Slashdot Mirror

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention IV (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

See here for a list of signatories to the Geneva conventions. You'll note that Afghanistan signed in 1956, although I'll confess I'm not 100% sure if that was still relevant at the time

Actually, why don't you get a clue? Here is an excerpt from the 1st protocol of the Geneva Conventions:

"Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Art. 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. 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; (c) 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.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."

I think that's pretty clear. Before you talk out of your ass, why don't you inform yourself. Heck, the 1st Protocol is even mentioned in the link you gave, but apparently you don't even read your own sources. Anyway, for those interested, here is the 1st Protocol in its full text:

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1. html

Actually, why don't you get a clue? Here is an excerpt from the 1st protocol of the Geneva Conventions:

"Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Art. 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. 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; (c) 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.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."

I think that's pretty clear. Before you talk out of your ass, why don't you inform yourself. Heck, the 1st Protocol is even mentioned in the link you gave, but apparently you don't even read your own sources. Anyway, for those interested, here is the 1st Protocol in its full text:

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1. html

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

1. Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
2. 
   
   (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
   
   (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

the whole denying Geneva Conventions to Political Prisoners mess.

Actually, this kind of statement is consistent with AdTI, SCO and other relativists who pretend facts can be twisted to any perspective at a moment's notice.

Consider these facts:

1. There are four Geneva conventions. The first two have to do with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces personnel from land forces/armies and Naval forces respectively. The third convention is the one of interest in this POW discussion. The fourth convention details the treatment of civilians in war.

2. Under the third convention, a captured person must fall under one of these terms to be covered by the convention:

- be identifiable as a member of an armed forces party in the conflict (uniform, ensignia, etc.)

- be a member of an organized militia and fulfilling the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

- be a member of civilian forces that support the military, e.g. war correspondant, supply contractors, who possess an identity card, are authorized by the opposition military as an official designate, and having received authorization for this noncombat responsibility from the opposition military.

etc. (read the full convention linked for details on all the conditions and classifications)

The third convention is very clear in making the point that if you are a spy, if you masquerade in uniform as a civilian or a soldier in the uniform of the other side, or make other efforts to conceal your identity, YOU ARE AFFORDED NO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. You can and may be rightfully executed on the spot, interrogated with no protections or limitations, etc.

There is considerable precedent, bilateral treaty foundation, and military history practice that led to this framework and ratification by civilized nations (note that North Korea, Vietnam, former USSR and numerous others have ignored it, and self-loathing, nihlistic organizations such as Amnesty Intl. add MoveOn.org wish to ignore this reality). These current war opponents misuse the conventions, forgetting their foundation reflected the process of Japan and Germany (and unofficially the Soviets) of simply executing captured uniformed members of the opposing force.

Part of the precedent for the treatment of spies/terrorists and other unidentifiable enemy combatants has to do with issues of surrender (terrorists have the tendency of using false surrender only to get close to the enemy and take out more), matters of protecting civilians (terrorists, by dressing as and concealing weaponry, create more civilian death through the inability of a military to differentiate from enemy and civilian), and other serious matters. The only viable solution is to provide a consequence to acting as a terrorist: you give up all "rights" through your conduct. This approach is nearly universally accepted, except for fools and frauds (both of which have permeated MoveOn.org and portions of both U.S. political parties). In fact, in 2003 the Swiss formed a roundtable on the Conventions following the concern that they permit too great of protection for terrorists, and have facilitated the outbreak of the modern terrorist movement and the selection of the terrorism medium through the alleged excessive protections.

Incidentally, where was all the Geneva Convention outcry when David Pearl was executed? He falls under convention three, article 4.4 (war correspondant) at a minimum - that is, assuming

the whole denying Geneva Conventions to Political Prisoners mess.

Actually, this kind of statement is consistent with AdTI, SCO and other relativists who pretend facts can be twisted to any perspective at a moment's notice.

Consider these facts:

1. There are four Geneva conventions. The first two have to do with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces personnel from land forces/armies and Naval forces respectively. The third convention is the one of interest in this POW discussion. The fourth convention details the treatment of civilians in war.

2. Under the third convention, a captured person must fall under one of these terms to be covered by the convention:

- be identifiable as a member of an armed forces party in the conflict (uniform, ensignia, etc.)

- be a member of an organized militia and fulfilling the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

- be a member of civilian forces that support the military, e.g. war correspondant, supply contractors, who possess an identity card, are authorized by the opposition military as an official designate, and having received authorization for this noncombat responsibility from the opposition military.

etc. (read the full convention linked for details on all the conditions and classifications)

The third convention is very clear in making the point that if you are a spy, if you masquerade in uniform as a civilian or a soldier in the uniform of the other side, or make other efforts to conceal your identity, YOU ARE AFFORDED NO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. You can and may be rightfully executed on the spot, interrogated with no protections or limitations, etc.

