thedrifter
11-25-04, 07:29 AM
11-23-2004
Amnesty International Shows Its Bias
By Raymond Perry
In researching an article last week on the shooting of a wounded Iraqi insurgent in Fallujah, (“Be Most Careful in Judging this Marine,” DefenseWatch. Nov. 17 2004), I read a press release by the human rights group Amnesty International that I found to be seriously misleading with regard to the Geneva Conventions and their application to United States forces.
The press release purported to announce and draw attention to “grave violations” of the laws of war by American military personnel in Iraq. But this press release failed to fully explore all relevant issues. In leaving certain key elements of international law out of its discussion, Amnesty International created the impression that U.S. military commanders in Iraq may be intentionally allowing these “grave violations” to occur.
At a minimum, statements such as this call into question the motivation of senior U.S. military leadership and seem to bring attention to more junior soldiers caught up in the heat of combat.
Unlike the news media, an organization such as Amnesty International is not subject to the discipline of the marketplace or responsive to readers who can opt to withdraw their support in event of serious ethical or professional lapses. Nonprofits like Amnesty International rarely go out of business as a result of such failures.
Nevertheless, the handling by Amnesty International of the issues surrounding the Marine’s shooting of the injured Iraqi insurgent failed to cover all key issues. Based on my own review of the organization’s press release, I believe this was intentional and not an honest oversight.
The central point of the press release is its third paragraph: “U.S. and Iraqi forces should be clear that under international law they have an obligation to protect and provide necessary medical attention to wounded insurgents who are no longer posing a threat, as well as civilians …. ”
Standing alone, this is accurate. However, Amnesty International did not explore the full range of issues relevant to the situation in which the young Marine found himself in that Fallujah mosque. Specifically, this same provision of international law imposes on the insurgents an obligation to cease all warlike actions on becoming hors de combat.
Simply put, the obligation that the Geneva Conventions places upon U.S. soldiers and Marines does not exist until those who become hors de combat cease all combative actions. This the insurgents have chosen not to do. Rather, they have booby-trapped bodies and set other traps for our soldiers that may approach an injured insurgent to attend to him. A number of American troops have been killed or injured while attending such insurgents.
When an armed organization of any kind acts in this manner, it changes the point during combat and under international law where its fighters can be defined as becoming hors de combat. In the case of a potentially booby-trapped insurgent who may be either injured or dead, the point where an obligation to protect and provide for an injured insurgent does not occur until he has been confirmed to have no capability to inflict injury on our soldiers.
If during this confirmation process an insurgent does anything that can be construed as initiating a potentially aggressive act, then our soldiers are fully justified in acting to protect themselves. That such a self-protective act may occur instinctively rather than deliberately is a risk that the insurgents themselves have chosen to take. If this occurs while the insurgents are actively engaged with coalition forces, our soldiers are further justified in bringing combat to a conclusion before taking care of captive, injured or dead insurgents.
In choosing to booby-trap bodies and set other traps for our soldiers who may seek to aid the injured, it is the insurgents who have chosen to consciously employ the law of war as a ruse to cause additional casualties among our forces.
Such a ruse itself is clearly a violation of international law. These violations are intentional with the goal of killing or maiming without possibility of influencing the overall battle. That these acts only serve to increase suffering without possibility of changing the outcome of combat should significantly increase the gravity with which Amnesty International addresses the full issue. But Amnesty International has been notably silent on this.
In its press release, Amnesty International included one throw-away line: “Acts such as booby-trapping bodies are also war crimes.” The only purpose that sentence seems to have is to indicate that the group is fully aware of the applicable international law and has covered all of the bases.
But failure to fully address all aspects of these issues represents an intentional slanting toward the insurgents that provides at least tacit support of the deliberate, inhumane actions they have taken. This position, of course, operates to the clear detriment of our soldiers.
I believe the authors of Amnesty International’s press release are fully knowledgeable of these points of international law, but have chosen to ignore them. Since an organization such as Amnesty International claims the moral high ground and achieves influence because of the outside perception of this stance, the families and friends of our soldiers – and the American people as a whole – should carefully consider this willful inaccuracy of Amnesty International toward the situation in Iraq as they consider whether or not the organization merits future support.
