I have been hearing lately about certain people going to Iraq to act as human shields for SH. Sounds like aiding an enemy to me... your thoughts?

CP

A lot of them left when they found out Saddam was actually going to use them.

They aren't aiding Saddam Hussein they are aiding the Iraqi civilians that are caught in the middle of this conflict.

Do you think that SH is actually going to use them for his citizens, heck no. He'll use them as some incentive not to bomb him.

CP

Don't get me wrong, I don't really agree with what they're doing; I'm just trying to explain the rationale behind their actions.

I'm split on the issue. People who go to Iraq and serve as human shields at hospitals, etc.. are idiots, but harmless idiots.

People who go to Iraq and serve as human shields at military facilities or legitimate military targets are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and as such, according to the constitution, are traitors.

I tend to agree with that and...


Human shield Britons leave Iraq
Human shield returns 'frustrated'

So much for helping the Iraqi people...

It's not aiding the enemy. it's more like acting irrational & illogical because they think by standing next to a SAM Site, the U.S. won't fire on it. If someone wants to get themselves killed by defending Saddam & trying to prevent the U.S. from getting rid a dictator & aid Saddam in the propaganda war, fine with me.

GA, Using your analogy, standing next to a SAM site in the hopes of staving off or persuading against an American air strike, that is EXACTLY giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As is aiding Hussein in a propaganda war against the US.


TREASON

It's not like it's legitimate war anyway. Bush should be greatful that the shields care enough to try and keep him from becoming a war criminal. Not that it will do much good.

Saying that human shields are aiding the enemy is a stretch. There is no way that a "human shield" is going to keep a military target from being blown up. Anyone who signs up to be a human shield understands that if they hang around a military target in war, they are toast.

I thought Ashcroft was silly for making such a statement.

Human shields may not be aiding the enemy but using Human Shields is against the Geneva Convention

According to the constitution and the DOD's 'Law of Land Warfare', human shields that are placed around legitimate military targets with the express intention of attempting to protect that target, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'll go back to that word again....TREASON.

I think treason is an outmoded concept in a society which is ostensibly based upon liberty.

If people disagree with the actions their own countries take, they can speak out or act against them. If those actions cause harm to others and / or are in contravention of the fair and equitable laws then the appropriate action should be taken.

Why should people automatically display loyalty to their country simply because they happen to have been born there?

Surely the resurrection of the word 'treason' in recent months has more to do with an attempt to assert totalitarian style control over the populace than any real belief in the relevance of the concept in modern democratic society.

And where, in any case, does dissent end and 'treason' begin. i think the very concept of treason smacks of a distasteful creed of intolerant, authoritarian and jingoistic nationalism.

Got a link?

Very well said.

From the US Constitution:


From the "laws of Land Warfare' Here

From those definitions you posted, I don't see a correlation between someone looking to ensure that civilians are not targetted and treason.

If the human shields went there with the express purpose of keeping the US from bombing any targets whatsoever, then yes, there is intent to commit treason, and carrying out that intent would certainly qualify. But civilian targets are off limits anyway according to our rules. So human shields who are protecting civilian targets such as schools, hospitals, etc are not committing treason by any stretch of the imagination.

When you give aid and comfort to the enemy.

- You can march down main street burning the American flag
- You can stand outside the White house and chant "Make love not war"
- You can open up a website and blog until your hearts content.
- You can go on the radio or television and speak out until your hearts content

You can do many many things to show dissent without giving aid and comfort to Iraq. As soon as you set foot on enemy soil, and protect them, or attempt to protect them...THAT is treason. The constitution is pretty clear about this.

--cheers

I completely agree, I was not implying that was the case, rather I was specifically referring to those who were positioned near or at military targets. The news has been reporting that many of those 'shields' were returning home precisely because Iraq was positioning them at military bases.
The returning 'shields' are simply idiots, IMO. Although I give them credit for actually following through with thier convictions, unlike most people; they are simply naive for thinking they could change the facts as they presently are.

"Useful Idiots" is the word you want to call them DT.

Lenin said it best when he described the Westerners living in democracies who would give their support to the communistic leader.

Sleeper

Digital Patriot:


Hasn't Bush said that the Iraqi people are not our enemy? He talks like he cares about their condition, and about the hope for their freedom:



So serving as a "human shield" for Iraqi civilians ought really to be lauded by George Bush. I'm not saying here that I think doing this is the best action to take, but on the other hand, as long as they are not shielding military targets, what's the problem?

