Just curious given the story about Iraqi troops faking a surrender to ambush Allied forces. If they do this and then later surrender “For real” does the Geneva convention require the Allied forces to accept the surrender? Basically I’m thinking if I was in the army and anyone did this to me if they tried to surrender for real I’d refuse it and just kill every last one of them even if I knew they were unarmed, out of ammo, or no longer a threat. Would that be a war crime?
Of course it would be a war crime. I don’t know if that’s “fair” or not.
Peace,
mangeorge
They (the leaders0 say it won’t happen again, though.
The leaders of the allied forces say they’ll be more careful in future engagements with the Iraqi soldiers.
remind me not to commision Dave_D as an officer in any military force anywhere ever.
Yes, you’re right. It’s a good thing I never seriously considered entering the military. I take stuff too personally:D
At one time, Dave_D’s response was considered the correct response; violation of the Rules of War was punished by the other side no longer being bound by them. This is not an entirely bad system, as it’s probably in both side’s self-interest not to prompt the other guy to take off the gloves. I forget what exactly the modern GCs say on the topic, but it has definately changed.
I am curious what the rules would be in modern war if someone did the fake and then a real surrender. Of course this is all hypothetical since I figure once you did the fake the opposing force would just think all your surrenders are fakes and would treat them as such.(I mean short of stripping so the enemy couldn’t have any weapons how could you be sure if the enemies were still faking or not.)
It occurs to me that the Iraqi leadership might have set up this incident just to entail a-frankly, understandable-widespread response like Dave_D’s from Coalition troops…as a way to try and keep the Iraqi “grunts” from surrendering. You know, the old “You see, the Americans really won’t give you the chance to surrender! So you have to the death for us if you want a chance to survive!” trick.
Ranchoth
(That one comes after the old “Poisoned Manuscript” trick, I think)
The ghost of Yossarian lives!
Aim for the guys carrying the white flags. Give the wounded a chance to surrender. Grease tank treads with the dead.
From:
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol 1)
[quote]
Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy
- It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
[/qoute]Also
[quote]
Article 38
1 . . . It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property. [/qoute]
Of couse, the failure of one side to obey the convention is not justification for the other side to ignore it.
From:
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol 1)
Also
Tris
This site…
http://flagspot.net/flags/ifrc-gen.html
says in part…
“Art 37 prohibits the killing, injuring or capturing of an adversary by resort to perfidy. Examples of perfidy mentioned in the Protocol are the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender and the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.”
However, it doesn’t say what the consequences are for breaking Article 37…
This site…
http://www.univie.ac.at/RI/KONTERM/intlaw/konterm/vrkon_en/html/doku/gc-pi.htm#65.0
Has more information, basically the entire Geneva Convention and Article 86, Failure to act says that if the superior officers knew about the violation of article 37 before it happened, then the officers are in violation. Then it says that even if the violation of article 37 (or any article) was not premeditated, that the officers are still responsible.
So, in response to the OP, it sucks to be the good guys, but the Geneva Convention indicates that you can’t ignore surrender. Guess they’ll have to treat all Iraqi soldiers as Felony Stops, i.e. "Hands on top of your head, walk backwards, failure to comply will get you shot…’
Don’t be so sure - IIRC, the geneva conventions often have exceptions to general rules for situations like these.
Ah, armchair generals. Under actual circumstances, which police officers face as well, there is such a thing as ? rage. (Someone can help with the term). The adrenalin is up and is looking for a release. You see this after a long police chase, one of the reasons why they are being banned. In WWII, as I understand it, US soldiers didn’t always ‘see’ that the Germans were surrendering, esp. SS and Gestapo who were known for pulling such tricks. In fact, Rommel got through the French defences in 1940 by using exactly that trick. All the Germens sat on the outside of the tanks with white flags like they were surrendering. Once the Germans had passed the French lines, they popped back inside and started fighting. The line was quickly broken and the race across France started.
It was for reasons like this that you see the scene on top of the cliff at the first of Saving Private Ryan.
Does anyone have any stats for whether any Allied soldiers were prosecuted for killing surrendering Germans?
Um, isn’t all this Geneva convention stuff (along with the United Nations & the Universal Declaration) kind of outdated now, what with the Bush Administration in charge & all? I’m not trying to troll here, I think this question needs to be seriously asked.
Flying_Monk: Since? The US has never as far as I know accepted the jurisdiction of international courts for war crimes in respect to itself and its citizens. All the US citizens I ever spoke to about the legal system always said the US legal system was the best in the world (you do not want to know my opinion on that) so I cannot imagine them accepting an ‘inferior’ legal system to process claims against US citizens. Besides, so long as Vietnam, for example, could bring claims in such a court for genocide (due to Agent Orange, for example), etc. (I am not saying whether they would or should win or not), there is no way they would accept such jurisdiction. If you notice, it is all right for Western journalists to photograph Iraqi prisoners of war. That does not violate the Geneva Convention but let Iraq do so and it is another matter.
Enough bitterness.
Must not take freedom too personal… “Let someone else protect America”
Absolutely, WillSantini, those who are not suited for the military, for “protecting”, should leave the job to those who are so inclined. And there’s no shame in that.