Time Mag Misleads About USMC Alleged Assault on Hospital

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Sep 8, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Note the headline states as fact what the article terms allegations:

  2. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    USMC? Article says 10th Mtn Div...

    FYI, reporters do not write their own headlines: That is done 'back at the office.' Many a journalist has cursed to see a misleading/flippant/inaccurate/wrong headline headlining their story.

    Intersting point in the story, though it is further down. Are wounded enemy in hospital not a legitimate military target? My understanding is that installations such as neutral hospital ships moored offshore are NOT targets, but hospitals on the battlefield are, if not military targets, military objectives; ie their occupants CAN be captured. Where this leaves an NGO-run hospital in a COIN warzone I am not sure....?

    Can anyone shed light?
  3. My main point in posting was to show how sloppy our journalists are getting and possibly how politicized the editorial staffs since I do not think the choice of headline was inadvertent.

    To answer your law of armed conflict question, enemy combatants who are wounded are protected by the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of the Wounded and Sick. If hors de combat (wounded to the point they are "out of the fight"), they become noncombatants and cannot be targeted. They must be treated medically (standard triage rules apply without regard to nationality) and if they recover are then considered prisoners of war, subject to the companion POW convention.
  4. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    Well in this case I would say the sloppiness of the hacks was less in putting out a misleading headling, more in not adding the context that you have done above, re rights of enemy wounded. The US troops may well have been within their rights to search the hospital for enemy casualties, who - after treatment - will then be taken as prisoners, and shipped to, er....?

    Though now you mention it, 'storm through hospital' is in inverted commas, which suggests a quote. I didn't see any source quoted as saying that in the article.
  5. Taliban and AQ are not lawful combatants, they are terrorists in every meaning of the word.

    This is no different from police arresting and charging let us say, a failed suicide bomber from an NHS Hospital.
  6. When did the Tallys sign the Geneva convention
  7. Just because the Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention doesn't mean that we aren't legally and morally bound by it.
  8. They are CRIMINALS and can be arrested, do any other murderers have immunity from arrest because they are skulking in a hospital?

    If Peter Sutcliffe escaped from prison and ended up hiding in a hospital, you'd want the authorities to go in and search for him wouldn't you?

    No difference especially as Terry and AQ claim to be doing Gods work too.
  9. You don't have to sign it to be protected by it.

    Concerning the hospital search, nobody in his right mind can claim that it was a violation of humanitarian law. Indeed 'targeting' a hospital means just that* and nobody did - it was searched and no harm done to civilians - so legal. Was it prudent? Was it within the guidelines of CIMIC? And most importantly, was it effective? Probably not.

    *hospitals etc are not to be targeted ie bombed unless the enemy uses the hospital for military purposes - then it becomes a military target. You may then 'target' that hospital but still only if the danger of civilian casualties is proportionate to the military significance of the target.
    I think :D
  10. I think they are in a tiz about ISAF bringing weapons in to a hospital.

    There was an incident in the north of the country a week or so ago where Taliban brought an injured commander in for treatment.

    An ANP patrol trundled past and saw the scooters parked up outside with a couple of raggedy arssed guys with AKs stagging on.

    Their interest aroused they dismounted and were engaged. More Taliban were inside and there ended up being firefights through the corridors and wards.

    Something like 15 dead TB, 6 arrests and 2 ANP wounded.

    Just another day at the office...
  11. Don't put words in my mouth to support your obnoxious right wing viewpoint.
  12. In light of that, the (legal) search might have been completely justifiable (as in considering the fallout and adverse effects on hearts and minds). Again, we don't know anything on why it was conducted specifically on that day and based on what intel.
    What frustrates me is that journalists tend to frame news in such a way that it becomes 'clearer' - here by reminding us of the tankers and thus alleged hard handedness of ISAF - instead of giving the real picture that, more often than not in war, constitutes a dilemma for the commanders and troops on the ground.
  13. A terrorist is a criminal not a soldier, and is therefore covered by the laws of the country so if the troops involved are under the laws of the said country hospitals are not out of bounds
  14. To be fair the "Storm Through Afghan Hospital" is in quotes in the headline, so not a statement of fact but one of opinion.

    But who's opinion is not clear.