- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
We’re just speedrunning through the Geneva Conventions now. Who will be first to shoot a pilot parachuting from a disabled aircraft?
Dw even if it was real in the second the chaos starts maybe they can cause some chaos behind lines
I actually disagree with this one. Pilots will kill more people through bombing unless killed if allowed to return to their planes later. Unless you can be sure of their capture there’s no reason to let them live, from a humanitarian perspective. There was even this case where a pilot from a Russian aircraft killed a civilian on the ground. This rule just never made sense to me - you don’t have that with the crew leaving a tank, do you?
The idea is that they have to be given a chance to surrender. If they don’t do so, the Geneva Convention (specifically Protocol 1, Article 42) has no issue with you gunning them down. They just have to be given the chance to surrender, which they obviously can’t do while parachuting
But if they land somewhere the opposing troops can’t reach them, you can know in advance they won’t surrender.
Edit: it shouldn’t be a controversial notion that you won’t surrender in friendly territory.
“I know in advance this medic might become a soldier. I’ll shoot him now while he’s carrying that body!”
But the pilot is already a soldier
No he’s a pilot. He’s not emergency-ejecting with his rucksack and his m1.
The medic is also a soldier, I meant a valid target solider. You know what I meant
So we’re supposed to just wait until he’s emergency-killing those civilians to avoid discovery/steal from them while on the ground, like the Russian bloke did? Or bombing cities, killing hudreds or thousands?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Video from RIA Novosti released on Tuesday showed the Ukrainians swearing allegiance to Russia, holding rifles and dressed in military fatigues to fight in a battalion named for medieval nobleman Bogdan Khmelnitsky, seen as a national hero in Russia for bringing parts of Ukraine under Moscow’s control in the 15th century.
Both Ukrainian military and human rights officials as well as the Russian defence ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Experts say such actions would be an apparent violation of the Geneva conventions relating to the treatment of PoWs, which forbids them from being exposed to combat or from working in unhealthy or dangerous conditions – coerced or not.
“Russian authorities might claim they are recruiting them on a voluntary basis but it’s hard to imagine a scenario where a prisoner of war’s decision could be taken truly voluntarily, given the situation of coercive custody,” said Yulia Gorbunova, senior researcher on Ukraine at Human Rights Watch.
Nick Reynolds, research fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said “the entire scenario is laced with the potential for coercion”.
Reynolds said the fighters were not deployed as part of a conventional Russian military unit but were one of a number of irregular formations that do not adhere to “normal force structure”.
The original article contains 522 words, the summary contains 217 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Not that this is really new, ukraine forces ukrainian men to fight and russia forces russian men; their will was never relevant, just different excuses for what is essentially slavery.
Difference is that Russia is forcing Ukrainians - which is a violation of the Geneva convention.
Lots of countries have conscription, America too just incase that’s where you’re from and you’re throwing shade.
The purpose of this post is to highlight that Russia is sending prisoners of war to fight against their home country.
I certainly intended to throw shade on mandatory conscription, not the main topic but quite pertinent.
Of course I’m not trying to say it’s the same thing (not at all), just that a “you were born here, so go die” is on the same page.
I absolutely agree with conscription being wrong, same as mandatory service.
Yeah, and every kind of conscription is wrong.
That’s not the debate like it’s completely different, one is a breach of the Geneva convention.
Conscription is based, especially mandatory conscription
