Talk:Human shield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Voluntary vs. Involuntary
It seems to me this article is describing two rather different situations, and getting itself a bit confused in the process. I would suggest separate headings, one for the non-voluntary human shields and one for voluntary ones. I might have a go at this but not right now. --Joeboy 12:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The human shields in the first gulf war were involuntary. I think I remember some of the people who were involuntary human shields in the first gulf war were objecting to the use of the term for the voluntary human shields in the second gulf war due to the confusion you mention. --Gbleem 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point. the two are different. Roger Warren (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren
[edit] NPOV
Why is this article listed as NPOV? --Eyrian 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see no reason. I removed it. Lengis 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "This technique is highly illegal"
Illegal where? T. S. Rice 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention- it is explicitly defined as a war crime.
This is a little more serious-
Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet.
This is factually wrong. Bullets made of (relatively) soft metals such as lead can deform when they hit something, but this has to do with the density of what they hit and the round's velocity when it hits, not the temperature. I'm going to remove the 'when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being)' portion of the sentence.
Oy. Upon re-reading the paragraph, I decided it needs a complete re-write. Here's the original:
Some lesser used instances of human shields, include literally using a human as a physical barrier against bullets, or taking advantage of the opposing gun's lack of over penetration as a means of creating a shield. Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet. The same is true for hollow point bullets which mushroom when entering living tissue. However both of these types prevent the bullet from piercing right through the victim, thus leaving anything directly behind them safe from oncoming fire. This idea has been demonstrated in several action movies including a controversial scene in Total Recall.
Anyone who decides my new version is inferior is welcome to revert it.
- Then I'll amend the final intro statement so it clearly states where the technique is illegal. T. S. Rice 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Some bullets expand when the temperature around them rises (i.e. when entering a living being); this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage inflicted per bullet. Wouldn't the bullet be hotter when it exits the barrel then when it enters the body. And at 98.6 degrees the body is not signifgantly warmer then (and is sometimes cooler then) the natural enviroment. Hence the bullet would contract in some situations. The entire statment is completely flawed. --mitrebox 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source needed
This claim
- Pictures from the Gaza Strip have documented incident of Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees using children as human shield, to prevent the IDF from firing over gunmen and Qassam rockets.[1]
needs a new reference as the link in question is down/gone. Also the original source was from an Israeli newspaper. Ideally a more neutral source should be used. Also, since I haven't seen the pictures I can't say for sure but we need to be careful here. Especially if it's only one image, we need to be sure the picture conclusively proves such a claim. If the child were simply nearby, it is unlikely we can say for sure IMHO. If the person was actually holding the child then perhaps but again, if it's only one image, it could very well be that the person is trying to move the child out of the way. In the absence of clarity, we should only say it's alleged Nil Einne 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lebanon = Gaza?
Why is lebanon grouped with Gaza and the West bank ? Lebanon is independent soverign democracy, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are independent of Lebanon and are a democracy without a state. These are seperate areas.. why are tey linked together? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International Law with respect to Human shields
Just wanted to note that my understanding is that a 'protected person' under Geneva Convention IV does not include all civilians, but does include all people who are of a different nationality to the State which has them in its control (i.e. people in an occupied territory, captured enemy soldiers, civilians in enemy territory, etc). See article 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." For these people, article 8 says that they cannot renounce their rights under the convention (relevant with respect to 'voluntary' human shields). Additional Protocol I is also relevant for those states which have ratified it (not the US), since it does make it illegal to use civilians to render an area immune from military operations (article 51(7)). This article says nothing which would indicate that consent would make the use of civilians lawful, but nor does it explicitely say otherwise.
The explanation in the ICRC commentary (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600033?OpenDocument) needs to be incorporated into the text. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the following text here from the article page because since I raised the issue last August nothing has been done to fix the obvious generalisations in it which cause it to be either wrong or misleading or both:
- International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28).
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of sourced content by Avraham
Avraham, a pro-Israel editor is removing sourced content about Israel's use of Human shiled tactic, that is published on many sites, and has good sources. I ask professional users to counter his vandalism. Thanks --217.219.236.17 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising articles, and stop posting rude messages to me. I've read your edits, and the opinion of other users about you. It seems you're a notorious editor here. Try to remain civil and polite, and do not try to make personal attacks. This could make a you better editor. --217.219.236.17 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham. Thank you. -- Avi 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Human shields in Israel/Palestine
Can someone put text into the inline links in the section "Human shields in Israel/Palestine". And also please consider if such a list should carry the template {{examplefarm}} --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to go further into Israel's use of "human shields." What it is referring to is the IDF policy of asking neighbors of terrorist holed up, surronnded by the Israeli Army, to talk to their neighbor and try to get them to come out. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this Illegal because one of these people were killed when a terrorist shot one of them.96.229.94.216 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] quote should be removed
The placement of the Fathi Ahmad Hammad "quote" at the beginning of the article is an obvious attempt to use the article to make a political point. It should not be placed in the introduction. Futher, the source for this "quote" is the questionable translation of an overly political group (MEMRI) whose staff consists of former Israeli intelligence military officers. 70.234.253.15 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