There is considerable precedent, bilateral treaty foundation, and military history practice that led to this framework and ratification by civilized nations (note that North Korea, Vietnam, former USSR and numerous others have ignored it, and self-loathing, nihlistic organizations such as Amnesty Intl. add MoveOn.org wish to ignore this reality). These current war opponents misuse the conventions, forgetting their foundation reflected the process of Japan and Germany (and unofficially the Soviets) of simply executing captured uniformed members of the opposing force.

Part of the precedent for the treatment of spies/terrorists and other unidentifiable enemy combatants has to do with issues of surrender (terrorists have the tendency of using false surrender only to get close to the enemy and take out more), matters of protecting civilians (terrorists, by dressing as and concealing weaponry, create more civilian death through the inability of a military to differentiate from enemy and civilian), and other serious matters. The only viable solution is to provide a consequence to acting as a terrorist: you give up all "rights" through your conduct. This approach is nearly universally accepted, except for fools and frauds (both of which have permeated MoveOn.org and portions of both U.S. political parties). In fact, in 2003 the Swiss formed a roundtable on the Conventions following the concern that they permit too great of protection for terrorists, and have facilitated the outbreak of the modern terrorist movement and the selection of the terrorism medium through the alleged excessive protections.

Incidentally, where was all the Geneva Convention outcry when David Pearl was executed? He falls under convention three, article 4.4 (war correspondant) at a minimum - that is, assuming

the whole denying Geneva Conventions to Political Prisoners mess.

Actually, this kind of statement is consistent with AdTI, SCO and other relativists who pretend facts can be twisted to any perspective at a moment's notice.

Consider these facts:

1. There are four Geneva conventions. The first two have to do with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces personnel from land forces/armies and Naval forces respectively. The third convention is the one of interest in this POW discussion. The fourth convention details the treatment of civilians in war.

2. Under the third convention, a captured person must fall under one of these terms to be covered by the convention:

- be identifiable as a member of an armed forces party in the conflict (uniform, ensignia, etc.)

- be a member of an organized militia and fulfilling the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

- be a member of civilian forces that support the military, e.g. war correspondant, supply contractors, who possess an identity card, are authorized by the opposition military as an official designate, and having received authorization for this noncombat responsibility from the opposition military.

etc. (read the full convention linked for details on all the conditions and classifications)

The third convention is very clear in making the point that if you are a spy, if you masquerade in uniform as a civilian or a soldier in the uniform of the other side, or make other efforts to conceal your identity, YOU ARE AFFORDED NO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. You can and may be rightfully executed on the spot, interrogated with no protections or limitations, etc.

There is considerable precedent, bilateral treaty foundation, and military history practice that led to this framework and ratification by civilized nations (note that North Korea, Vietnam, former USSR and numerous others have ignored it, and self-loathing, nihlistic organizations such as Amnesty Intl. add MoveOn.org wish to ignore this reality). These current war opponents misuse the conventions, forgetting their foundation reflected the process of Japan and Germany (and unofficially the Soviets) of simply executing captured uniformed members of the opposing force.

Part of the precedent for the treatment of spies/terrorists and other unidentifiable enemy combatants has to do with issues of surrender (terrorists have the tendency of using false surrender only to get close to the enemy and take out more), matters of protecting civilians (terrorists, by dressing as and concealing weaponry, create more civilian death through the inability of a military to differentiate from enemy and civilian), and other serious matters. The only viable solution is to provide a consequence to acting as a terrorist: you give up all "rights" through your conduct. This approach is nearly universally accepted, except for fools and frauds (both of which have permeated MoveOn.org and portions of both U.S. political parties). In fact, in 2003 the Swiss formed a roundtable on the Conventions following the concern that they permit too great of protection for terrorists, and have facilitated the outbreak of the modern terrorist movement and the selection of the terrorism medium through the alleged excessive protections.

Incidentally, where was all the Geneva Convention outcry when David Pearl was executed? He falls under convention three, article 4.4 (war correspondant) at a minimum - that is, assuming

the whole denying Geneva Conventions to Political Prisoners mess.

Actually, this kind of statement is consistent with AdTI, SCO and other relativists who pretend facts can be twisted to any perspective at a moment's notice.

Consider these facts:

1. There are four Geneva conventions. The first two have to do with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces personnel from land forces/armies and Naval forces respectively. The third convention is the one of interest in this POW discussion. The fourth convention details the treatment of civilians in war.

