Should "human shields" be ignored?

[Johnny L.A.]

The Iraqis knew war was coming. Now they are (it is presumed) being held against their will by Iraqi troops. There are also people who volunteered to stand there and take a bullet for peace.

Here are a couple of options:

1. Ignore the "human shields". Say, "Oh, well! They had their chance to get out of the way, but they didn't. They chose to hang around, even knowing the danger. If they're being forced to stay, they can fight their captors; they outnumber them, after all. And the ones who volunteered? They knew what they were getting into when they signed up. We're not going to put our troops in danger for the sake of people who refused to leave the area, or who will not fight against their captors."

2. Make every effort to avoid killing the human shields and hostages. If we know there are innocents nearby, pick another target.

3. Know that there are innocent civilians mixed in with the combatants. Try not to hurt them, but not at the expense of military objectives.

How do you think it should be handled? Option #1, "Kill 'em all. God will know his own."? Option #2, "Any Coalition soldier who kills a civilian is a murderer."? Or Option 3, "We're really sorry, but it can't be helped."?

What do you think? One of these options? Do you have other solutions?

[gobear]

I'll take #1 for $100, Alex. To my mind, the human shields lost all their rights to protection when they allied themselves with the enemy. They are turncoats and should be treated as such.

[Johnny L.A.]

What about the people who thought that every weapon the U.S. uses can be put right down the bathroom vent pipe? Or the ones who didn't understand that the military would hold them hostage, and don't want to be there at all?

I was against starting this war. But now that we're in it, the best thing we can do is end it quickly. The sooner it ends, the fewer lives will be lost. To answer my own poll, I think I would choose #3. Don't kill any non-combatants unless we have to, but kill the enemy even if it means some innocents are lost.

[Incubus]

I think they should be tried for treason. They're interfering with the war in a very direct way.

First Hanoi Jane and now this :mad:

[Tuckerfan]

Well, options 1 and 3 are almost identical. Either one of those is fine with me. Personally, I think we should have handed them Darwin Awards before they left. Might have made them think.

[Urban Ranger]

Good. Your positions have just legitimised the 911 attack:


To my mind, the human shields lost all their rights to protection when they allied themselves with the enemy.

Uncle Sam is the enemy. Their civilians have no rights.

Just keep that in mind.

[Walloon]

Experts, please help. Don't the Geneva Conventions say that a military target is a military target, even if it is placed within a civilian population? The point being to discourage the idea of so placing a military target.

[WhetherMan]

For that matter (slight highjack) isn't the practice of improperly using the white flag a breach of the Geneva Convention as well?

As far as the OP, my vote is for #3. Although it is unfortunate to harm civilians, in this situation it cannot be helped. Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for these casualties, not the United States.

[DreadCthulhu]

#1 for any of the human shields who stay there voluntarily, especially if they are from the US or Great Britain, or other first world countries; #3 for Iraqi civilians forced to stay near military targets.

[Fugazi]

IIRC, the Geneva Convention says you can't target civilians. If one of the combatants uses civilians to protect military assets, the other combatant still has to do all in their power to avoid killing the civilians. If some civilians get killed due to combatant #1's illegally using civilians, the combatant #1 can be tried for war crimes. Therefore, I go with #3.

[yosemite]

Another vote for #3.

[glee]

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
Option #1, "Kill 'em all. God will know his own."?


Another view undoubtedly held by the 9/11 hijackers.

[jjimm]

I am against the war, as many probably know, but I think WRT the military, consideration for voluntary human shields shouldn't come into it. #3.

[chappachula]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Good. Your positions have just legitimised the 911 attack:



Uncle Sam is the enemy. Their civilians have no rights.

Just keep that in mind.


sorry, but do you realize the fallacy in your logic here? On 9/11 none of the civilians who were murdered were INTENTIONALLY standing in place they KNEW IN ADVANCE to be a target for bombing. They were just living their daily lives as usual, remember?

The human shields who travelled from NY and London to Baghdad should have been punished by refusing them permission to return home. Make 'em take responsibility for their actions.

[Johnny L.A.]

