Live data from Hacker News

How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

reuters.com

31–40 of 265 posts

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#31
post #30
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition. > Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it. That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases whe…

https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222...

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003

> This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity.

Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, The Regular Armed Forces, Uniforms, and Prisoner of War Status In: Prisoners of War in Contemporary Conflict. Edited by: Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#32
post #9

Alright boomers, if your website has “contact us” for pricing instead of a two-click way to order it digitally then I’m going to assume you are placing bombs inside your electronics

"contact us" means that they don't want _you_ to contact them.

Where I work "contact us" usually means more than €5000 in sales and there is too much to negotiate on price to give a quote.

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#33
post #9

Alright boomers, if your website has “contact us” for pricing instead of a two-click way to order it digitally then I’m going to assume you are placing bombs inside your electronics

For many business the relationship is more important than the product (they'll probably send you free units if you're considering a large order).

Hence why this has pretty much destroyed these businesses.

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#34
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition. > Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it. That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases whe…

https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 > This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this…

Your quote concerns the convention on POWs

His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield.

This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org.

I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#35

This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and how's is quite interesting, keeping international law in mind while talking about the attack seems important. - "2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and const…

I didn't realize Hamas and Hezbollah were wearing clearly identifiable uniforms. They're terrorists so nothing applies.

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 > This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this…

Your quote concerns the convention on POWs His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield. This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org. I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here

I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege...

That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants:

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/

> Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote concerns the convention on POWs His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield. This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org. I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here

I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege... That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/explod…

I read the site you linked and it was very interesting

I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.

In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#39
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege... That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/explod…

I read the site you linked and it was very interesting I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal. In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original

> On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II.

> The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis.

Both above quotes from the West Point link.

Another view:

https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t...

> Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties).

Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.

Re: How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

#40

This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and how's is quite interesting, keeping international law in mind while talking about the attack seems important. - "2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and const…

I didn't realize Hamas and Hezbollah were wearing clearly identifiable uniforms. They're terrorists so nothing applies.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN