the hourly repeats or 2) when will they report new information on the item.

For our European friends, C-Span is a good place to watch the hearings which Congress has just opened and Lantos wants to rename Oil for Fraud.

Opening statements are also on FoxNews.

The opening salvo has been fired. Henry Hyde in his opening statement said if we don't get what we want, we will use the full extent of the law to get it.

Henry's w/the House of Representatives. The House controls the checkbook. All spending bills originate in the House.

The Senate is also holding hearings. The House can cut what they want from the UN, if the Senate agrees and W doesn't, he'll veto. If he vetoes, it can be overridden.

The German media suddenly rediscovers its investigative skills only when it comes to analyzing true and imagined failures of the US. Other than that..., well..., the German media rests in peace.

It has become, with a few exceptions, a huge disinformation machine. It hibernates and wakes up only when it smells (American) blood. A country with such a disfunctional media (or only partly-functional media) is bound to loose its sense of reality. I feel really sorry for the Germans who have absolutely no chance to get real information on what is going on around them.

And danke shoen:

I received at least a dozen emails about this photo, tossed casually into a USA Today slideshow, of a little unimportant discovery made by some Marines searching a house in Fallujah: 40 vials of suspected sarin nerve gas, with English, Russian, and German labels.

Pic via LGF, but the story was out earlier this week.

Let's see what the tests say.

And to further the story via Powerline:

I think this one has been shot down, sort of. NPR ran a story about this here but then retracted it here. The retraction is the link above the photo. What the retraction says is what is interesting: The vials are a sarin ANTIDOTE.

Now knowing that the US would not deploy sarin into a war zone I think that the fact that these yahoos were toting around sarin, wasting precious space that could be occupied by a bomb-laden child, leads me think that the sarin gas is out there somewhere. Somewhere on their side. Or NPR got it wrong.

SPON is cautiously looking at the Coughing Anus's Oil for Food scandal:


Reading material for all the idiots (i.e. #1 no comment) who are questioning the death of a terrorist in a mosque (BTW, by just being there this dead terrorist contravened the conventions of war that the apologists on the left savor so much - so please, do not cite rules in defence of people who blatantly breach them) :


@ ted

Would you like to live under the rule of 'Fallujan Iraqi's'? Do you think the average Iraqi would like to?

Hmm -it is not very intelligent to shoot Iraqi wounded when "Terrorists in Fullduja are planting bombs on their own dead and seriously wounded". Probably you get killed and some of your pals will be killed too.

There are three possibilities:
a) the soldier did not know about this
b) he wanted to commit suicide
c) he was a dumbass


d) this is a lie

WhatDoIKnow: NBC is "German media"? I didn't know this.

The FAZ has several articles about Oil for Food:


Other sources



To quote a famous philosopher:
"What're you going to do? Bleed on me?"

Maybe the US should be very fond of the "silence of the media lambs"

The insurgents who were fighting from the mosque had put themselves outside the Geneva Conventions on several scores: fighting from a place of worship, wearing civilian clothes, failing to follow a command structure, etc. The insurgency in general has failed to observe the conventions by feigning surrender, targeting civilians (including carving aid workers into bits and setting bombs in schools and marketplaces), slaughtering prisoners, and many other crimes.

The conventions only apply to forces that themselves observe them. In WWII, a German general was acquitted of war crimes for executing Greek partisans. Since the partisans did not wear uniforms or carry arms openly (they only showed them to use them), they were not entitled to be treated as anything other than common bandits. Also, after the Malmedy massacre, US forces were ordered not take SS prisoners, on the grounds that the SS had refused to abide by the same rules.

I am not saying it is right to kill a helpless enemy. The better outcome would have been to get him healthy enough to be duly hanged, after a fair trial. I am satisfied that the Marine in question did not commit a war crime. However, if the Marine Corps determines that his conduct detracted from the discipline and good order of the Corps, then that is another and an entirely separate issue. The man he killed had no rights whatever.

Here's Ted's answer as to whether the citizens of Fallujah wanted to live under the terrorists:

And considering it's the Times of London, Ted:


Via the Blogfather, Instapundit.

Here's Ted's answer as to whether the citizens of Fallujah wanted to live under the terrorists:

And considering it's the Times of London, Ted:


Via the Blogfather, Instapundit.

I think a good and reasonable case can be made for the invasion of Iraq. But one of the reasons I supported the invasion was because of relatively high standards of discipline and behavior in the American military (high by comparison with the general history of war, not by comparison with civilians sharing tea). I supported the invasion and still support it because our standards are not the same as those of the terrorists. So all you people pointing to the horrors of terrorist behavior to justify letting the American soldier off easy, well, I say to you, why don't you go join the terrorists. We don't need your kind in the American military nor supporting it. We can win much better without you. Maybe you belong on the other side. The American military is not a mafia where you protect your own no matter what. Sure, give the soldier a fair trial, but let's not stoop all the way down to the level of the enemy and drop all standards just because the enemy does.

@ ed: thanks for this particular comment, because it hits the nail right on the head. It is up to a court to decided whether this soldiers did right, acted in bad judgement only under stress or committed a crime in cold blod. But it is this investigation which makes us different from the terrorist who dispise common laws and GEneva conventions.


@ Mitch: you are wrong when you claim that the wounded found in the Mosque were not covered by the Geneva Conventions (GCs).

