Thread: Where is the outrage regarding our pow treatment?

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

Just a few comments from me on this meandering thread:


3. Quizzing JJH on blue-on-blue, either A10's in Iraq 1991, 2003, Patriots in 2003 or F16's in Afghanistan 2002(?) on the Cannucks is not only pointless, its not just us that get popped by the USAF, they pop themselves fairly regularly and don't get all teary eyed about it. In no way do I think it is acceptable but at least they are consistant with their view that "sh!t happens in war, we hoped it wouldn't, we try to prevent it but it happens". That we are far more careful comes down to a level of professionalism (its easier to have a professional military our size than one 10 times larger like the yanks). This isn't a pop at the US, its just their acceptable intake standards and pass marks are lower to generate a higher volume of soldiers. It is what it is.

This has been discussed on many other threads without any resolution as it inherently involves opinions. I would also note as I have elsewhere that there is also the effect of the law of numbers--how many sorties/aircraft etc. etc. involve US forces vs allies. Risk of blue on blue goes up with frequency.

4. I think you'll find the yanks did sign the 1949 Geneva Convention but not all the updates since which does make the yanks legally able to do things that we can't legally do. I believe this specifically covers "Basic principles of the legal status of combatants struggling against Colonial and Alien Dominiation" and other bits and pieces which would have been a bit tricky whilst they were in Vietnam. They do 'try' to follow all the principles but they don't have to.

You are only partly correct. While(st) we have not (yet) signed and ratified all portions of the 2 protocols to the 1949 Conventions (due largely to Cold War issues and how they mixed with the then active nationalist and anti-colonial movements that were in many cases fomented and fueled by the USSR/China as proxies), the US has stated officially that the provisions that are at issue in the context of this and other threads (POWs etc.) are deemed to be statements of current customary international law that are binding on the US.

As a matter of practice and doctrine (except for the anomalies imposed on the military--if you are interested you can look up the very forceful testimony by the chief judge advocates of all our services before Congress-- by our civilian leaders based on the neo-cons' wrong-headed policies and resulting practices regarding classification of detainees captured in the GWOT) the US military adheres to the same Geneva rules as our UK cousins.

5. I am VERY sure that any individuals that break the GC are no longer protected by the GC and as such make themselves targets, likewise, I'm pretty sure only GC signee countries are eligible for GC niceties should they go to war. I am reasonably sure that Talib and AQ who are now fighting their own governments are not soldiers but criminals. Not sure of the rules here.

Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other treaties that reflect customary international law on this issue require certain minimal human rights-based treatment by all nations (and this is one of the problems in that internaitonal law has not yet fully caught up with how this applies to non-state actors like Al Qaeda and the Taliban) of all persons on the battlefield, regardless of their "status" (protected persons, combatants, unprivileged belligerents etc.) such as no summary executions, no "torture," (I recogniz(s)e this is a term open to definitional debate but for purposes here such things as permanent physical disabling etc.), providing basic human needs-food, clothing and shelter etc.

Originally Posted by Jabber

Howes and Woods were on duty, returning from doing some work at North Howard Street Mill. They were on a handover as one of them, I forget which, had come to the end of his tour. They went to watch the funeral procession of the 3 people killed by Stone at the funeral of the Gibraltar three a couple of days previously. They were not there operationally. The route had been place OB by 39 Bde to all troops to allow Sinn Fein to police it themselves, hence no green army nearby. They were unlucky as the locals were being extra vigilant because of Stone. Long series of bad luck decisions and actions by the 2 and they got caught. Result, tragedy of 2 dead soldiers who probably thought what they were doing was a good idea at the time. Perhaps that is the only similarity between the 2 stories but the loss is just as sad.

This was the general parallel between the two incidents that struck me.

As for Semper's statement that

Our two had an operational reason to be outside and other than bad luck were going to be invisible to the population, your two had no reason to be outside and it was impossible for them to merge into the general population.

I would suggest there was absolutely no 'operational' reason for them to be where they were.

C_C

Originally Posted by Charm_City

This was the general parallel between the two incidents that struck me.

As for Semper's statement that



I would suggest there was absolutely no 'operational' reason for them to be where they were.

C_C

As well as being interesting even if we at times disagree on substance rather than labels, you are also perceptive I see.

Wow, I wasn't able to get back to check this thread in a couple days and talk about forum ADHD.

Semper, I've read your posts and you are nothing more than a little troll hiding behind the anonymity of your little keyboard apparently upset at the size of the little nubbin the good lord felt fit to suit you with. You would much rather fight with us behind the keyboard than to man up and go head to head with those that would do you and your countrymen harm. You disrespect yourself , your country, and your countrymen with your postings.

And as far as your assertion that they were out to "party on the ville" you need to offer some concrete proof of that or stop being such a twit. My inclination is to think that reserve navy cooks are probably not the best land map readers and they got lost in the wrong part of town.

The body of Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Jarod Newlove was recovered and his family notified, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Newlove, 25, of Renton, Wash., was a recalled reservist serving as a culinary specialist.