Lt. Raymond Perry USN (Ret.) is a DefenseWatch Contributing Editor. He can be reached at cos1stlt@yahoo.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=699&rnd=102.89209965131502
Ellie
Amnesty International Shows Its Bias
By Raymond Perry
In researching an article last week on the shooting of a wounded Iraqi insurgent in Fallujah, (“Be Most Careful in Judging this Marine,” DefenseWatch. Nov. 17 2004), I read a press release by the human rights group Amnesty International that I found to be seriously misleading with regard to the Geneva Conventions and their application to United States forces.
The press release purported to announce and draw attention to “grave violations” of the laws of war by American military personnel in Iraq. But this press release failed to fully explore all relevant issues. In leaving certain key elements of international law out of its discussion, Amnesty International created the impression that U.S. military commanders in Iraq may be intentionally allowing these “grave violations” to occur.
At a minimum, statements such as this call into question the motivation of senior U.S. military leadership and seem to bring attention to more junior soldiers caught up in the heat of combat.
Unlike the news media, an organization such as Amnesty International is not subject to the discipline of the marketplace or responsive to readers who can opt to withdraw their support in event of serious ethical or professional lapses. Nonprofits like Amnesty International rarely go out of business as a result of such failures.
Nevertheless, the handling by Amnesty International of the issues surrounding the Marine’s shooting of the injured Iraqi insurgent failed to cover all key issues. Based on my own review of the organization’s press release, I believe this was intentional and not an honest oversight.
The central point of the press release is its third paragraph: “U.S. and Iraqi forces should be clear that under international law they have an obligation to protect and provide necessary medical attention to wounded insurgents who are no longer posing a threat, as well as civilians …. ”
Standing alone, this is accurate. However, Amnesty International did not explore the full range of issues relevant to the situation in which the young Marine found himself in that Fallujah mosque. Specifically, this same provision of international law imposes on the insurgents an obligation to cease all warlike actions on becoming hors de combat.
Simply put, the obligation that the Geneva Conventions places upon U.S. soldiers and Marines does not exist until those who become hors de combat cease all combative actions. This the insurgents have chosen not to do. Rather, they have booby-trapped bodies and set other traps for our soldiers that may approach an injured insurgent to attend to him. A number of American troops have been killed or injured while attending such insurgents.
When an armed organization of any kind acts in this manner, it changes the point during combat and under international law where its fighters can be defined as becoming hors de combat. In the case of a potentially booby-trapped insurgent who may be either injured or dead, the point where an obligation to protect and provide for an injured insurgent does not occur until he has been confirmed to have no capability to inflict injury on our soldiers.
If during this confirmation process an insurgent does anything that can be construed as initiating a potentially aggressive act, then our soldiers are fully justified in acting to protect themselves. That such a self-protective act may occur instinctively rather than deliberately is a risk that the insurgents themselves have chosen to take. If this occurs while the insurgents are actively engaged with coalition forces, our soldiers are further justified in bringing combat to a conclusion before taking care of captive, injured or dead insurgents.
In choosing to booby-trap bodies and set other traps for our soldiers who may seek to aid the injured, it is the insurgents who have chosen to consciously employ the law of war as a ruse to cause additional casualties among our forces.
Such a ruse itself is clearly a violation of international law. These violations are intentional with the goal of killing or maiming without possibility of influencing the overall battle. That these acts only serve to increase suffering without possibility of changing the outcome of combat should significantly increase the gravity with which Amnesty International addresses the full issue. But Amnesty International has been notably silent on this.
In its press release, Amnesty International included one throw-away line: “Acts such as booby-trapping bodies are also war crimes.” The only purpose that sentence seems to have is to indicate that the group is fully aware of the applicable international law and has covered all of the bases.
But failure to fully address all aspects of these issues represents an intentional slanting toward the insurgents that provides at least tacit support of the deliberate, inhumane actions they have taken. This position, of course, operates to the clear detriment of our soldiers.
I believe the authors of Amnesty International’s press release are fully knowledgeable of these points of international law, but have chosen to ignore them. Since an organization such as Amnesty International claims the moral high ground and achieves influence because of the outside perception of this stance, the families and friends of our soldiers – and the American people as a whole – should carefully consider this willful inaccuracy of Amnesty International toward the situation in Iraq as they consider whether or not the organization merits future support.
Lt. Raymond Perry USN (Ret.) is a DefenseWatch Contributing Editor. He can be reached at cos1stlt@yahoo.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=699&rnd=102.89209965131502
Ellie