Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

In general, look for your prisoner of war to be wearing a uniform or distinguishing sign recognizable at a distance while he or she is under arms. It's not perfect or under the modern interpretation of the law, but it's reasonably functional as a litmus test.

[smjjames]

In general, look for your prisoner of war to be wearing a uniform or distinguishing sign recognizable at a distance while he or she is under arms. It's not perfect or under the modern interpretation of the law, but it's reasonably functional as a litmus test.

So does a terrorist in a prison, is that person also a POW? You also have to define under arms.

[Helgoland]

There's an interesting question I heard once: When a drone pilot is done with his shift and goes home, is he still a combatant?

[nenjin]

There's an interesting question I heard once: When a drone pilot is done with his shift and goes home, is he still a combatant?

If they're active duty military at the time, I'd say yes. It's not like frontline soldiers stop being combatants when they go back to their tents/barracks/rucksacks.

[Vilanat]

What difference does it make if he is a drone pilot, a jet pilot or a foot soldier? the proximity to the battlefield doesn't determine those involved in the battlefield. and their lack of proximity certainly don't excuse their involvement.

If a terrorist plant a bomb that is detonated by a cellular phone half a continent away, does it mean that a second after he detonates it he is a mere civilian?

[Baffler]

There's an interesting question I heard once: When a drone pilot is done with his shift and goes home, is he still a combatant?

I'd consider him in whatever way an unarmed soldier who's active but off-duty is considered, personally.

All these ninjas...

[smjjames]

Not that I have a problem with the current tangent topic, it seems like it should have its own thread for debate.

[misko27]

There's an interesting question I heard once: When a drone pilot is done with his shift and goes home, is he still a combatant?

Let's see what the Red Cross thinks.

Rule 3. Definition of Combatants
Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.

Alright then. Being part of the armed forces of a nation at war automatically qualifies you as a combatant, period. Wikipedia tells me the same rule is true (but also more expansive) for treatment as a POW. I can't imagine it would ever be a particularly relevant question. I suppose it could happen that the drones are being run by a civilian agency, or espionage (such as the CIA) or something. Then I suppose they could be held as civilians and charged with murder, but again this really only applies to POWs, and I can't imagine many scenarios with POW drone operators. Maybe you mean combatant in the sense of "are they legitimate targets". In that sense, I think the answer is that they are, but I still doubt bombing their houses or something would be looked favorably upon by a military tribunal. I do not recommend trying it, in any case.

As for terrorism, Wikipedia informs me there are two forms of combatants: privileged or unprivileged. Privileged means "in some way, shape, or form, is/was part of a regular armed force or organization similar in design and function to a regular armed force", and "did not violate certain rules while so" (those being not pretending to be a civilian, etc), and exempts you from trial under civilian law. Unprivileged means a combatant who isn't both of those things; while an unlawful combatant still must be treated humanely, it also means they can be tried for their actions, based solely on my reading here. Incidentally, it is impossible to be a lawful combatant in a conflict not involving two nation-states, so based on everything here, I would say that Jordan was within it's legal rights to try, convict, and sentence the two to death.

[Sheb]

Sajida al-Rishawi was convicted for participating in the 2005 Amman bombing that killed 60 people in three hotels, and was already condemned to death. Ziad al-Karbouly was captured in Iraq and condemned to death a few years ago too for abducting and killing Jordanians citizens in 2005. I fail to see how either of those could be even remotely be classified as enemy combatants.

About the flying King, I wouldn't dismiss it. I frequently have heard Americans stressing the importance of a leader that had combat experience, because he knows what's war is like and is less likely to send his soldiers to fight on frivolous pretext. One of his pilot just suffered a grisly death, by showing he's willing to fight personally, he shows his troops that he understand the risks and is not throwing them away.

[Wolfhunter107]

This guy is a Grade A Badass, that's for sure.

[Vilanat]

Sajida al-Rishawi was convicted for participating in the 2005 Amman bombing that killed 60 people in three hotels, and was already condemned to death. Ziad al-Karbouly was captured in Iraq and condemned to death a few years ago too for abducting and killing Jordanians citizens in 2005. I fail to see how either of those could be even remotely be classified as enemy combatants.

About the flying King, I wouldn't dismiss it. I frequently have heard Americans stressing the importance of a leader that had combat experience, because he knows what's war is like and is less likely to send his soldiers to fight on frivolous pretext. One of his pilot just suffered a grisly death, by showing he's willing to fight personally, he shows his troops that he understand the risks and is not throwing them away.

As if we would feel the same if a western country treated captured terrorists the same way jordan just had.

What previous combat experience, that the king never had, has to do with him wanting to fly now on a combat mission? if the jordanian troops need their king to fly on bombing missions so they could be convinced of their importance, or so they wont be scared doing so, then as i said before, something is fucked with jordan. well, the more i read about it, the more i am convinced that something is indeed fucked about jordan's situation.

[10ebbor10]

Guantanamo bay?

Or you know, drone/air strikes where suspected terrorists are killed/maimed without any trial, or even certainty of guilt.

[Sheb]

Vilanat: Most Europeans countries don't have the death penalty on the book. Some US states do, and they regularly execute people for crime much less horrible than attempting to detonate yourself in a hotel, and no one gives a fuck.

[Vilanat]

Guantanamo bay is exactly my point. although, i am not sure i heard about detainees who were hastily executed as a revenge.

The drone strikes is another thing all together.

[XXSockXX]

if the jordanian troops need their king to fly on bombing missions so they could be convinced of their importance, or so they wont be scared doing so, then as i said before, something is fucked with jordan. well, the more i read about it, the more i am convinced that something is indeed fucked about jordan's situation.

Well, Jordan is - for the most part - a tribal society, so things may be different there. People expect leadership, and revenge, from their king.

Same with the outrage about the killing of that pilot, many conservative Muslims in the Middle East have no problem with beheadings or stoning people, but burning someone is against the Koran and upsets them deeply, while for us the difference is not that huge.