Human Shields

I say live and let live and die and let die. I understand suicide is against the law. But how do you prosecute a dead person.

Actually the Vietnamese monks who burned themselves were protesting their government, not the United States or even the war itself. For Buddhist monks to resort to the practice of burning themselves alive is very shocking. Even more shocking was that the first monk who did it was widely revered as an especially holy man. Imagine if a Cardinal burned himself on the White House lawn in protest over religious oppression by the government. Thats reasonably similar to Buddhist monks burning themselves in Saigon.

The so-called human shields who have volunteered to place themselves in dangerous target areas in the belief that they are preventing military action are a very different matter. The use of human shields is a war crime, and for allied citizens to participate makes them war criminals as well. To provide aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason, and any of our citizens who survive the action should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Human shields do an about-face





LONDON - The human shields have turned into giant chickens.
Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as shields in the event of war returned home - fearing for their safety, a spokesman said.

The human shields are mostly European activists who drove to Baghdad in two double-decker buses last month, intending to guard civilian sites from a U.S.-led military attack.

"The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war," said spokesman Christiaan Briggs. "We do not have those numbers."

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad.

Briggs said about a dozen Brits remain in Iraq alongside several dozen from other countries.

U.S. officials have said that it is a war crime to use civilians as human shields and that there's no way of guaranteeing their safety.

On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein.

Interesting.....

canada.com :.
newsmax;
Rush Limbaugh; .

a liberal bias of the media?
to show my bias these three selctions were made because they were the first three on google

It's interesting how our American leaders, most of whom have never been anywhere near a war, are chiding the Europeans for their lack of backbone right now. If memory serves, that continent was the setting for the two worst wars in recent history.

Equally easy, it seems, is it for media loudmouths to deride the human shields for being cowards. Limbaugh et al are another group that has tended to keep as far away from the fighting as possible. Talk about running "as fast as their skinny legs can carry them..."

You do understand the difference between reporting and commentary, right? You offer commentary from NewsMax (so conservative I don't even read them) and Rush Limbaugh ('nuff said) and then want to posite that you've debunked the notion of a liberal bias in the media?

No offense, but that's almost as funny as the road-runner plume of dust heading out of Iraq right now as all those human shields turn out to have some fairly well-developed instincts for self-preservation after all. (If only Saddam shared that trait with his admirers.)

offense taken: i was pointing out that when one does a search for information and the first 3 hits are what i got, one can hardly wonder about truth and accuracy in the media. i happen to think road-runner was the best. google news does not sort by news reporting vs commentary but it does sort by whats being read, perhaps you should direct your sarcasm at either google or the people that search for information.

Now, tres, you wouldn't be one of those bold guys who call for war, make fun of the would-be human shields, yet have never been in uniform yourself, would you? :wink:

No, Dart, I would be one of those bold guys calling for whatever is necessary to get rid of the threat Saddam poses, who respects the right of these "human shields" both to act upon and to abandon their ideals, who can't help having what I think is a healthy sense of humor about such things, and who has a dusty Honorable Discharge from the United States Navy sitting in the bottom of a drawer around here.

Good, tres. I give you a lot more credit than I do the war-monger blowhards in DC and in the media who have done far less...

Listening to public radio on my way home I heard someone telling that she aked the Pope to station himself in Iraq so that Bush would have to kill him to start a war. I don't know what answer was recieved - Different happenings prevented me from hearing the end of it.

Well thank-you, Dart.

There is already discussion of possible legal action to be taken against the returning "Human Shields". I don't necessarily agree with that, but on the other hand, I acknowledge that is a warcrime to knowingly and intentionally place civilians in harm's way in the interest of shielding militarily legitimate targets in time of war. By strict interpretastion, The Volunteer Shield's volunteer status does not shield them from culpability in the warcrime they abet should they choose to place themselves in harm's way in the event of war. I'd ignore the early returnees, as, since they departed without participating in a warcrime, they are innocent of warcrime. As for those who might choose to continue to abet the atrocity, those who survive should face the full sanction of applicable law.



timber

It's a shame what they did is probably illegal. It was morally ahead of the law.

How is putting oneself in harm's way a war crime? This smacks of Orwellian thinking at its best!

D'art, the law is clear. It is a warcrime to knowingly and intentionally employ civilians to shield military assets. Plain and simple, civilians are not to be put to such use. Voluntary participation in a crime renders the voluntary participants guilty of the crime, whether that crime is a convenience store holdup, a gangrape, or the employment of human shields during wartime. There is nothing Orwellian about it ... unless you think, for instance, that it is OK to bomb abortion clinics. A crime is a crime, regardless who commits it or why it is committed.

The Human Shields may well be nobly motivated and no doubt believe their actions morally just. That does not change the fact that by volunteering, they participate in the warcrime of employing human shields. In fact, should hostilities break out, such volunteers become willing active participants in the warplans of the host country, thus relieving themselves of the protection afforded civilians. By taking direct action intended to thwart or hinder the activity of an opposer, thereby serving to the direct aid of the opposed's military actions, they become combatants. As civilians, the only special treatment to which they might be subject would be the provisions dealing with partisans, guerillas, sabotuers, and collaborators.

Being brave, noble, principled, and sincerely opposed to war makes no difference. Neither does being gullible or just plain stupid. They are by act of willful participation in the commission of a warcrime war criminals themselves.



timber

Since there is officially not a war and they have decided to leave they possibly will avoid being put on trial. Not that I trust the administration to be sensitive to their rights.

As you point out, edgar, there is yet officially no war. That obviates, at least untill the onset of hostilities, or the announcement of a date-certain for the commencement of hostilities, the question of a war crime. There may be violation of laws regarding proscribed travel, but I doubt much will be made of that. I note the Volunteer Shields who are returning have voiced a bit of pique at the assignments they received from The Iraqi Regime; The Shields intended to "Protect" "Humanitarian Targets", according to one quote. Apart from the oxymoron of "Humanitarian Targets", The Iraqi Regime wanted to post the Volunteers to such sites as power plants, government office buildings, and communications centers, not hospitals, schools, and orphanages ... go figure, huh?



timber

Timber,



I'm not so sure that your statement is correct. The Gulf War was not ended, but was put "on-hold" by a cease-fire conditioned upon Iraq's disarmament. This is not very different from the Korean War that still is unresolved after fifty years. Cease-fires and armistices' provide a pause in hostilities that can be abandoned for good cause. Saddam's behavior over 12 years is ample cause for the United States to resume hostilities.

Well, we've missed the optimum date (02-03MAR) already. After the 9th, I think the window will be rapidly closing, but still do-able until late March. If things don't go well, some of the blame I think might be traced back to this delay. The blood of soldiers and civilians may the price we pay.