The rules of war do not state it has to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
The rules of war aren’t about perfection, they’re very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn’t used for war.
It’s important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for “innocents.” They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
IIRC Israel regularly attempts to warn people before striking to give non-combatants time to leave and makes a point of NOT using their citizens as human shields.
The rules of war do not state it has to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28#:~:text=to medical units-,Rule 28.,and protected in all circumstances.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
That’s an awful lot of words to say “shoot the hostages.”
The rules of war aren’t about perfection, they’re very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn’t used for war.
It’s important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for “innocents.” They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.
Who agreed? The same countries that selectivity pick and choose which international laws to adhere to and invade the hague for those they dislike?
Can you point at anyone in Russia or US tried for war crimes yet? who the fuck are these rules for, just for internet points?
deleted by creator
Am i justified in killing the baby someone is using as a hostage to kill the hostage taker?
The Geneva convention says yes. It’s it moral, no. However our current agreed upon rules for war would allow it.
This is actually a good question.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
Reading through these threads since the Hamas attack, this point is lost on 99% of people here.
Newsflash - combatants don’t just get to set up shop in a church or hospital to have their opponents throw up their hands in defeat.
People bitch at Israel but don’t say a god damn thing about Hamas effectively painting a target on the building they occupy.
Why do you guys keep comparing what a terrorist organization does compared to a government?
If you are doing the same things as terrorists, then you are a terrorist organization and not a government.
Hamas is both a terrorist group and the government of the Gaza strip. I’m surprised that fact escaped you
Hamas is a “government” the same as the taliban or Al Qaeda.
IIRC Israel regularly attempts to warn people before striking to give non-combatants time to leave and makes a point of NOT using their citizens as human shields.
That different enough for you?
Different flavors, one can do whatever because everyone already despises them, the other is trying for plausible deniability.
Mocha vs french vanilla