2. Under the third convention, a captured person must fall under one of these terms to be covered by the convention:

- be identifiable as a member of an armed forces party in the conflict (uniform, ensignia, etc.)

- be a member of an organized militia and fulfilling the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

- be a member of civilian forces that support the military, e.g. war correspondant, supply contractors, who possess an identity card, are authorized by the opposition military as an official designate, and having received authorization for this noncombat responsibility from the opposition military.

etc. (read the full convention linked for details on all the conditions and classifications)

The third convention is very clear in making the point that if you are a spy, if you masquerade in uniform as a civilian or a soldier in the uniform of the other side, or make other efforts to conceal your identity, YOU ARE AFFORDED NO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. You can and may be rightfully executed on the spot, interrogated with no protections or limitations, etc.

There is considerable precedent, bilateral treaty foundation, and military history practice that led to this framework and ratification by civilized nations (note that North Korea, Vietnam, former USSR and numerous others have ignored it, and self-loathing, nihlistic organizations such as Amnesty Intl. add MoveOn.org wish to ignore this reality). These current war opponents misuse the conventions, forgetting their foundation reflected the process of Japan and Germany (and unofficially the Soviets) of simply executing captured uniformed members of the opposing force.

Part of the precedent for the treatment of spies/terrorists and other unidentifiable enemy combatants has to do with issues of surrender (terrorists have the tendency of using false surrender only to get close to the enemy and take out more), matters of protecting civilians (terrorists, by dressing as and concealing weaponry, create more civilian death through the inability of a military to differentiate from enemy and civilian), and other serious matters. The only viable solution is to provide a consequence to acting as a terrorist: you give up all "rights" through your conduct. This approach is nearly universally accepted, except for fools and frauds (both of which have permeated MoveOn.org and portions of both U.S. political parties). In fact, in 2003 the Swiss formed a roundtable on the Conventions following the concern that they permit too great of protection for terrorists, and have facilitated the outbreak of the modern terrorist movement and the selection of the terrorism medium through the alleged excessive protections.

Incidentally, where was all the Geneva Convention outcry when David Pearl was executed? He falls under convention three, article 4.4 (war correspondant) at a minimum - that is, assuming

From the Third Geneva Convention:

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

In essence, no, al Qaeda forces are not required to be treated as prisoners of war, because they are not members of armed forces, militias, or volunte

Like it or not, indescriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime as defined by the Fourth Geneval Convention.

I think it's a bit daft to assert any civilian massacre is OK because they did it to us first. By that logic, the battle would never end. Each side would continue attack in crazily justified retribution.

Also, the sins of the master can in no way be deemed a crime punishable with instant death of millions.

It amazes me that tripe like the parent is insightful to anyone.

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups -- and thus endanger the civilian population -- are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Its clear that if your platform is that everyone are POW's or that the distinction between soldiers and civilians is unneccisary than you simply have no understanding of the accords of the Geneva Conventions. And it appears you are trying to leverage on both those erroneous platforms.

"Illegal combatant" is not a term recognized by any international body or treaty. It's a term made up by the US so that it can deny people basic human rights.

Wrong, it is a term not explicitely defined. Neither is illegal immegrant, illegal transaction, illegal driver. Illegal combatant is a correct term used to describe people combatting illegally. Either as civilians, mercinaries, spies, terrorists etc... Its a perfectly valid term and is recognized while not being explicetly defined as a category. What is defined are what makes a combat legal, and if you don't do it when you engage in combate you are therefore an illegal combatant. Its not something Bush made up. In that link you'll find the synonymous term "unlawful combatant" as a part of a supreme court ruling in 1942. The terms have been used by several nations ever since.

Have you thought that maybe the people without uniforms could not afford them?

You really do not understand war or this situation do you. Afghanistan uniforms were not some expensive flack jacketed armored camouflaged thing. It can be as much as a particular headband (for some Mujuhadeen) to a band warn on their arms (Taliban). The US has very visible patches on the uniforms that designate them as combatants. This is not a case of "money".

How can you call yourself a christian and at the same time accept this bogus and illegal classification that was created just to circumvent the Geneva treaty.

Oh this is rich. Okay, you got me. I'll bite. Tell me what Christ's views on the Geneva convention were that I should follow them. I'm awaiting what would have to be your divine inspiration here since Christ died almost 2000 years before th

It's a violation of the Geneva Convention, for starters.

From here:

journalists must not be deliberately targeted, detained, or otherwise mistreated any more than any other civilian.

If our missiles aren't smart enough to tell a civilian journalist from a military target, then they shouldn't be used. Just like landmines shouldn't be used for their failure to discriminate between military and civilian targets. Just like cluster bombs shouldn't be used for the same reason.