POW rescued!

[Magness]

Originally posted by Skunk: There is very little information available. We do know that the hospital is a civilian hospital (Saddam Hussein Hospital), engaged in the treatment of military personnel, which it is allowed to do without prejudice to its 'protected status' under article 15 of the Geneva Convention. The 'resuce' operation was in direct violation of articles 18 and 19 of the Geneva Convention. So far, no newspaper reports have given details of the status of the doctors, nurses and other wounded patients at the hospital facility. It is clear that there was a firefight *inside* the hospital. This concerns me and I am surprised that no formal statement on their status has been made by the Pentagon. This kind of disregard for the sick and injured makes my blood boil!

1. Exactly which of the Geneva Conventions are you claiming this rescue mission violated. I just read the referenced articles in the Geneva Convention that deals with POWs and I see no relevance between your claims and articles 15, 18, and 19 listed above.

2. The Fedayeen Saddam has been using hospitals, schools, and mosques as bases and as ammo dumps. This makes them legitimate targets and the fault lies with IRAQ, not the US.

3. My blood is boiling too. Except it is at the people who would walk by this mugging on its own people by the Iraqi government, the people that would enable the "muggers" to continue their reign of terror, and the people that arm the muggers. It is grossly hypocritical for those that oppose the war to be disgusted by the supposed disregard of the sick and injured when it is their disregard for the people of Iraq and the enabling of Saddam's "government" of thugs that has been terrorizing and murdering its citizens for more than 2 decades. Spare me.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: I'm always happy when a POW returns home. However, I am concerned that a hospital was attacked in the process. There were no reports of Doctors being taken alive - and this worries me.

I would worry to much about the doctors , nurses or other patients, The SEALs are good they'll only shoot a Combatants with weapons. They train constantly so they won't shoot the wrong people.

[Masklinn]

It is grossly hypocritical for those that oppose the war to be disgusted by the supposed disregard of the sick and injured when it is their disregard for the people of Iraq and the enabling of Saddam's "government" of thugs that has been terrorizing and murdering its citizens for more than 2 decades. Spare me.

Bleh, not again.
The fact they've been terrorized, murdered, tortured don't give any right to the US army to kill and injure more of them...
And it is also grossly hypocritical for a country that supported and armed Saddam to start a war against him.
So please, spare me.

[Skunk]

Magness,
Here are the articles:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.
Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants which have not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/His...s/geneva1.html

If you can say 'warning was given' - I'll say, "No breach of the Convention".

It is grossly hypocritical for those that oppose the war to be disgusted by the supposed disregard of the sick and injured when it is their disregard for the people of Iraq and the enabling of Saddam's "government" of thugs that has been terrorizing and murdering its citizens for more than 2 decades. Spare me.

This is a tired argument.
They're EVIL so we can be evil too.

No we can't - because when we feel that we can act just like Saddam, that is the point when the war should end - not with Saddam's defeat - but with an alliance pact. I don't want to go there.

[ 04-02-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: And it is also grossly hypocritical for a country that supported and armed Saddam to start a war against him. So please, spare me.

Spare you from what? The fact that the world changes? That the US policy towards Iraq has changed in the past generation?

Your government has supported and armed Saddam as well. Was this France's reason for iopposing a war in Iraq? Since they supported him and armed him they shouldn't fight him? No it wasn't, so please don't say that the US shouldn't be fighting Iraq because it once supported him.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Were the appropriate certificates provided?

[Masklinn]

Spare you from what? The fact that the world changes? That the US policy towards Iraq has changed in the past generation? Your government has supported and armed Saddam as well. Was this France's reason for iopposing a war in Iraq? Since they supported him and armed him they shouldn't fight him? No it wasn't, so please don't say that the US shouldn't be fighting Iraq because it once supported him.

Ronn, my post was only a direct reference to that :

when it is their disregard for the people of Iraq and the enabling of Saddam's "government" of thugs that has been terrorizing and murdering its citizens for more than 2 decades. Spare me.

"disregard of Iraqis for more than 2 decades", "enabling Saddam's governement" - US took part of that as well. So Magness was being hypocritical too. Thaz all.

[ 04-02-2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[pritchke]

Boy are you guys [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] . I have always wanted to post that smile.

I am glad she was rescued.

[ 04-02-2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Magness]

Originally posted by Skunk: Magness, Here are the articles: Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19. Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State. The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action. In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives. Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants which have not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/His...s/geneva1.html If you can say 'warning was given' - I'll say, "No breach of the Convention".

Ahhh. Convention 4, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

However, as I stated, the Fedayeen Saddam have been using hospitals (as well as schools and mosques) as military bases, thus ending their legal protections.

Originally posted by Skunk: Quote: It is grossly hypocritical for those that oppose the war to be disgusted by the supposed disregard of the sick and injured when it is their disregard for the people of Iraq and the enabling of Saddam's "government" of thugs that has been terrorizing and murdering its citizens for more than 2 decades. Spare me.

This is a tired argument.
They're EVIL so we can be evil too.

No we can't - because when we feel that we can act just like Saddam, that is the point when the war should end - not with Saddam's defeat - but with an alliance pact. I don't want to go there.[/QUOTE]So it's wrong for a 3rd person to punch a mugger in the face to save the victim of a mugging? Bull-pucky!

[Donut]

Apparently the soldiers were shown to the POW by doctors. No-one was killed although they took 11 other bodies away.

In cases like this the Geneva Convention can go whistle.