I actually disagree with this one. Pilots will kill more people through bombing unless killed if allowed to return to their planes later. Unless you can be sure of their capture there’s no reason to let them live, from a humanitarian perspective. There was even this case where a pilot from a Russian aircraft killed a civilian on the ground. This rule just never made sense to me - you don’t have that with the crew leaving a tank, do you?
The idea is that they have to be given a chance to surrender. If they don’t do so, the Geneva Convention (specifically Protocol 1, Article 42) has no issue with you gunning them down. They just have to be given the chance to surrender, which they obviously can’t do while parachuting
So we’re supposed to just wait until he’s emergency-killing those civilians to avoid discovery/steal from them while on the ground, like the Russian bloke did? Or bombing cities, killing hudreds or thousands?
We’re not going to get rid of the convention just because some people commit war crimes, like killing civilians. That’s what the convention is for, or else it wouldn’t be a war crime.
By your logic, the russian dude just killed all those civilians because they would eventually become Ukranian combattants who would kill thousands. He still shouldn’t be killing those civilians, like we shouldn’t be killing parachuting pilots or medics. It’s pretty simple
I actually disagree with this one. Pilots will kill more people through bombing unless killed if allowed to return to their planes later. Unless you can be sure of their capture there’s no reason to let them live, from a humanitarian perspective. There was even this case where a pilot from a Russian aircraft killed a civilian on the ground. This rule just never made sense to me - you don’t have that with the crew leaving a tank, do you?
The idea is that they have to be given a chance to surrender. If they don’t do so, the Geneva Convention (specifically Protocol 1, Article 42) has no issue with you gunning them down. They just have to be given the chance to surrender, which they obviously can’t do while parachuting
But if they land somewhere the opposing troops can’t reach them, you can know in advance they won’t surrender.
Edit: it shouldn’t be a controversial notion that you won’t surrender in friendly territory.
“I know in advance this medic might become a soldier. I’ll shoot him now while he’s carrying that body!”
But the pilot is already a soldier
No he’s a pilot. He’s not emergency-ejecting with his rucksack and his m1.
The medic is also a soldier, I meant a valid target solider. You know what I meant
So we’re supposed to just wait until he’s emergency-killing those civilians to avoid discovery/steal from them while on the ground, like the Russian bloke did? Or bombing cities, killing hudreds or thousands?
Exactly. Then it’s fine. He had his chance, he didn’t take it. Fair game
Yes. That’s how the geneva convention works.
We’re not going to get rid of the convention just because some people commit war crimes, like killing civilians. That’s what the convention is for, or else it wouldn’t be a war crime.
By your logic, the russian dude just killed all those civilians because they would eventually become Ukranian combattants who would kill thousands. He still shouldn’t be killing those civilians, like we shouldn’t be killing parachuting pilots or medics. It’s pretty simple