Well, options 1 and 3 are almost identical.
I worded the OP poorly. #1 was supposed to mean "Should the military pretend the human shields are not there at all?" and #3 was to mean "We know they're there and we'll actively try not to hurt them; but we're going to achieve our objective even if there is collateral damage."

My opinion is that #1 is not an option, both legally and morally. #2 is the most legal, both legally and morally w/r to the civilians involved. #3 strikes a balance in that it places the responsibility for safety upon the individuals who chose to put themselves in harm's way, might provide incentive for the hostages to fight against their captors (giving them more of a stake in their future, if they live), and allows the military to achieve objectives that will shorten the war and save more lives in the long run.

I read Black Hawk Down before the movie came out. IIRC, a soldier was being shot at and he had to make a choice between killing a civilian that a Somali attacker was hiding behind (forcing the person to remain there) and being killed himself. He chose to (regretably) shoot, even though the civilian was killed.

[Walloon]

The Geneva Convention of 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument) says:Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.The Convention defines protected persons:Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.So this would definitely apply to using hostages or P.O.W.s as human shields. But whether foreigners who have voluntarily come to Iraq to act as human shields are "in the hands of" Iraq is open to debate.

[Walloon]

Here (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b0d5f4c1f4b8102041256739003e6366/ca4b68d10eb9c7b5c12563cd0051d14a?OpenDocument) is what I was looking for: Art. 11. The Parties to the conflict shall, so far as possible, take all necessary steps to protect the civilian population subject to their authority from the dangers to which they would be exposed in an attack — in particular by removing them from the vicinity of military objectives and from threatened areas. However, the rights conferred upon the population in the event of transfer or evacuation under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 are expressly reserved.
Similarly, the Parties to the conflict shall, so far as possible, avoid the permanent presence of armed forces, military material, mobile military establishments or installations, in towns or other places with a large civilian population.

Art. 13. Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives, with the idea of inducing the enemy to refrain from attacking those objectives.

[thinksnow]

Walloon, neither of those expressly addresses the case of voluntary human shields (VHS), something that (almost) certainly never existed nor would have ever been considered when those Articals were constructed.

VHSs deliberately place themselves in harms way in the hope of deterring attack. Morons, IMO, but Darwin Awards aren't usually handed out to right thinking folks, so...

#3, wrt the OP.

[thinksnow]

Oh, and another thing- it's kind of specious, calling VHSs "innocent civilians," yet they certainly aren't enemy combatants, so I'm not sure where they fall on the Friend-or-Foe scale.

[MLS]

Did you mean the human shields who voluntarily went to Iraq, or the human shields that some reports say the paramilitary are hiding behind? In the case of the former, I'd say "Oh, well. Your own fault if you get hit." The latter is a much tougher call, much like the bank robber holding a hostage. Moral human beings would have a difficult time shooting through the hostage. Moral human beings, of course, don't hold hostages.

[Walloon]

Well, Article 13 above does say, "Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives." The voluntary human shields are still subject to Iraqi authority. Note the distinction the article makes between "placing" and "keeping". Iraq may not have placed the voluntary human shields there (even though they certainly encouraged and facilitated them), but they are allowing them to stay there.

[Johnny L.A.]

Well, Article 13 above does say, "Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives." The voluntary human shields are still subject to Iraqi authority. Note the distinction the article makes between "placing" and "keeping". Iraq may not have placed the voluntary human shields there (even though they certainly encouraged and facilitated them), but they are allowing them to stay there.
So what's your opinion on how Coalition forces should handle them?

[Walloon]

My opinion is choice #3.

[Badtz Maru]

Choice 1. We can't allow this practice to effect our choice of targets or our method of assaulting them, whether the shields are volunteers or not. Pulling our punches when attacking targets where human shields are present will encourage others to use human shields. I believe any unscrupulous enemy would rather his bunker be attacked by infantry with small arms weapons and flash grenades than by a tactical nuke - even if he still has no chance to escape, he has a chance to inflict more damage before he is taken down. We don't want the enemy to be able to help his odds by endangering civilians.

[Johnny L.A.]

If I've counted correctly, that's three votes for #1 (attack the enemy with no regard for the human shields) and five votes for #3 (attack the enemy, but try not to harm the human shields), plus one vote for #1 and #3 based upon whether the human shields are there voluntarity.