MIL Canadian's in Afghanistan have been told Geneva Rules don't apply to Taliban

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Jason H, May 31, 2006.

  1. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060530.wxdetainee30/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

    From my thread in main.
     
  2. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,662
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    During WTC one of our Drill Sgts was doing some informal training with us on how to properly detain and handle enemy combatants in a combat environment.

    He went over everything from the capture through disarming them and patting them down for hidden weapons and seperating them from each other and bystanders and what we were and weren't allowed to ask them per the geneva convention. This session went on for over an hour, with a lot of Q&A thrown in, and I could tell the DS was feeling pretty proud of the training he had given us.

    When he was ready to wrap it all up, he asked for any final questions. I raised my hand and said "I understand how all this applies to enemy forces, but I'm not sure how we apply Geneva Convention rules to al qaeda."

    He started to reply and then he stopped and thought about it for a few seconds. Then he told me to give him 50 for asking a question that didn't have an answer. :hsugh:
     
  3. djbuzzfuzz

    djbuzzfuzz OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Djibouti,Africa/Camp Lemonier
    . In 1977, a fifth draft of the Geneva Convention was penned in response to the increasing number of insurrections and guerrilla wars taking place around the world. This extended the protection of the Geneva Convention to all participants in these wars, which they previously did not enjoy because of the stipulation in Chapter 2 which requires them to operate openly, have a fixed leadership structure, and behave "in accordance with the laws and customs of war".
    This last Geneva Convention is somewhat more controversial, and only about half of the countries who signed the 1949 version have also signed the newer one. The United States and Great Britain are two notable abstainers from the latest draft. The central problem is that, guerrilla warfare aside, this new description could conceivably be applied to terrorist groups as well, who might then be able to use the tenets of the Convention to their advantage.
     
  4. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    You answere'd a question with another answere aswell. My article still implies what it said and that they have no right (under our flag anyways or US/British) that they (Terroists/Guirrila's) would be covered by Geneva Conventions.
     
  5. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Loopholes right, the rest wrong. You cannot use .50 cal snipers on combatents/people but you can use it on equippment. Like a vest/backpack they are wearing. Even their rifle. If their body gets in the way than oops :mamoru:
     
  6. DSHR

    DSHR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Messages:
    73,598
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    ATL|LA
    :rofl:
     
  7. GochuBoy

    GochuBoy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    31,264
    Likes Received:
    9
  8. mikdavi84

    mikdavi84 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    55,930
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Kandahar, Afghanistan
    i asked that same question in basic
     
  9. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,662
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Did you get a real answer? All I got was a couple of dead arms. :wtc:
     
  10. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Hmm interesting, thought it was under the same ban for use against humans as the Flame thrower.

    I'm just a civvie so don't hurt me :mamoru:
     
  11. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Interesting read.
     
  12. brownfield

    brownfield OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ventura
    I practiced on a .50 cal in Iraq with a certain special forces group... We practiced on a silhouette of a human (I will not continue on this subject). They trained on this silhouette for their missions and trust me, I'm qualified expert, it was too easy to hit a target from over a mile away. And to finish my point... If you shoot an AT-4 at a military uniform or a PAIR OF GLASSES you are in the right.
     
  13. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    The original subject was about .50 calibre sniper rifles. Not crew served .50 cal's and emplacements. Since the subject is dead lets move on shall we?
     
  14. brownfield

    brownfield OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ventura
    you want me to edit my post? When I said .50 cal I meant a sniper rifle... Why not ask probably the only person on here except maybe gtcrispy that has fired one??? But yeah, I'm about 100% sure I'm right.
     
  15. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not bitter, I thought when I read I saw something about crew served .50 cal and thats why I ment to say .50cal Sniper rifles like Mcmillen.

    :fawk: Grammar nazi.
     
  16. mikdavi84

    mikdavi84 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    55,930
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Kandahar, Afghanistan
    hell no i didnt
     
  17. clever_username

    clever_username Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    so the US didn't sign it? then why is everyone bitching about torture? we gave them no protection, therefore we're in the right
     
  18. Jason H

    Jason H Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Yea this kind of war we're seeing in A-stan and Iraq if you look at the big picture is something new that's for sure :hs:
     

Share This Page