Re: Conscientious Objector

[Joe Brennan <jbren1@optonline.net>]

I take that point but Korea was like Vietnam later, vs. enemy unlikely to
follow such international conventions regardless of our actions, so the
minor points like bayonet shapes and medics arms became moot practically
speaking. But in other wars opponents, even a reprehensible one like Nazi
Germany, were generally (by no means always as shown by certain infamous
atrocities v. the US) inclined to follow such rules, at least against
enemies "deserving" such treatment in their warped view of things, like us
and the British. And if both sides will follow such rules it makes war a
little less terrible, so scrupulously following them ourselves becomes, in
those situations, more important. Reading the history of west v. west
conflict in the WW's seems observance of the more important rules sometimes
broke down locally starting with trivial violations by one side.

Even in Korea, Vietnam and now the current "war" (metaphoric or literal as
different people see it) there's still I think a more serious issue of
whether we follow the major rules against people who wouldn't do the same
for us. One recurring issue in each of the 3, how our allies as opposed to
we ourselves treat prisoners and what we do and whether we're reposnsible
when it's inhumane. I figure we had some legalistic position on how to apply
the convention, even if often practically a moot point in many ways, in
Korea.

Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "swan" <swan@haysco.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Conscientious Objector


> Joe, I go to the precinct convention after nearly every election. I have
> even been to a couple of county conventions. A lady friend and I went to a
> Weight Watchers convention in Biloxi (this was after she had gotten slim,
> and no longer really needed that organization). But I never made that
> convention in Geneva.
>
> OK, so this is being facetious, but I can't recall the Geneva Convention
> mentioned but one time. Some gung ho guy got hold of a file somewhere, and
> was filing notches on the back of his bayonet. Someone said this was
against
> the Geneva Convention. Someone else mentioned what might happen to a guy
who
> was captured with a notched bayonet. Of course, we all knew what would
> probably happen to a any guy captured by the North Koreans .... with or
> without a notched bayonet.
>
> The only thing I ever used my bayonet for was to open C Ration cans, when
I
> lost my little can opener.
>
> Bob Dove
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brennan" <jbren1@optonline.net>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Conscientious Objector
>
>
> > I'm a little confused about armed medics, the legal situation I mean,
> though
> > I take the point about preservation of life taking precedence over
> legality
> > in some practical circumstances.
> >
> > My understanding was that the 1949 Geneva Convention (which went into
> effect
> > Oct. 1950) specifically allows medical personnel to be armed with
certain
> > restrictions. That's certainly the international law now. For example
Army
> > FM on the subject describe the restrictions, as for example don't fire
on
> > the enemy to stop his advance on your position, but if he's firing
> > specifcially at you, you can fire back, etc. And armed-to-the-teeth
medics
> > appear in offiicial combat photo's in more recent wars (UK, Falklands
for
> > example).
> >
> > But I thought those provisions were a modification to earlier
Conventions
> > that prohibited armed medics. I was also under the impression that the
> > official position of the Army in WWII was no arms in the ETO because the
> > opponents had signed the then current Convention but yes v. the Japanese
> > because they hadn't. If not true the foregoing is at least a very
> widesperad
> > misconception. One sees mentioned in first hand accounts (for example
WWII
> > ETO medics who armed themselves though thinking it was technically
> illegal).
> >
> > Anway KW question is what was the official policy I wonder and whether
it
> > actually changed when the new convention came into effect or not because
> NK
> > hadn't signed the old one. And I guess all this didn't apply to
> > conscientious objectors of the category "serve but not take up arms".
For
> > what little it's worth Hollywood seems always to depict medics as
unarmed.
> >
> > Joe
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infi.net>
> > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Conscientious Objector
> >
> >
> > At 09:29 PM 9/1/02 EDT, AMPSOne@aol.com wrote:
> > >Medics by
> > >the Laws of Land Warfare are not supposed to be targets, but they also
> are
> > >not supposed to carry any arms or provide weapons and ammunition to
other
> > >soldiers. A medic in Korea -- the type described as removing wounded
and
> > >dead from the battlefield in Korea -- would be typical. A number of
> medics
> > >have been awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism under fire, so simply
> not
> > >carrying arms does not mean that they carried any stigma for objecting.
> >
> > Cookie
> >
> > Since 1940, the US has required its medical personnel to be armed.  The
> > medics in every unit in which I served certainly were armed, and did
their
> > qualification firings with the rest of us.  There are repetitive tales
> from
> > WWII, Korea, and Viet-Nam of medical personnel fighting to preserve the
> > lives of their patients.  I recognize the logical disconnect in all of
> this
> > but, trust me, the US Army mandates that its doctors qualify on their
> basic
> > weapon and carry such into a combat zone.  (The highest performer in my
> > Dad's CA (AA) Regiment in 1941, incidentally, was the Regimental
Surgeon,
> > an avid hunter.  I encountered the same in 1981 in the 329th Spt Gp in
the
> > VaARNG, where our doc routinely outshot the rifle team.)
> >
> > In a similar vein, Chaplains are exempt from qualifying on their basic
> > weapons but Chaplain's Assistants are not.  I had a number of friends
who
> > served in Viet-Nam as such, and all were armed and, in at least several
> > cases, saved their Chaplain's lives as a result.
> >
> > Fire superiority saves lives.  Compassionate nonsense costs lives.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
> > Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
>