Newlove and his companion, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Justin McNeley, were ambushed by Taliban fighters July 23 in Lowgar province. The Taliban initially said it had killed one of the men in a firefight and captured the other.

Afghanistan Taliban American: Body of second missing U.S. sailor found in Afghanistan - latimes.com

Secondly, I've read from multiple sources that the sailor was captured and that one of the taliban commanders flat out said they captured him taking responsibility. In my mind, that soldier is then a pow in their care.

I am well aware of the brutality of the taliban but I think we really need to start to highlight these things and re-emphasize why we are there. Not why we went, but why we are there.

Now before the thread meanders into another teeth gnashing, ale induced penis envy anti US rant regarding Afghanistan and why we are there, let's pretend for a moment that we want to have some semblance of success there.

The main thrust of the point I was making was this. Why is it we (the west) are not over communicating the brutality of the taliban. We are assuming that it's understood and generally accepted. The west is beating itself when it comes to public and world opinion as the taliban, AQ, AJ, and whoever, can highlight a single incident by the west for grand effects. We should be reminding people who it is that is showing them these things.

I assume it is the politico types stopping this from being known. Perhaps they are concerned that we may all lose our wherewithal if we see how brutal they really are and public opinion swings the war to a grinding halt.

Sad to hear that the second sailor has been found dead.
The fate of the two servicemen, after all, is what this thread started off about.

As seems to happen almost every time, we have a steady stream of posts that wheel out the same stereo types about Americans (Give it up, Kenny Everett did it better 30 years ago!!!!)

Unlike some of the experts posting on here, I have lived in the United States for 13 years, so far. So I actually have had some time to observe the American in their native habitat.

In that time, I have not met a single Yank-tit to match the Anglo-tits that turn up on here and spout their "expert" prognostications about Americans. Strange as it may sound, most Americans tend to Like the British. Very few know how malignant some of the Anglo-tits are, nor how often they can be found.
The American service personnel I have come across here, and I have met very many, have a great deal of respect for the British Allies, as a nation and on an individual basis. The Banter I receive is always limited to 1776 and all that. But of course we Brit's never harp on about Ancient history to other nationalities do we. I mean that would make Brit's as bad a s Yanks (sorry to all you fellas living outside New England, but your Anglo-tit is too ill informed to know what a Yankee REALLY is!)

So to those of you who wish to make the same generalised, non factual, blank assertions I say the following.
You are an ill-informed, under educated, uncouth, common yob. With less manner than a brickies mate and the debating ability of a Chav. Fook off to what ever other Maplinesque/ Decca Bingo entertainment you usually frequent and leave serious issues to people who have IQ's / EQ's greater than their Shoe Size.

(And NO, a Grade 5 C.S.E. in metal work does not make you an expert on foreign cultures)

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other treaties that reflect customary international law on this issue require certain minimal human rights-based treatment by all nations (and this is one of the problems in that internaitonal law has not yet fully caught up with how this applies to non-state actors like Al Qaeda and the Taliban) of all persons on the battlefield, regardless of their "status" (protected persons, combatants, unprivileged belligerents etc.) such as no summary executions, no "torture," (I recogniz(s)e this is a term open to definitional debate but for purposes here such things as permanent physical disabling etc.), providing basic human needs-food, clothing and shelter etc.

All very good, but reality?

Chances of being taken prisoner by front line combatants engaged in a contact? , not so good. Bang Bang! Bang! OK, I surrender, tough mate, BANG! Happens all the time, it's been the reality of warfare since the first bloke threw a rock at the other tribes blokes.

It seems to tax you terribly that the 'enemy' may actually want to do something so dastardly as kill what they see as their enemy. Geneva Convention and all that stuff? I was never under any delusions in NI that the IRA would want to do anything other than be rather unpleasant to me. My old man when he was in Aden was under no illusions that FLOSY would want to do anything other than be rather unpleasant to him. And I'm sure nobody in Afghanistan expect the Talibs to anything other than unpleasant to them either.

Now, it's all well and good for you Americans to rabbit on about the Geneva Convention and all that, but you don't exactly have a rather good record at treating brown people when it comes to taking them POW, do you? Japanese, ChiComs, Vietnamese?

Originally Posted by ghost_us

You would much rather fight with us behind the keyboard than to man up and go head to head with those that would do you and your countrymen harm. You disrespect yourself , your country, and your countrymen with your postings.

Bullshite, we didn't have any problems with the blokes in Turbans viz a viz the UK until we poked our noses into there post 2001 at the behest of Shrub the Younger.

The Muj and Bin Laden? Remind us again who it was that fostered and funded them in the 80's?
Afghanistan is another classic example of CIA funded blowback biting America in the arse.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Bullshite, we didn't have any problems with the blokes in Turbans viz a viz the UK until we poked our noses into there post 2001 at the behest of Shrub the Younger.

I suspect the familys of the 60+ Brits who died on 9/11 in the twin trade towers might disagree. I know some were joint citizens etc (including my fellow Cornishman and general Hero Rick Rescorla RIP) but still thats a large number.

