Thread: Need help tracking down info re Fallujah hospital

I know of a hospital in Fallujah (referred to as the 'main', or 'big' hospital)being SEIZED, but not flattened. And YES, it was specifically seized to prevent it from being al Jazeera's lead story for the duration of the campaign, with no input from the Coalition about the truth of the stories coming out of it. Furthermore, we KNEW fighters would be brought in there, no matter if we were there or not, and what a great way to keep them from getting patched up and whisked off to sanctuary in Syria/Iran/wherever, or returning to the battle.

We seized it, helped it, stocked it, and even staffed it, but we didn't 'flatten' it, and I doubt we ever would, even if we were allowed to by the Law of Armed Conflict - which explicitly states when such structures lose their protected status.

It was a brilliant move, too. It netted enemy personnel, kept a vital asset out of their hands, kept it available for civil use, and made certain that al J couldn't tell one-sided lies about what was going on there. VERY successful.

That's the way I remember it too, Bluesman, but there is at least one article that claims (sourced by the BBC) that a "Nazzal Hospital" was dropped as part of the preparatory bombardments. That's the one the guy is harping on.

Article here.

Since I haven't been able to find anything else on it I am inclined to dismiss it as another piece of BBC ********.

-dale

Dalem,
The hospital we seized was on western side of Fallujah (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...617472,00.html) just over the Euphrates, so the one in the article is different. Here's another tack on the argument. The insurgents without question violated the GC:

1. No uniforms
2. Not acting in accordance with the laws and customs of war, such as using perfidy (see below)
3. Use of protected sites (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...004-P1,00.html) which then causes the protected site to lose its status

Here's a few problems with the article :
1. An insurgent spokesman talks of the "hospital" but cites no causualties in the article - wouldn't you expect casualties?
2. A US military spokesman is not quoted in the article in reference to the "hospital" to confirm/deny whether it was targeted and if so, why (an explanation on why it would have lost its protected status like the end total of 60 mosques in Fallujah did)
3. The picture in the article provides nothing to demonstrate that it was a hospital

So, in the end, you have:
1. Insurgents who violated the GC on a continual basis, to include violating the protected status of sites by storing arms and fighting from protected sites
2. Insurgent spokesmen that knowingly spewed out false propaganda during the first assault on Fallujah in April 2004.
3. An incompletely reported article that doesn't attempt to get the other side of the article with a picture that provides no evidence except that a building, not necessarily a hospital, was rubbled.

I'd say the burden of proof is on the insurgents to prove that it was a hospital since they had a track record of lying and violating the sanctity of protected sites, while the US demonstrated great regards for the GC during the assault on Fallujah.



Article 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.

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.

Thanks guys!

That backs up what I figured. I myself cannot believe that if we had actually done what that article attempts to describe that it would not have been trumpeted and debated for weeks and weeks in the MSM and forums like this.

Thanks again.

-dale