PDA

View Full Version : The US Army is today in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan.



Apocalypse
12-08-2011, 10:51 AM
The US Army is today in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. This was first pointed out to me by a very smart, highly experienced senior military person. Though he has never steered me wrong, this seemed a bit much. And so over the past month I looked into it.


He was right. We are in violation of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. The explanation is straightforward.


http://bigpeace.com/myon/2011/12/06/dustoff-helicopters-violating-geneva-conventions-in-afghanistan/#more-181772




I'll let our military people here have at this one.

Molon Labe
12-08-2011, 12:13 PM
Lol that this is in stupid liberal tricks. That doesn't make it untrue. It's from a Breitbart subsidiary.

Apocalypse
12-08-2011, 12:39 PM
Lol that this is in stupid liberal tricks. That doesn't make it untrue. It's from a Breitbart subsidiary.
OK, might be from BB.

But do you still agree with his claim that the Army is in violation of the Geneva Conventions in their use of Dustoff choppers?

Molon Labe
12-08-2011, 01:23 PM
OK, might be from BB.

But do you still agree with his claim that the Army is in violation of the Geneva Conventions in their use of Dustoff choppers?

It's possible.

the question is if it is a violation will the Army fix the issue? They have in the past. No upper echelon brass wants this to come back on them. I have faith that they are looking into it and doing what they can to fix the issues.

Upon further inspection this.

Why would any American aircraft land to be inspected by any Taliban? This is a minor issue and trite to Geneva protocol. So many other things to be concerned about in theatre.

DumbAss Tanker
12-08-2011, 07:04 PM
I didn't realize your first two paragraphs were quotes from the article, Apocalypse, since you didn't block them out or mark them in any way, however I figured out they weren't your writing but an excerpt when I went to the link.

I'll just leave it at the correspondent and 'Senior military person' telling him that are complete fuckheads that don't actually understand the Geneva Conventions. Here is the Readers' Digest version of why they are both on crack, probably severe cranial infarctions of their own buttcracks:

First, not having an agreed flight path is not a 'Violation,' it is a simple failure to conform to the rules for aircraft, which in no way violates the rights of presumed-lawful (Hah) enemy combatants over which they are flying. The rules are for the benefit of evacuation FLIGHTS, NOT for the benefit of the enemy combatants, and so us failing to follow them at worst deprives our choppers of available legal protection, which is our choice. It does not 'Violate' the Conventions.

Second, the rules were written long before helicopters became the primary means of battlefield evacuation, those rules were actually written to cover the situation of the fixed-wing evac flights from places like Dien Bien Phu or Stalingrad. It's quite outdated for VTOL machines and never intended to cover them, it has just never been brought up to date. Therefore we (And the civilized world in general) treat the choppers as 'AIR AMBULANCES,' to which the rules respecting firing on AMBULANCES would apply, so the little goat-fuckers are indeed in violation for shooting at them underthat interpretation.

txradioguy
12-09-2011, 02:05 AM
I've been following this through Yon's facebook page. To me it seems he's handing a lot of his argument on the difference between Medivac and Casevac.

Not sure how I feel on this. I can see arguments from both side...especially since I saw dustoff flights have to sit on the pad spooled up and ready to go...but had to wait on a gunship escort before they could launch.

DumbAss Tanker
12-09-2011, 10:59 AM
I've been following this through Yon's facebook page. To me it seems he's handing a lot of his argument on the difference between Medivac and Casevac.

Not sure how I feel on this. I can see arguments from both side...especially since I saw dustoff flights have to sit on the pad spooled up and ready to go...but had to wait on a gunship escort before they could launch.

As long as the gunship isn't purposely hiding behind the bird with the red crosses when it engages a target, there is nothing wrong with that at all.

The so-called violation is nothing of the kind, it is simply not taking advantage of a legal protection that would be afforded to an aircraft that DID follow those rules, basicallly like having a handicapped parking hanger for your car but parking in a regular parking space. And if you are not going to avail yourself of that protection, since you know the other side does not follow the rules of war in the first place, having a gunship escort is only prudent.