Skip to content or view screen version

Whoops..not on Indymedia..

JR | 02.04.2003 07:59

All sides guilty of War Crimes

Iraq: Feigning Civilian Status Violates the Laws of War

Feigning civilian or noncombatant status to deceive the enemy is a violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said today. On March 29 at a U.S. military roadblock near Najaf, an Iraqi noncommissioned officer reportedly posing as a taxi driver detonated a car bomb that killed him and four U.S. soldiers. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said at a Baghdad news conference that such attacks would become “routine military policy.”



“When combatants disguise themselves as civilians or surrendering soldiers, that’s a serious violation of the laws of war. Any such blurring of the line between combatant and noncombatant puts all Iraqis at greater risk.”
Kenneth Roth
Executive director of Human Rights Watch

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International law prohibits attacking, killing, injuring, capturing or deceiving the enemy by resorting to what is called perfidy. A perfidious attack is one launched by combatants who have led opposing forces to believe that the attackers are really noncombatants. Acts of perfidy include pretending to be a civilian (who cannot be attacked) or feigning surrender (surrendering soldiers also cannot be attacked) so that opposing forces will let down their guard at the moment of attack. Other examples include feigning protective status by the misuse of emblems of the United Nations or the red cross and red crescent.

Perfidy poses particular dangers because it blurs the distinction between enemy soldiers, who are a valid target, and civilians and other noncombatants, who are not. Soldiers fearful of perfidious attacks are more likely to fire upon civilians and surrendering soldiers, however unlawfully.

Attacks carried out by openly armed belligerents in civilian clothes, with no attempt to feign civilian status, do not constitute perfidy. Suicidal attacks by undisguised military forces, exemplified by Japanese kamikaze attacks during World War II, are not a violation of the laws of war.

Perfidy is distinguished from ruses of war, such as mock operations, misinformation, surprises, ambushes, or the use of camouflage or decoy. Ruses are permissible acts of warfare intended to trick the enemy; they do not violate international law to the extent that they do not depend on taking advantage of an enemy’s willingness to abide by the law protecting noncombatants.

JR

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

This is not a war, this is an attack ...

02.04.2003 08:26

by the most powerful nation on earth, with a cowardly second-rate power that likes to tag along with the bully, against a weak nation. This is not a "war", this is a rape of a country whose defences have been stripped away by the UN and by a decade of bombings and sanctions. When you are fighting to defend one's own country against invaders, particularly invaders of overwhelming power, anything is fair. The Vietnamese in their successful repulsion of the American assault resorted to every sort of deception, as did the partisans in Yugoslavia against the Nazis, and the Russians against the Nazis. Saddam Hussein is a bastard, but the Iraqi people as they make the Americans and the British pay for every inch of the earth of their country, are the heroes of the whole world.

SupaDupa


Uniform

02.04.2003 08:29

So when the front line Iraqi's haven't got enough uniforms left they should just surrender right?

Also, I appreciate the comment about rules of engagement etc, but if your country was invaded, and you were trying to protect your family and home, would you just sit back because you didn't have a uniform? Half the pictures I see of Iraqi troops don't appear to have any kind of regimental uniform.

Bert


I thought someone shot JR already

02.04.2003 09:09

He was in civilian clothes at the time.

Miss Ellie


Your right

02.04.2003 09:12

SupaDupa is right, we need to hope that if a war crimes tribunal is set up that they only prosecute American and Brittish personel.. hopefully they will forget about possible Iraq war crimes cos we all know they have to commit them to survive.. We must have hope for prosecution of war crimes..but like I say only for certain ones not them all.. Hopefully any war crimes tribunal set up will like I say forget about certain war crimes but still remain resepected and trustworthy even though the majority of us only want Britain and America prosectued.

Mr Ironic


Running out of uniforms, no problem!

02.04.2003 09:20

Bert: Running out of uniforms is no problem. As the article above states, if they are in civilian clothes and openly armed this does not violate the convention. It is only a violation if they are pretending they aren't soldiers in order to get the enemy to let it's guard down.

Jynx
- Homepage: http://www.envir0.info/


both sides are doing this

02.04.2003 09:37

yeah, but your article doesn;t mention that US special forces are doing exactly the same thing in order to get intelligence aand to assasinate leading ba'ath party members

so far as i can see, sure there are warcrimes on both sides, but none of these would've happened if this illegal war of agression hadn't been started, so obviously blair/bush and co are mostly to blame

hk


yep, war is ugly business

02.04.2003 09:41

rules of engagement. nice idea. good for international accountability years after events have unfolded.

soldiers on the whole try to follow these, it's called following orders.

but often they don't. neither does the enemy. war is a brutal struggle to the death. when your back is against the wall rules mean nothing, survival means everything.

that's simply war.

exmil


blow me down!

02.04.2003 14:05

You mean Saddam and his regime aren't very nice? Gosh!

It's a good job our wise and benevolent rulers knew that. Otherwise they might have sold him arms or trained his secret services. Imagine how hypocritical they'd look now!

kurious oranj


backfire

02.04.2003 17:06

and is it ok for troops to attack a car full of civilians if it backfires?

ohmsayer


and our intel guys

03.04.2003 10:55

and its okay for our millitary intelligence (contradiction of terms) to go about as civilians?

state tv