Now could we argue that US policy in Palestine/Israel/Middle East created this festering mess in the first place...maybe but thats one for another day.

I dont think JJH or any other Yank here is expecting the Geneva Convention to be abided to by Insurgents, really you do seem to be anti-american just for the sake of it. Be anti-american politician by all means. Personaly I'm just anti-politician.

These two poor sailors got a pretty nasty end ....did they perhaps do something rash or stupid? Maybe but then thats what happen if you put enough young men in a foreign land with hostiles. And to claim it could never happen to UK forces is just tempting fate.
Outraged, no. Saddened yup.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Bullshite, we didn't have any problems with the blokes in Turbans viz a viz the UK until we poked our noses into there post 2001 at the behest of Shrub the Younger.

This was taken in London 1989. And is what many see as the beginning of radical islam in the UK.

Originally Posted by Uzbeck

These two poor sailors got a pretty nasty end ....

As in getting shot?

I presume they have the same little passage on the end of the signing up form just before the signature bit I read.

This thread is just a whine-a-thon by two Yanks who seem terminally outraged that the enemy do things like kill you when he opportunity presents. Oh how unsporting of those naughty beturbaned johhnies!

And considering their somewhat bad record over the last 70 years at treating the enemy including routinely killing POW's out of hand, there is a whole lot of self rightious all American bullshit on display.

Originally Posted by mark1234

This was taken in London 1989. And is what many see as the beginning of radical islam in the UK.

Bull… Remind me again how many home grown Jihaddies we had on the streets of Leeds making bombs pre 2001

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Bull… Remind me again how many home grown Jihaddies we had on the streets of Leeds making bombs pre 2001

No that's not bull, it's a photograph of radical islamics inciting murder in London in 1989, you can dress it up how you like but it's not bullshit is it?

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

As in getting shot?

There's getting shot in a firefight and then there's getting dragged out into the mob and executed. To be blunt. The details seem to indicate the latter is more likely for the US Sailors. In any case getting shot dead and your body being dumped counts as a bad day out for me so, yes.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

This thread is just a whine-a-thon by two Yanks who seem terminally outraged that the enemy do things like kill you when he opportunity presents.

I agree the talk of expecting any insurgent to treat captured soldiers/civilians as PoWs is rather like expecting them to telephone first and agree when to start the next attack so everyone can have a nice meal first.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

And considering their somewhat bad record over the last 70 years at treating the enemy including routinely killing POW's out of hand, there is a whole lot of self rightious all American bullshit on display.

Hmm. As we Brits invested the concentration camp back in the day as a way of winning the Boer War and we have hardly been without the odd acusation or admission of PoW abuse I think we should leave that alone. Yes there have been more accusations and events in the US forces but then there are a lot more of them also. I'd be intrested to see comparative % figures but really one is all it takes for the bad guys PR machine so ...or actualy just a rumor is enough.

During WW2 we trained and equipped Resistance fighters around Europe and provided them with targets. They went about their business killing the enemy at any given opportunity and often captured, tortured and executed any German serviceman unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The German High Command were extremely annoyed with the treatment of their captured servicemen and no doubt retaliation was based on the freedom fighters being seen as irregulars or, in modern terms, insurgents.

I would expect that modern day insurgents (who see themselves as freedom fighters) are equally annoyed when special forces ambush and execute their own members. Lets be honest here, not many Talibs get the opportunity to surrender and be treated as per GC when the ambush lights up.

Very sad story about these two chaps and devastating news for families and friends. But, wander off the path onto the moor at night and the beast will get you. And it won't be pleasant.

I've just read this whole thread through, 20 minutes of my life lost.

Facts I've gleaned:

a. Two US Navy personnel, for whatever reason, were off camp, in a red area and were snatched and killed. May they rest in peace and my condolences to their families. We know nothing more than that they were (presumably both) reservist cooks. There is a faint parallel one can draw with Howes and Wood and a number of other incidents, but it's probably not worth pushing it too far.

b. The standard anti-US chorus promptly assembled to convince us all that the United States is the global centre of wickedness and that the US Armed Forces are like the Waffen-SS but, you know, really bad.

c. A number of sensible grownups have tried to have a sensible conversation around the fringes of the anti-US chorus.

d. A number of folk don't seem to grasp that signatories to the Conventions are bound to observe them, whatever the other side do. It's not a relative, it's an absolute. Yes, it does handicap the good guys. We are where we are.

e. Context is everything. My father was a member of a European Resistance movement during the late unpleasantness and perpetrated all manner of unpleasantness against the occupying Power. He got a fat chest full of medals for it. From the muj perspective, they're exactly equivalent. They can't take on the occupiers in a straight fight - and why would they want to - so they do what they can with what they have. Their aim is to break the occupiers' will to continue fighting and cause them to withdraw from a hopeless position and they're smart enough to understand that the media and the electorate are potentially their allies in creating a perception that this is an endless war.