11·
6 hours agoI provided specific definitions from the Geneva convention. If you think the Geneva convention is trolling or some scheme deviced by Russia i can’t help you.
- 11 Posts
- 102 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
Cake day: July 22nd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Obviously the trap was detonated, when he was within the detonation range. So it functioned when he approached it. The definition does not say that it has to function triggered by his approach. The triggering is entirely irrelevant.
This is not true, see the reply to the prohibitions around booby-traps, which explicitly notes them to be devices that can constitute treachery and perfidy. Which of course they are.
I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack, especially as treachery originates, as the article describes, from an understanding of “chivalry”.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503 01-38 AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf
Definition:
- “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
Article 7 Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict to treachery and perfidy, is prohibited in all Circumstances to use booby-traps and devices which are any way attached to or associated with: […]
2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed contain explosive material. .
3. Without prejudice to provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the of warnings or the provision of fences.The Prohibition of specific booby traps such as medical devices explicitly notes that it does not limit the scope of treachery and perfidy. So it even links the use of booby traps to the categories of treachery and perfidy, because it is blatantly obvious to be exactly that.
The definition of booby-traps does not make any limit on how they are triggered.
means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted to kill or injure
clearly an exploding scooter is designed to do exactly that.
and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
The key here is that the unexpectedly is from the perspective of the victim. This becomes clear as it relates to the victims approach to the object or interaction with it, which should not lead to the object exploding under normal circumstances. From the attackers perspective it is always expected to explode, be it by manual trigger or some sort of automation.
A scooter is not expected to explode as you pass by it. Also the remote detonation is irrelevant to the general prohibition of using them outside an area where fighting is ongoing or imminent.
So how did he get into the explosion range of the scooters explosives? Did he life his entire life there?
The item was placed specifically on his way and detonated, when he got into the explosive range. So it was exploded as he approached it. It is irrelevant that he did not intend to use the scooter. He had no way of recognizing it to be explosive. Which also brings us to the next problem. No civilian was able to discern the device, or recognize that they are in an area requiring particular care as fighting was not ongoing or immanent.
That is what perfidy means: using the protection of civilians specifically and treacherously to launch an attack while disguised as civilians. This requires that the enemy see you dressed as a civilian and let his guard down.
This did not happen since Kirilov never saw his attackers.
Using civilian items to hide booby traps is of course treacherous. It is based on creating the idea that there is no danger coming from this item. It is additionally specifically prohibited to booby trap civilian items under the geneva convention
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503 01-38 AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf
Definition:
- “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
Article 7 Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict to treachery and perfidy, is prohibited in all Circumstances to use booby-traps and devices which are any way attached to or associated with: […]
2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed contain explosive material. .
3. Without prejudice to provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the of warnings or the provision of fences.This is textbook. The Scooter didnt have the explosive attached, but hidden in it. It was used in an area were fighting was not ongoing or imminent and away from military objectives and there was no warning whatsoever.
But most importantly: The rules for booby traps mention explicitly, that they can constitute treachery and perfidity
“clandestine” is an important category to understand what is considered treacherous. The geneva convention does not refer exclusively to inviting confidence of protection. It is just an explicit specification, like the examples given under a to d are examples, to have them already covered. That does not mean that they are exclusive.
For the fighting on the front line every soldier knows he is at risk. Also Private Ivan is not targeted as Private Ivan. If instead there was Private Alexej in his place, Alexej would be dead and Ivan life another day. The same applies when command centers are attacked. They are attacked as the command structure. And if General Mikhail is visiting that day and the attack is done specifically on that day because he is there it is legitimate as he knowingly went to a legitimate target. Same i would argue for the command center in Moscow, e.g. the distance to the front is not relevant.
But being blown up by a booby trapped civilian device in a civilian area seems quite treacherous. In particular as booby trapping civilian devices is also prohibited.
Assasinations of individuals using perfidity are illegal under the Geneva convention. It is explicitly mentioned in the article. For a more detailed look read through this:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
Note that Westpoint is an American military academy. I hope this removes your worries of Russian trolls.