Besides, with all our talk of "surgical strikes" and sparing civilian casualties, none of them will be killed anyway, right? Right? Because I know those 3000 missiles they're planning to "shock and awe" Baghdad with will only strike the three thousand obviously military targets in the city...

DTOM, I agree with your assessment, although I wouldn't go so far as to cover them all with the "idiot" remark. I don't know any of them personally, but I'm willing to bet that quite a few of them are courageous, religious, and finally, smart. They have made a very difficult choice, a choice that could kill them. I have some friends from the Church of the Brethren who are in the West Bank, serving as volunteer mediators. They basically cruise the neighborhoods, and when they see Israeli-Palestinian altercations, they step in and try to diffuse the situation to avert violence on either side. They say it is very frightening, but there have been instances where they are sure they have saved the lives of real people. People who share enough conviction and love to travel to an extremely dangerous place and risk their lives to save others are a lot of things, but calling them stupid is a disservice.

Hmmm, yes, your right.

Perhaps I was a little ambiguous. Let me just say, I agree with DTOM, and that I'll shut up now before I say something else which could be misunderstood. (DTOM is much more articulate than I anyway )

--cheers

I think it is treason, if the human shields are from nations like the United States or the UK. That wouldn't be the case with say Romanian nationals. Many of them are being used to shield sites with affiliated with the military, or civilian infrastructure that is a legitimate military target, like bridges and power plants.

They are aiding and abetting the enemy in my opinion, they might as well be wearing Iraqi military uniforms.

If they are really interested in protecting innocent life, how about shielding the Kurds up in the north from the Republican Guard? They've been oppressed and slaughtered by the Iraqis for the last 20 years.

Quarkhead, your right, I shouldn't have painted them all with the 'idiot' brush, it was the word that came to mind. I reiterate, however, I have to respect the fact that they put their lives on hold (or in danger) to follow their convictions with actions instead of just words. I still think they are misguided in their deeds. Speaking only, of course, of the human shields who left Iraq after they realized Hussein wanted to place them at military targets. The others, if American, are still treasonous.

I would like to see more of the able bodied supporters of this conflict lining up outside the recruiters office to put their money where their mouths are.

So, does this mean American's can forget all about ever joining peace orginizations or charities outside of their own country?

First of all...the war has not started. They are still seeking a peaceful solution according to which paragraph of Bush's speech you believe.

Second of all...it would be much better to make a policy of not being blackmailed by these tactics if war is necessary to our national security the people that purposely put themselves in the way will have to do so at their own risk.

It is their life afterall.

I got a small little bit of information to contribute on the whole story about the 5 people getting kicked out of Iraq, and the "not being able to guard schools and hospitals" statement in the news:

http://www.humanshields.org

Read what the O'Keefe has to say about it.

Nuff said.

So, by your twisted logic, in 1783 when the US was all about "liberty" the concept of treason would have been even more outdated...

Treason is constitued by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution...



That being said, I don't think acting as a shield is treason (no active levying of war, although the aid and comfort angle is sketchy), its just stupid.

A quick read doesn't reveal why they left and more importantly that the writer himself does not recommend anyone else going because they will come under the direct control of the Iraqi government.

Is that the point you wanted to make?

Nope, not even the whole point I was trying to make is:

1. The media exagerrated on his statements ( no real big surprise there )

2. The human shields that are already there are at the civilian targets that they wanted to protect.

"Having said this, those Human Shields that remain in Iraq, entered Iraq with the freedom to deploy to undeniably critical humanitarian sites which were absolutely of their own choosing. They remain at these sites to this day. Their autonomy in this action cannot be questioned, the question now is will future Human Shields in Iraq have the same freedom? "

I don't see this as aiding an enemy.

Those participating in the Human Shield program are aware that their position will not guarantee a prevention of war, or a protection of their safety. Should they claim otherwise would, I concede, show them to be fools.

The Human Shield program seems like an extremist display of protest to war, which I can't blame them for in considering how easily world leaders have dismissed anti-war protests. But so long as they don't take up arms, I see it as an admirable -- if not questionable -- position for peace. I just hope they all recognize that no government is under explicit obligation to refrain from war because of their presence.

