Sirija

[theanswer]

iračka i američka vojska su pre neku noć gađali konvoj isis-a iz faludže, oko 150 vozila tona mrtvih itd

 

e sad ono što je zanimljivo, prvo je bilo objavljeno da su amerikanci gađali pa se iračani valjda nalutili i proiranci ih prozivali kako se kite tuđim perjem i slično. pa su čak iračani izbacili snimke iz mi28 na šta je portparol američkih snaga izjavio da su i njihovi bombarderi učestvovali. ništa specijalno. ali ispostavilio se na kraju da taj konvoj nije bio samo isis nego i njihove porodice, da ima dosta pobijenih žena i dece na šta majstor izjavljuje ovo

 

Coalition aircraft avoided a part of the convoy it was thought could contain civilians, said U.S. military spokesman Col. Chris Garver.

[Geo]

[theanswer]

rebeli preuzeli kinsibu u latakii, uspela ofanziva

 

kod damaska srušen su 22, ubili plilota na zemlji.

Edited July 1, 2016 by theanswer

[Eraserhead]

 ispostavilio se na kraju da taj konvoj nije bio samo isis nego i njihove porodice, da ima dosta pobijenih žena i dece na šta majstor izjavljuje ovo

 

Nego nezavisno od toga ko je gadjao interesuje me misljenje, ne samo tvoje, u slucajevima kada se zna da su porodice sa njima da li je opravdano gadjati ih?

[Bane5]

 

kod damaska srušen su 22, ubili plilota na zemlji.

 

uhvacen je ziv pa je kasnije ubijen.

[theanswer]

uhvacen je ziv pa je kasnije ubijen.

 

to sam i hteo reći

[theanswer]

Nego nezavisno od toga ko je gadjao interesuje me misljenje, ne samo tvoje, u slucajevima kada se zna da su porodice sa njima da li je opravdano gadjati ih?

 

pa to je ratni zločin

[Pečorin]

ili kolateralna steta. zavisi ko je bacio bombu

[frn1782]

Znacemo ko je bacio u odnosu na to dal se oglasila observatorija za ljudska prava iz Londona

[Geo]

Nego nezavisno od toga ko je gadjao interesuje me misljenje, ne samo tvoje, u slucajevima kada se zna da su porodice sa njima da li je opravdano gadjati ih?

Svaki konvoj tih bolesnika je vojni konvoj po meni(legitimna meta), to sto nije bilo tenkova vec kamioni napunjeni sa borcima i lakim naruzanjem ne menja puno stvar...

 

p.s. Pretpostavljam da je u tom konvoju bioi odredjen broj robova, kojima je na zalost zivot skoncan jos onog dana kada su ih ovi prisvojili ...

Edited July 1, 2016 by Geo

[Dagmar]

Svaki konvoj tih bolesnika je vojni konvoj po meni(legitimna meta), to sto nije bilo tenkova vec kamioni napunjeni sa borcima i lakim naruzanjem ne menja puno stvar...

 

p.s. Pretpostavljam da je u tom konvoju bioi odredjen broj robova, kojima je na zalost zivot skoncan jos onog dana kada su ih ovi prisvojili ...

 

E jbt, ekipa ide naokolo, puca i uzima robove u XXIom veku. Ludilo.

[Geo]

MA imaju i prave pijace robova , sa svim onim gvozdenim kavezima na trgovima,kao pre 3000 godina ... Ako neko od njih i ima zenu(nerobinju) to je neka crna udovica totalno ispranog mozga koja ce kad tad dobiti zadatak da se raznese na nekoj javnoj povrsini, koje crne porodice ...

[Prospero]

Nego nezavisno od toga ko je gadjao interesuje me misljenje, ne samo tvoje, u slucajevima kada se zna da su porodice sa njima da li je opravdano gadjati ih?

 

Rekao bih da teoretski jeste, ali da je u praksi to veoma teško dokazati. Mešanost civila i vojnika u vozilima čini slučaj dodatno težim, zavisi i od naređenja s vrha, tj da li je postojala predstava da su u grupi boraca i civili i posebno koja je uloga tih civila u tom trenutku.

 

Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions protects “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause” against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds”. 

 

Additional Protocol I

Article 51(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”. 