I now had time to look into the matter. It seems people here who assert it to be legal are quite off:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
Although the term treachery did not feature in the article, the sense that certain acts violate the law of war principle of chivalry, which is reflected in the work of the earlier scholars, was clear. In Article 101 of the Code, however, the term did appear, demonstrating its centrality to how war was not to be fought: “While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means of hostility, and is consistent with honorable warfare, the common law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, and it is difficult to guard against them.” In subsequent national and international codification efforts, treachery assumed a place of prominence in the treatment of assassination, as it had historically.
The most recent comprehensive treaty governing the conduct of hostilities is the 1977 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Additional Protocol I’s Article 37 styles acts during an armed conflict that were previously labeled assassination as “perfidy.” The article confirms again that the essence of the prohibition is treachery, not mere deception or trickery.
- It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
© the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
Note that the examples refer to the second sentence, to give someone false security by suggesting he would be entitled to protection under laws.
Blowing someone up with an explosive disguised as a civillian item in a civllian environment seems to be quite perfidious.
Assassination during wartime denotes (1) the treacherous, (2) wounding or killing, of (3) individual adversaries, in other words, perfidious attacks. Although the two terms often appear in the disjunctive, it is also reasonable to include outlawry, such as putting a price on the enemy’s head, within the scope of the definition assassination, as was done in the Lieber Code and suggested by Greenspan.
Military manuals have occasionally suggested that assassination is limited to non-combatants or requires a particular mens rea. […] However, the historical intent of the prohibition during armed conflict was to encompass the treacherous killing of the enemy, not just non-combatants. This is clear from the Hague Regulations’ Article 23(b)’s reference to “individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army,” which would include civilians and members of the armed forces. Additionally, the prohibition of assassination contains no mens rea requirement beyond an intent to betray a confidence or to encourage others to kill the individual(s) by placing a price on their head.
It is perfectly reasonable to speak of a murder here. The guy was targeted as an individual, he was killed and the attack was clandestine and treacherous, as he had no chance to guard against it and it was done in a way that could have killed uninvolved civilians easily, so it was also treacherous. In total the attack was probably perfidous and therefore illegal under the Geneva convention.
Can you link to a source for your respective claims?
I am not unhappy, that he is gone, but i am also not unhappy about other people being gone, where legally it is considered a murder.
The allegations that he was a war criminal, which probably is true, doesn’t justify killing him without a conviction, albeit afaik the ICC does not hand out death sentences.
Are generals sitting at home active duty soldiers? I don’t know, but again this means, that any killing of any head of state that is also considered commander in chief is legal, if their country is involved in an invasion or illegal occupation. So assassinating US presidents would be perfectly legal by this logic like it would be to assassinate Putin.
Military intelligence is not regular armed forces and i strongly doubt that Ukraine will be providing detailed evidence who committed the killing, so it is well possible that they used a third party.
That you refer to humans as “pest” does indicate though, that you have a strong disregard for basic human rights. It is a language that fits the Russian invaders and other war criminals, who rely on dehumanization to further their crimes.
Murder is a legal category. It does not matter how much you or i think it is morally justifiable. Devalueing humans as “pest” however is always a strong indication, that someone has no interest in rule of law.
Was he killed in combat? Was he killed by a member of the armed forces? Was he on active duty?
I think in his case it is not so clear to deem him a combatant and legitimate target by the laws around warfare.
His assassination is kind of similar to the attack on the Pentagon in 09/11. That is the part attacking US army personnel in the building, not the abducting and murdering civilians in a plane part.
He is a high ranking paper pusher at home, rather than an armed or at least deployed fighter. The attack was not carried out by regular armed forces, but by intelligence or intelligence affiliated partisan/terrorist (depending on point of view) groups.
In a similar question one would have to ask, if the assassination of JF Kennedy wasn’t a murder then, since Kennedy was the leader of an invading army in Vietnam.
EDIT: before downvoting i suggest people to read the following discussion regarding the legality of this act. This assassination was clearly not in accord with the Geneva convention, specifically the prohibition of the use of civilian items as booby traps and the prohibition of perfidious attacks.
https://syriadirect.org/protests-and-sdf-defections-discontent-simmers-in-eastern-deir-e-zor/
EDIT: People downvoting evidence of human right abuses and authoritarian crackdowns against protestors. PAthetic.