From what I hear, they are only supposed to be in civilian locales, so I see that as meriting more respect than contempt, as they are hoping to reduce the number of attacks in close proximity to civilian centers. And while I've heard and seen reports that some planes or anti-air artillery are now being stationed near these points, this is more to blame on Iraqi forces than the protesters themselves. Plus, a plane or small anti-air artillery shouldn't merit extensive bombing, but rather precision strikes by special forces that won't endager the lives of civilians in those areas.

Don't you think our bombers would be tenative about bombing areas where foreigners are? They are providing SH with protection.

CP

Conservpat


Yes, I imagine our bombers would be tenative about bombing areas where foreigners -- especially from their own country -- were. I would be inclined to question, though, why our bombers were bombing such populated areas where civilian casualties would be astounding.

The Human Shields aren't camping out around military outposts and imperial palaces. The reports I've read say they're stationed in schools, medical facilies and other places which should not be on any bomber's lists.

I don't see this as providing Saddam with protection, but rather ensuring that our military doesn't go on a massive bombing spree or use their new MOAB (mother of all bombs) in questionable locations. Considering we want this to be some noble mission of liberation, it would certainly benefit us not to inflict more civilian casualties than will already -- inevitably -- occur.

That didn't stop them in Afghanistan when they were bombed four Canadian soldiers out of existance.

A well-trained soldier who has a clearly defined target may have misgivings over bombing a protected target; but I doubt that it would interfere with their ability to perform. And the last time I checked merely upsetting soldiers doesn't qualify as treason.

SH hides in high populated areas! That is where he goes, he uses his people as shields, the Human Shields are just providing him with more! As for UJ, I don't see any relevance there, Human Shields didn't have anything to do with that, from what I know.

CP

So... if Saddam goes and hides in areas heavily populated with civilians, should we just bomb arbitrarily to kill one person? It seems the human shields are giving him no more than he would already have in such a scenario. And I would like to think we wouldn't be so brash and blinded by hate as to drop bombs on hundreds or thousands of people for the purpose of killing a single man.... and considering our previous offers of allowing Saddam to go into exile, we have no reason to take such measures in an attempt to assassinate him. All we would have to do to achieve our stated goals is run him out and help the Iraqi people assume power in a democratic system.

And if we would like to assassinate him for good measure, I would be highly critical of any plans willing to bomb civilian populations to do so. Why bother training our Special Forces in precision strikes if we're just going to bomb everything back to the stone age?

Our MOAB may be a fun toy for our military to play with, but our military does have different divisions for a reason. While some targets demand high explosives, others require a bit more tact and patience.

I still support the Human Shield's actions, provided that they do realize it doesn't guarantee their safety. Were they to set up near target zones, that's their choice, but I wouldn't blame our military for casulaties in such a case. If they become casualties, however, residing in schools and hospital's... I'll have a serious problem with that, because, Human shields or no Human Shields, there would be unnecessary and unacceptable losses of life.

[QUOTE]
So....Is slander an outmoded concept in a society based on free speech? Is monopoly 'outmoded' in a society based on free enterprise?

I don't think 'human shields' are committing treason. However, the entire premise is lost with me. If these people are there to protect human targets (which I believe is there intent) they have faulty reasoning to perceive that their lives are considered more valuable than the Iraqi citizens during a military action. We spend billions of dollars for weapons of extreme precision. We have a war lawyer who looks over every engagement and determines whether it is justifiable loss of life. There will be casualties, to be sure. I am against this military action. However, the loss of life will be kept to as much of a minimum as human beings are currently capable of.

Here is an article from a human shield and he explaines what he was doing and why. He said that the alternative was to do nothing and he had to meet the people that his country was about to bomb. To humanize them when and if he got back home.

I think he was wasting his time. Those of us who already grieve over the innocent people who will die in our names don't need reminded. The rest of us don't want to admit our responsibility for the horrors and pain this war will cause. But, this is why he risked his life so the least we can do is read it. The pro war group should be forced to go and deal with the clean up and aftermath. They should be made to go and look the survivors in the eyes and tell them why this is all so necessary for America's own shallow and false sense of security.

I see that SH has invited Blix and al Beradi back for a visit (some would say Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton but that's a different subject). It will be interesting to see their reply. I can't imagine they'd accept, but then you never know. They surely meet the 'useful idiot' criterion that SH applies before he extends his hospitality to human shields.