You claim that they forfeit their protection by each or all of the following accusations:
a) fighting from a place of worship
b) wearing civilian cloth
c) failing to follow a command structure

Furthermore you claim that all combatants have forfeit their protection because some have failed to observe named conventions (which clearly is a fact and can be proved by numerous incidents).

to a) while I detest the shooting out of a Mosque like anybody else (especially when later the Islamofascist cry about the destruction of the same holy places), I could find no Article in the GVc that prohibits the fighting from such places a churches, synagoges or mosques. They can become a battleground like anything else and only common understanding in the western world usually makes them into safe havens.

to b)wearing civilian clothes: here you should consult Article 4 A 6. Article 4 enumerates which persons(combatants, aids and civilians) are protected by the GCs. Subarticle A 6 states:
>>>>>6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. <<<
It is common understanding among law professors, military and lawyers that this covers "insurgents" just like the one found in the Mosque. Of course there is the caveat that they respect the laws and customs of wars. But it would have to be proven individually that they did not before you can claim their forfeiture of the proctection. Wearing civilian clothing alone is no hinderance for getting the protection of GCs
c) failing to follow command structures: on one hand: we don't know that, do we? Or has anyone intervied them if they did have a leader and were part of any organization worth talking of? I don't think so. Furthermore this too should be covered by Article 4 A 6, read above.

d) finally you claim that the insurgents as a group have forfeit their protections rights due to not observing the laws and rules by some. Here you should read Article 5 of the GCs:
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. <<<<

Which means that none of the combatants can have forfeit his right for protection individually or as part of a group before this is not investigated and proven by a competent tribunal.

The GCs are a hughe steping stone in the development of civilization and should not be treated lightly or pushed aside too easily. I am not saying that the Marine in question did commit a war crime there. He could well have acted rightly or just made a poor choice under duress, but there should be an investigation anyway. Thats what laws are about.

WE just have the discussion right now and today in Germany in another case: a highranking policeofficer threatened a suspected kidnapper with pain and torture to press him for the information of the whereabouts of the kidnapped kid. Under these threats (the kidnapper was never actually harmed) he finally agreed to bring the police to the place. Unfortunately the kid was dead all along, because the kidnapper had murdererd him before his capture.
Do I have sympathy with the police officer for doing what he did? Of course I do! Would I have done the same, given the chance: most likely yes! Should he be sentenced for breaking the law which prohibits threatening or torturing people the police hold for questioning: absolutely! This law too is an important steping stone and should be hold up high above what we simple people think about what is just in a special case or not. All else will lead to "Willkür" and injustice.

The essence of war is violence, and moderation is war is imbecility.

@ Niko: did you even so much as just read the articles I posted above from the GCs. It would appear not, because I find not one single point of argument in your writing below it (your b); c) and d)don't show any understanding of the articles I quoted verbatum), legally speaking. If Alawi calls them terrorists or whatever, they are still covered by Article 4 A 6 of the GCs. You and me may not like it, but it is the truth, nevertheless.

You say I should re-read the document of the GCs for rules about misuse of civilian infrastructure during battle/conflict. I just did and again I did not find anything there. How about helping me by quoting the rules you think apply here?

And in your point d) you claim >>>>These combatants would have to indicate surrender by using a white flag, or similar signs. They did not, thus they are still actors in a war theater, and can be eliminated if they pose a threat under good judgment.<<<< Were did you find that in the GCs, I wonder? Or are we taking about what we believe should be written in the GCs instead of what it actually written there?

Now read this instead:
Article 3
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. <<<
I believe it is clear that the persons found in the Mosque were wounded after prior fights with another unit. They were even treated for their wounds by the former unit according to the media.
Hence the have either laid down their arms or are "hors du combat" by their wounds. I hope that is clear now.

@ James: common, you can do better than that stupid old line. Do you really want to have war like in the 17th century again? No, there is a good reason why menkind has agreed to put even the fighting and killing under som restrictions and rule of law.


Oh please. We truly do not know what went on. Prior to the report, during the filming of the report or after the report.

It is very easy to pass judgement on this if you have never been in combat, not a combat zone, but in hand to hand eyeball to eyeball combat.

Of course, you project the attitude of the left.

I accept that as your position. It does not happen to be mind but then I do have a difference perspective than you and probably anyone else who posts here.

@ Joe: I do not see where we differ so much. If you read all the comments from me to this topic, you will see that I said/wrote on numerous occassions that I am not judging the Marine who shot the prisoner. There are many reasons why this could have happened in this situation and in combat and until proven wrong I doubt, that it was a war crime as some state.

But there were some comments claiming that the persons found in the Mosque did have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. This is wrong from my legal understanding and I tried to show why and how.

As to Jame`s' line: if you too find that the regulation of war by the Geneva Conventions or the Haager Landkrieg Konvention are just for imbeciles, than indeed we are on very opposite sides regarding this topic. But calling a CSU-man who upholds the rule of law a leftist is really rich!

Cheerio to Niko, James, Gabi and others: I offline for the reminder of the day/night, blog to you tomorrow

Mosques are armories. Rules written for WWII don't apply. New war, new tactics, new rules.

Via Instapundit from One Hand Clapping:

Marine Lance Cpl. Jeramy Ailes, 22, of Gilroy was killed Monday in Al-Fallujah by small arms fire. "They had finished mopping up in Fallujah and they went back to double-check on some insurgents. From what we gathered, somebody playing possum jumped up and shot him," said his father, Joel Ailes, who learned of his death Monday evening. "It's extremely hard."
If the Marine in the video does stand trial, testimony of Marines who witnessed acts like those that killed LCPL Ailes will practically guarantee an acquittal.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29