 

Additional Protocol II

Article 13(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.

The US Field Manual (1956) states: “Persons who are not members of the armed forces … who bear arms or engage in other conduct hostile to the enemy thereby deprive themselves of many of the privileges attaching to the members of the civilian population”.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states: “Civilians enjoy the protection afforded by law unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”

Taking a direct part in hostilities covers acts of war intended by their nature and purpose to strike at enemy personnel and material. Thus a civilian taking part in fighting, whether singly or as a member of a group, loses the immunity given civilians. [emphasis in original]

The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states that “anyone who personally tries to kill, injure or capture enemy persons or objects” is liable to attack. The manual adds:

The same would be true of anyone acting as a guard for military activity, as a member of a weapon crew, or as a crewman on a military aircraft in combat … Civilians who collect intelligence information, or otherwise act as part of the enemy’s military intelligence network, are lawful objects of attack. Members of a civilian ground observer corps who report the approach of hostile aircraft would also be taking a direct part in hostilities. The rescue of military airmen downed on land is a combatant activity that is not protected under international law. Civilians engaged in the rescue and return of enemy aircrew members are therefore subject to attack. This would include, for example, members of a civilian air auxiliary, such as the US Civil Air Patrol, who engage in military search and rescue activity in wartime. Note, however, that care of the wounded on land, and the rescue of persons downed at sea or shipwrecked, are protected activities under international law.

The US Naval Handbook (1995) states:

Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities by taking up arms or otherwise trying to kill, injure, or capture enemy persons or destroy enemy property lose their immunity and may be attacked. Similarly, civilians serving as lookouts, guards, or intelligence agents for military forces may be attacked. Direct participation may also include civilians serving as guards, intelligence agents, or lookouts on behalf of military forces. Direct participation in hostilities must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Combatants in the field must make an honest determination as to whether a particular civilian is or is not subject to deliberate attack based on the person’s behavior, location and attire, and other information available at the time.

The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:

Unlawful combatants who are not members of forces or parties declared hostile but who are taking a direct part in hostilities may be attacked while they are taking a direct part in hostilities, unless they are hors de combat. Direct participation in hostilities must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Some examples include taking up arms or otherwise trying to kill, injure, or capture enemy personnel or destroy enemy property. Also, civilians serving as lookouts or guards, or intelligence agents for military forces may be considered to be directly participating in hostilities. Combatants in the field must make an honest determination as to whether a particular person is or is not taking a direct part in hostilities based on the person’s behavior, location and attire, and other information available at the time.

In the Dragomir Milošević case before the ICTY in 2006, the accused, a former commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps (SRK), was charged, inter alia, with unlawful attacks on civilians as a violation of the laws or customs of war, punishable under Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 13 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II and Articles 3 and 7(1) and (3) of the 1993 ICTY Statute.

The protection afforded to individual civilians by Article 51 of Additional Protocol I continues until such time as civilians take a direct part in hostilities. There is a need to distinguish between direct participation in hostilities and participation in the war effort. To take direct part in hostilities means to engage in acts of war which, by their nature or purpose, are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel or matériel of the enemy armed forces. A civilian who takes part in armed combat loses his or her immunity and becomes a legitimate target.

 

 

In the Strugar case, the accused, a commander in the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), was convicted of, inter alia, attacks on civilians as a violation of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 of the 1993 ICTY Statute), for his role in conducting a military campaign against the Dubrovnik region of Croatia. In its judgment in the case in 2008, the ICTY Appeals Chamber considered the definition of direct participation in hostilities, stating:

172. In order to prove cruel treatment as a violation of Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] under Article 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim of the alleged offence was a person taking no active part in the hostilities.

173. In Kordić and Čerkez, the Appeals Chamber defined the notion of direct participation in hostilities set out in Article 51(3) of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I as encompassing acts of war which by their nature or purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel or equipment of the enemy’s armed forces. The Appeals Chamber considers the concepts of “active participation” under Common Article 3 and “direct participation” under Additional Protocol I to be synonymous for the present purposes. Nevertheless, as the present case requires that the definition of this concept be addressed in more detail and in different circumstances, which was not necessary in the Kordić and Čerkez case, the Appeals Chamber will expand below upon its previous reasoning.

