.50BMG Against Geneva Convention?

The geneva convention only applies to army's and millitias who wear a uniform, are easily identifiable over a distance, and go about openly bearing arms.

If you're not willing to stand up and be a target, then you don't get the protection of the law.

Spies, assasins, and terrorists can still be stood up against the wall and shot.

Actually you cannot just put spies, assassins, or terrorists up against the wall and shoot them, you might want to actually read the geneva convention.

Actually, as mistakenly pointed out earlier,America is a signee to the geneva conventions. even if we did not sign it, we did sign the hague convention on warfare, and thus by the text of the geneva convention, are also a signee to the geneva convention unless we publicly withdraw from it, which we have not.

Niether the hague convention nor the geneva convention have rules about the size of the bullet used on personel, just rules about expanding ammunition or ammunition designed specifically to maim, it does have rules against using wooden bullets for all the vampire killers in the audience.

AFAIK the .50 cal BMG is a perfectly lawful weapon to use against people by either convention.

HE isn't a common round for the .50. Above a certain caliber, it becomes impractical to use ammo for antipersonnel, unless you're targeting groups.

This defines who the prisoners of war are that the geneva convention applies to.

Article 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.

Click to expand...

If the convention is not applicable to the prisoner, then they have no protection under it.

Article 6

In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 10, 23, 28, 33, 60, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 109, 110, 118, 119, 122 and 132, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of prisoners of war, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.

Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.

Click to expand...

I've read the Geneva convention, it defines very clearly who it considers a prisoner of war, it does not provide any protection to participants when there is no uniform. It does not provide protection to participants who engage in:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Click to expand...

If they violate the rules of war by engaging in hostile acts such as the taking of hostages, especially while not wearing a uniform, It is my understanding that the geneva convention does not apply.

I understand that there are different ways to read it, but I believe the current reading of it suspends all rights to capturee's who do not meet the chriteria for protection under it.

That is why I stated that spies assassins and terrorists could be put up against the wall and shot.

I could be wrong, but thats what I got out of it.

It may have origniated related to the quad-mounted .50s used as AAA in WWII -- not saying they're actually against any convenstion, just saying that's where the myth might have originated.

Then again, my dad (AAA in WWII) said that in Normandy, the brass sometimes had them shoot the quads blindly into hedge rows to make sure they were clear of Krauts. Talk about hedge clippers! He also said they saw heavy anti-personnel use in the Battle of the Bulge.

Edited to add (from http://www.skylighters.org/quad50/index.html):

Quadmounts were used in both the Pacific and European theaters. As enemy aircraft became less plentiful near the end of the war, the quadmount evolved into an antipersonnel weapon. In Europe, when enemy snipers were hidden in trees, it was not unusual to pull up a halftrack and quadmount to counter the threat. Instead of firing at the suspected location of the snipers, the quadmount gunner would aim at the base of the trees and fire. The high concentration of projectiles would literally mow down the trees taking out the snipers along with others at the same time. In the Pacific theater, the quadmount was effective against "dug-in" Japanese positions because of its high rate (450-550 rounds per minute) and high concentration of fire. It was affectionately nicknamed the "meat chopper."

Click to expand...

Ajax22

art 3,A,,1,d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Kinda rules out field executions, dont it?

art 4,A,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.

Generally regarded as removing the absolute requirement to were a uniform for consideration as a pow. It would not be an absolute defense, but would provide a reasonable grievence.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

You must give anyone a hearing before declaring them not a pow. Guess what, the geneva convention also has rules about tribunals, and what constitutes them.


Now start looking up the geneva convention on protection of civilian persons in time of war.

Article 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.

Even if you by using a tribunal declare them not a POW, you gotta give them a trial and treat them humanely.

We as a nation a violating other parts of the geneva convention in some major ways.

Personally I am all for withdrawing from the treaty, It is not applicable to todays warfare. We probably would not fight any of the countries that would actually keep the treaty terms.

But until we do withdraw from it, we should at least try follow its rules.

I was specifically told that the Browning .50 was for use against both infantry and soft or very ightly armoured vehicles. The .50 rifles were for mine clearance and destroying other explosives, but I don't think there was a rule against using them against infantry. Nowadays we have the .338 lapua rifles which are used against infatry and tbh will give you just as much of a headache as a .50 BMG...

Napalm I think was actually ruled as illegal because it caused 'unnecessary suffering' which makes it illegal under international law, but I may have picked that up from some one who didn't know better so don't take my word for it.

The legality of this issue was settled back in the late 80s or early 90s. Yes it is legal to use the .50 BMG against personnel. I'll have to dig up the reference to it.

QUOTE "HE isn't a common round for the .50. Above a certain caliber, it becomes impractical to use ammo for antipersonnel, unless you're targeting groups."