Then I assume you haven't heard about this...

Human shield returns 'frustrated'
Human shields who stay after this should seriously rethink who they're helping.

You know...i wonder why "Human Shields" even bother going to Iraq because it seems that they stay for a few days then they just leave.

What's the point of spending money on Air Fare & then risking your neck in a volatile nation just to turn & come back?

Publicity, once they realize, "Oh crap, the US is dropping bombs and stuff!" They'll be gone. However, the few that stay will be used by SH and thereby will be traitors to their contry, unless they're French , sorry couldn't help that.

CP

The Human Shields that remain after bombing commences will be no more traitors or guilty of a crime than activists during the civil rights movement were to stop police from beating unarmed and innocent people in the streets. They aren't aiding and abetting the enemy forces, but doing what they can to protect the victims of Saddam's regime... and the potential victims of America's assault.

In response to Turnea


Nothing in the report you linked indicated that those shields remaining were going to military installations, regardless of where the Iraqi forces might have asked them to go. As long as they are remaining in schools, hospitals or just towns (as "witnesses"), they are helping the people of Iraq, without allegience to Iraqi or American military forces.

I find it disheartening to see that there are some people who could brand people with such humanitarian interests as criminals... and more specifically, traitors.

We already have a link, via Turnea that says they are in military camps, and we've already established that our troops don't want to bomb innocent people, especially non-Iraqis, so how aren't they being used for SH? Also, SH has done this before, he used human shields in the last Desert Storm.

CP

Sorry about that I should have posted a link which illustrated more clearly Iraq's interference with human shields.


Human shield Britons leave Iraq
Iraq did not merely suggest certain sites, they barred human shields from hospitals...

Here's an example of Saddam's use of human shields in the Gulf War.

'My fear as Saddam's hostage'
This regime has a history of using human shields to protect military bases. Once again, who are they helping if the regime won't allow them to protect sites such as hospitals. Not the Iraqi people...

Hmmm Turnea has made a point

UN or US or Western workers in Iraq could be forced to be made as Human Shields. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he could have used the Western nationals as Human Shields. Suprisingly he didn't, but i bet he is wishing he had done so

He will probably do it again

What I don't understand is the entire rationale behind volunteering as a human shield. At worst, if you intend to attempt to protect military targets then you are by definition "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. At best, you are attempting to prevent the targeting of nonmilitary targets, which on the face of things is a laudable goal. But is it realistic? Assume for a moment that the shields are allowed to pick and choose their nonmilitary installations, and that SH will not attempt to place military assets at these locations. Then what is the point of the shield in the first place? If the location is judged to be of no military value, and it were bombed anyway (accidentally or otherwise) there will already be an enormous outcry against the bombing, and rightly so. The presence of a couple more casualties who chose to be there should not increase the humanitarian outcry, or if it does, it exposes the incremental protesters as racists who feel that foreign life is more significant than Iraqi life. In fact, the shields could arguably be considered more culpable than natives, because they chose to put themselves in harms way.

Perhaps because while there have been accidental bombings of civilian locations, we don't always take the time to line up every single target when dropping thousands upon thousands of bombs and missiles on locations. I doubt the Human Shields are attempting to protect against "accidental bombings" so much as just trying to make sure we don't just "carpet bomb" the whole place and sort all the bodies out when the smoke clears.



Do you bother to read these links?
The article says that Iraq tried to direct them to unapproved sites; it doesn't say they are stationed at these sights. Many of the Human Shields went home and the others -- those who were barred from their desired sites -- are staying to serve as "witnesses" rather than Human Shields.



And, actually, while Saddam kept people in Iraq and threatened to use them as Human Shields, he let the foreigners go before the bombings began. And, with war looming in a matter of days, we have yet to hear of any attempts to corrale these Human Shields and force them to any military installations... at least, I haven't seen any. Have you?

The "Human Shields" -- or witnesses now, I suppose -- still are not protecting locations of military interest. They are set up in locations that the U.N. has said should not be targeted or destroyed. Is this aiding and abetting the enemy to protect sites that are not declared to be military targets, but rather of importance or necessity to Iraqi citizens?

So, yeah, I still find it terribly disheartening that there are people who would call them "traitor." John Lindh was a traitor... these people, while being extremists, are just trying to do a noble deed and do what they can to guard the lives of others with their own.