174. The notion of participation in hostilities is of fundamental importance to international humanitarian law and is closely related to the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. Pursuant to Additional Protocol I, combatants have the right to participate directly in hostilities and civilians enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. As a result, a number of provisions of international humanitarian law conventions refer to the concept of participation in hostilities.

175. While neither treaty law, nor customary law expressly define the notion of active or direct participation in hostilities beyond what has been stated above, references to this notion in international humanitarian law conventions do provide guidance as to its meaning. Common Article 3 itself provides examples of persons other than civilians taking no active part in the hostilities, namely “members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause”. Article 41(2) of Additional Protocol I states that a person will be hors de combat if he “is in the power of an adverse Party”, “clearly expresses an intention to surrender” or “has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself” provided that “he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape”. A contrario, the notion of active participation in hostilities encompasses armed participation in combat activities.

176. Conduct amounting to direct or active participation in hostilities is not, however, limited to combat activities as such. Indeed, Article 67(1)(e) of Additional Protocol I draws a distinction between direct participation in hostilities and the commission of “acts harmful to the adverse party” while Article 3(1) of the [1989 UN] Mercenaries Convention distinguishes between direct participation in hostilities and participation “in a concerted act of violence”. The notion of direct participation in hostilities must therefore refer to something different than involvement in violent or harmful acts against the adverse party. At the same time, direct participation in hostilities cannot be held to embrace all activities in support of one party’s military operations or war effort. This is made clear by Article 15 of [1949] Geneva Convention IV, which draws a distinction between taking part in hostilities and performing “work of a military character”. Moreover, to hold all activities in support of military operations as amounting to direct participation in hostilities would in practice render the principle of distinction meaningless.

177. The Appeals Chamber also takes note of examples of direct and indirect forms of participation in hostilities included in military manuals, soft law, decisions of international bodies and the commentaries to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols. Examples of active or direct participation in hostilities include: bearing, using or taking up arms, taking part in military or hostile acts, activities, conduct or operations, armed fighting or combat, participating in attacks against enemy personnel, property or equipment, transmitting military information for the immediate use of a belligerent, transporting weapons in proximity to combat operations, and serving as guards, intelligence agents, lookouts, or observers on behalf of military forces. Examples of indirect participation in hostilities include: participating in activities in support of the war or military effort of one of the parties to the conflict, selling goods to one of the parties to the conflict, expressing sympathy for the cause of one of the parties to the conflict, failing to act to prevent an incursion by one of the parties to the conflict, accompanying and supplying food to one of the parties to the conflict, gathering and transmitting military information, transporting arms and munitions, and providing supplies, and providing specialist advice regarding the selection of military personnel, their training or the correct maintenance of the weapons.

178. On the basis of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber holds that in order to establish the existence of a violation of Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] under Article 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute, a Trial Chamber must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim of the alleged offence was not participating in acts of war which by their nature or purpose are intended to cause actual harm to the personnel or equipment of the enemy’s armed forces. Such an enquiry must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the individual circumstances of the victim at the time of the alleged offence. As the temporal scope of an individual’s participation in hostilities can be intermittent and discontinuous, whether a victim was actively participating in the hostilities at the time of the offence depends on the nexus between the victim’s activities at the time of the offence and any acts of war which by their nature or purpose are intended to cause actual harm to the personnel or equipment of the adverse party. If a reasonable doubt subsists as to the existence of such a nexus, then a Trial Chamber cannot convict an accused for an offence committed against such a victim under Article 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute.  [emphasis in original; footnotes in original omitted]

Edited July 2, 2016 by Prospero

[Dagmar]

Ja ovo nisam baš razumela, civile ne treba napadati, ali ako su izmešani sa vojskom onda dođu kolateralna šteta zar ne? Sem kad ih je moguće jasno odvojiti od vojnih ciljeva. Mada opet tom logikom uvek možeš da kažeš da si ustvario pucao na neki vojni cilj, pa palo među civile...

[radisa]

Ako se ja ne varam, gađanje civila koji su izmešani sa vojskom nije ratni zločin strane koja gađa, već ratni zločin te vojske koja je sa civilima jer je upotreba civila kao živog štita ratni zločin.