A discussion on the rules of war.

[Savannahmann]

We have heard a lot lately of the International norms on the conduct of war. I thought it would be a good time to discuss some of those norms. What is acceptable and even admirable conduct of war.

Hollow point bullets have been outlaws for warfare since 1899 and 1907, the Hague Conventions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)

These bullets are of course much prized by Law Enforcement that doesn't have any prohibitions on the types of bullets they can use to kill people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

Chemical Weapons. These are prohibited by an international treaty. One the US actually signed, is a result of the First World War and the public outcry from the use of Gas. This is the Geneva Protocols to the Hague Conventions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

Now, why does any of this matter? Because if you haven't signed those rules, then your military does not abide by them. Right now, we have people detained in Guantanamo Bay who will in all likelihood be detained for the remained of their lives. They were captured by the Military, but we did not obey the rules on combatants in a combat zone. You see, we claim that since they were not of the nation we were fighting in, in other words, although we captured them in Afghanistan, they were not Afghani, that those rules don't apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war

What are the rules? There are several, and I'll highlight a couple here. Cessation of Hostilities. At the Cessation of Hostilities, we are required to repatriate these people under the Geneva Conventions. President Obama said last light that we have pulled out of Iraq, and are nearly done pulling out of Afghanistan. Yet we hold Prisoners we got in both of those places. We have not repatriated them in accordance with those Conventions that are so vital that we must Bomb Syria to punish Assad for breaking those rules.

Well, this is different. They are Terrorists. Ah, that is different. Under that section, either you turn them over to the authority of the nation you were in, in our case Afghanistan and Iraq, for trial by the Civilian Authority. We didn't do that, and still haven't. Why haven't we? Well they don't want to try these guys, as it turns out that most of them aren't guilty. So the absolute inviolability of these international norms is not so inviolate when Guantanamo Bay comes into question.

OK, so lets talk Landmines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty There we have something in common with Syria. Syria hasn't signed that ban either. Most of the countries in the world have signed onto the ban on Landmines, but we haven't. Because we are using six hundred thousand or so to hold the North Korean Army north of the DMZ. So you see, we have to have them. If we don't, then North Korea is going South again, no peace treaty there don't you know, only an armistice.

So that ban isn't a problem, because we pretend it doesn't exist, and we feel so happy that we have those mines keeping the bad old North Korean Army in North Korea. This is despite the obvious problem, a rolling artillery barrage and universally available mine clearing equipment would render those mines as useless as a no trespassing sign.

The other thing that the Ottawa Treaty bans is Cluster munitions. This Air Force recruiting video shows what we think of that idea.

Doesn't that look fun? Don't you want to run down to the Recruiter right now, and turn that College Degree and private pilots license into a chance to drop those munitions on a group of tanks. But wait, we're not fighting anyone with tanks, we're fighting a bunch of guys who are part of small terror cells. So when we drop the bombs, they're not being used to kill tanks, but to wipe out a handful of individuals and we like them because they can't run out of the kill zone if they should be able to hear the plane overhead or get a sudden urge to run like hell.

Those Geneva Conventions as they are improperly known, prohibit other things. For example, you're not supposed to use large caliber weapons like .50 cal machine guns on individuals. Only on equipment. But, that's OK. The Terrorists haven't signed that Conventions, and their nations are not in a state of war with the US, so the Geneva Contentions don't apply.

That is an A-10 using a gun designed to destroy tanks on a group of people. Don't those troops sound happy that we're ignoring those darned pesky rules of war?

So our outrage at the audacity of Syria to dare violate a Treaty that they haven't signed, is at best majorly hypocritical. I'm not normally one to quote the Bible, but in this case one applicable quote does comes to me. It involves a plank in my eye before commenting on the speck in the other fellows.

I could go on, and on, and on. I could type all night giving links and telling you stories that I've heard from returned troops. I won't do that however, I'll end this now. I want you all to take a moment, and put your favorite Rule of War and whomever doesn't follow it. Bonus points for anyone who can tell me who is responsible for what actions in case a section of one of those conventions is violated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. My all time fav is waterboarding

Why? We hung Japanese officers for doing this during WW II, and it gets better, we hung us troops for doing it during Philippine Operations early in the Philippine revolt. It not only violates international norms, it violates the UCMJ.

[Savannahmann]

3. As if you needed any more proof

Former Congressman Alan West and his use of terror to get information, proven later to be false, during an interrogation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)#Iraq_interrogation_incident

Somebody not only acquitted him of the charges, rare enough to see charges, but elected him to Congress. As if you needed any more proof he was a lunatic.

[truebluegreen]

2. We honor the rules of war only when convenient,

just as, after WWII, the only things deemed war crimes were things our enemies did, not any thing we did. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo; dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nothing to see here, move along. We're the good guys.

[Savannahmann]

6. Yes, those great moments in American History.

We justify our violations, while condemning those of the other side.

[durablend]

4. I think you forgot the important one

"It's only a war when we say it is"...otherwise it's just a 'police action' or 'military haircut' or 'message with a missile'

[truedelphi]

5. That is very important.

All these distinctions, big and small.

And of course, the illegal weapons that are used are only considered illegal and godawful if folks on our enemy list are using them. Otherwise it is A-okay. Fine for us to use them, fine for our close friends.

[truedelphi]

7. Small but firm kick. n/t

[Iggo]

8. K&R.

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. K&R The rules of war only exist to protect the purveyors of war

from their creation. We can't have some peon with a longbow killing a King or a General in the confusion.