While theoretically true, The new SLAP rounds have some HE effect.

Also, I am in touch with three guys who are in Iraq right now, as well as one in Afghanistan. Believe me, they do not agree with you. They have used 120 mm Abrams main guns multiple times against single point, sniper targets, I also saw the video of the M1A2 removing a RPG carrying rebel from duty, He runs out, tries to get the round off and than there is a huge plume of smoke and his sandals are all that you can see where he was standing. I have no idea of what 20 pounds of depleted uranium does when it hits a body at 5600FPS, because he was there one second, gone the next.

They have also related cases of calling in 155 or 8 inch arty fire on a position they believe to be holding a IED observer.


The one in afghanistan has used Hellfire missiles against a single point individual. When they want to kill a badguy, they use what ever has the best chance of doing it. After a road side IED, they were able to see a guy who had been watching the road take off in a hurry driving away at high speed on a scooter, they were able to run a Hellfire directly into him at a traffic light. In the wreckage were as many as fifty cell phones, all with preset numbers used for detonators.

CK said:

I wonder if the terrorists read the geneva convention.

Click to expand...

Why do you think they hide behind women and children, and stash their ordnance in mosques?

Large caliber weapons like cannons are exempt from the 'no explosive ammunition' ban as has been stated previously in this topic.

Not to worry!

It's not like that the recipient will file a complaint, right? Go ahead!

Doc2005

no, it isn't agianst the rules

even if it were, I wouldn't care

I think ammo restrictions in war are stupid, extremely stupid. Hell if you're gonna shoot me do it with a round packed with enough explosive to send me and my block the way of the dodo, I'd rather it be quick then bleeding out in a helo on the way to a hospital.

Longest documented sniper shot

I think the army sniper from Canada who is now documented for the longest documented kill used a Barret .50cal/model 82a1 rifle.

This was in 2002 in OEF(Operation Enduring Freedom).

Rusty

Nope, it was with a McMillan TAC-50.

What about for CCW?

Is that a Barret in your BDUs or are you happy to see me???????

im sorry but the candian making a kill with a rifle MADE and TUNED and TESTED to do just that in no way compares to hathcocks kill in vietnam with essentialy a home made gun. ( it was an M2 with a scope right?) even if the candian did outrange him ( and it want by too much was it?)

it wasn't made for that kind of range. If I remember correctly he needed to hold the crosshairs about 11 feet over the target and admitted he probably couldn't make the same shot agian with a whole box of ammo or something to that effect.

Rumor, fact, fiction, or whatever, as far as I'm concerned this is not a Sundy School Picknic it is a war and wars are ugly and if people havn't got the Stomach for it then, there are alturnatives, but I don't think until after GODS WAR WILL PEOPLE BE CONTENT TO LIVE TOGETHER AS BROTHER AND SISTER< FATHER AND MOTHER< FRIEND OR NEIGHBOR.

Untill then we must and should use any Conventional Weapon at our disposal to prosicute this war.

No Nukes, Chemical, or Biological weapons should be deployed by any combatant, but if one side uses them against the other, there should be a situation of NO QUARTER GIVEN, REGARDLESS!

There is no differance between a .22 and a 16" naval gun, they both are potential KIllers.

Official Narrative
For Medal of Honor Recipient
MURPHY, AUDIE L.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B, 15th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division.

Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January 1945.

Entered service at: Dallas, Tex. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Tex.

G.O. No.65, 9 August 1945.

CITATION: 2d Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by 6 tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

Rumors are typically worth what you paid for them.

Guess those of us who employ the 20mm or 30mm gun from airplanes on personnel are going against the Laws of Armed Combat....not.

This is a ridiculous rumor.

Nitpick - While we generally follow it, we never signed the Hague conventions. We just generally follow it's proscription of expanding bullets as being cruel under the Geneva conventions.

And the .50 is legal on humans. It's just the largest round that's under the requirements of being non-expanding/explosive.

Ahhh how I remember basic training and classes on MA Duce.

Myth or not, We were instructed by our Drill Sgt's not to use .50 cal on people. Seems strange when you are shooting up a light armored vehicle filled with troops that you can say that but its diplomatic speak. Its not the .50 cal killing the troops its the fragmentation of the metal that is. Anyway our Drill Sgt's impressed on us that you cannot engage troops with Ma Duce. In other words you cannot shoot people with a .50 cal. but you can engage their vehicles and equipment. Yes its a fine line and seems silly but that is the way it is. I also don't think our Drill's were BS'ing with us on the .50 cal issue.

I heard this today at the match.
Remember. A well armed society is a polite society.

Just don't tell the enemy how many rounds you have or he will be able to bypass your hail of machinegun fire and wipe out the entire US army