Europe was laying in rubble in the 40s. The only reason the US got out of WW2 as the global power was because it did not suffer any attacks on its mainland. Also it had reliable access to resources throughout.
Also it is not true that Western or Eastern European countries didn’t prepare for war. The British, French and also West-Germans built a sizeable army during the cold war. The same for Eastern European countries like Poland. Germany sold thousands of tanks to Poland after the Sowjet Union fell.
The German reduction in military was not done to pay for increased social welfare. It was done to reduce taxes to the wealthy.
Basically, it requires the US to screw its allies in the fight against the Islamic State. Which would not be out of character for Trump, since Kurds cannot “pay him for protection”. The protection was based on principles (the Autonomous Administration of North-Eastern Syria was the only player in the region that tried sticking to democracy and human rights) and a common enemy (ISIS).
The US using and abandoning Kurdish people is a repeated pattern long since before Trump. Heck, the US helped Saddam Hussein massacre thousands of Kurdish people in Iraq in the deadliest nerve gas attack in recorded history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_WarAlso the DAANES you mention as “trying to stick to democracy and human rights” runs torture camps and mass executions and the US helps funnel new people into them.
Note that the SDF/PKK/YPG Kurds are not representative of Kurds in general. They are mix of various “secular” faction, some being marxist, some being just your run of the mill warlord. They have recently killed protestors in Aleppo and they run torture prisons and use mass executions as means to keep the people in their control “aligned”.
They managed to get themselves a good reputation with leftists in western countries, who are sympathetic to the struggle of the Kurdish people, but liberation will not come from these groups.
Passports weren’t a general concept until the end of the 19th century. Before they were mostly to allow passage to certain areas inside one country, rather than for movement between countries. There have been Identifications for Nobels and Diplomats though.
Anyways the whole concept is mostly a concept of modern nation states not of ancient tribalism.
Sudan is moving toward signing agreements for industrial, commercial, and oil projects with Russian companies as alternatives to Western firms. These agreements include offering over 20 oil wells in secure areas despite the ongoing war since April 2023.
Importing modern Russian refineries into Sudan in the coming period
The minister emphasized the importance of Russian involvement in the Red Sea, given their advanced gas technology. He also noted that Sudan has requested the deployment of floating barges to the Red Sea State to enhance electricity generation in Port Sudan. A joint team from both sides will work to finalize these agreements soon.
This seems to be part of a strategy to remove Western influence, instead hoping for better life under Russian influence. The West is quickly losing its grip on Africa. On the one hand because the leaders can make deals easier with Russia and China, on the other hand because the whole fuzz about human rights by the same people that committed genocides during their direct colonial rule and continue to destabilize, overthrow governments and murder local people over resources is tiring.
I dont get the hardons for whaling like this in places like Japan. If Inuits or other native people are whaling because it actually preserves a hundreds of year old tradition and feeds their village, fine whatever. But industrial whaling from modern ships has nothing culturally important to preserve, nor is it remotely necessary for feeding the Japanese.
A soldier hiding in a bush is a combatant. The grenade in his hand is a weapon. It is easily discernible as such both by other soldiers and by civilians. And both soldiers and civilians will expect a grenade to explode when it is thrown at them, or at least they understand the risk of a grenade potentially exploding, if it is laying around. So they expect it to be explosive.
Lets go through the definition word for word again:
A soldier is not a device, a grenade is, a scooter is
A soldier is not a material, a grenade is not a material, but made from some, same for a scooter
A soldier is not designed, a grenade is and this specific scooter was
all three kill or injure
all three function
A soldier is expected to be a danger, so is a grenade, a scooter is not
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/when
at what time; at the time at which:
the guy assassinated is a person. It does not say civilian or combatant. Any human being counts
he moved into the explosion range, so he approached
a soldier is not a harmless object. a grenade is not a harmless object. A scooter normally and by the expectation of normal circumstances is a harmless object
this means an interaction with the device itself that should be safe. E.g. if you set fire to a gas bottle as a civilian you cannot expect it not to explode
Nowhere does it say that the device or material needs to have any sort of automation. Nowhere does it say, that a remote trigger is excepted. Nowhere does it say, that it must be targeting combatants or civilians, both go equally.