Case Study #3: Rules of Engagement

[7point62]

Huh?

"The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited."
-The Hague Convention, Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 25.

I apologize, my post wasn't clear. My point is, what's murder and what's not murder is subjective in war. It depends on who's doing the murdering, where they stand on the pyramid and the prejudicial POV of the person or persons doing the judging. When our enemies decapitate a hostage or fly a plane into a building, they don't consult the Hague first. And to them it's not murder. Yasser Arafat believed terrorism to be morally justifiable. Terrorism is the atomic bomb of the poor.

When you have an enemy in your rifle sight and his back is to you and he is dressed in civilian clothes and he doesn't appear to be carrying a weapon, do you shoot him or not? And if you do, is it murder? The Hague isn't there to make the judgement call. It's up to you, your ROE and whatever moral standards of conduct you've managed to retain in a lethal environment. IMO, if you have reason to suspect he's the enemy, you take the shot. When a head-of-state orders a multiple cruise missile launch against "suspected" terrorist training bases and some of the cruise missiles wipe out civilian villages, is it murder, negligent homocide, a regrettable error? To the families of the dead children it's murder.

Who is the murderer? The soldier who takes the shot with the reasonable belief that his target is the enemy? Or the president who orders the cruise missile launch with the knowledge that some of the targets are just "suspected" and not necessarily confirmed?

The Special Forces sergeant in the above link took the shot. Then he was charged with murder. WTF? What was the line in Apocalypse Now? "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."

 

[Marauder06]

When you have an enemy in your rifle sight and his back is to you and he is dressed in civilian clothes and he doesn't appear to be carrying a weapon, do you shoot him or not? And if you do, is it murder?

The Special Forces sergeant in the above link took the shot. Then he was charged with murder. WTF? What was the line in Apocalypse Now? "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."

Hm, not sure how you'd know the dude was an enemy soldier if he weren't wearing a uniform and wasn't carrying a weapon. But let's assume for a minute that you know the guy's on a declared hostile list of some type. If he's running away, yes, you can still engage. The only time you should stop is if it's clear he's incapable of resisting or if he's attempting to surrender. It's the same kind of reasoning why it's legal to engage paratroopers on their way down, but in most cases not legal to engage down pilots on their way down.

I think it was BS the way those SF guys were charged with murder. Weren't they aquitted or the charges tossed out or something? Memory fails me...

 

[HOLLiS]

I apologize, my post wasn't clear. My point is, what's murder and what's not murder is subjective in war. It depends on who's doing the murdering, where they stand on the pyramid and the prejudicial POV of the person or persons doing the judging. When our enemies decapitate a hostage or fly a plane into a building, they don't consult the Hague first. And to them it's not murder. Yasser Arafat believed terrorism to be morally justifiable. Terrorism is the atomic bomb of the poor.

When you have an enemy in your rifle sight and his back is to you and he is dressed in civilian clothes and he doesn't appear to be carrying a weapon, do you shoot him or not? And if you do, is it murder? The Hague isn't there to make the judgement call. It's up to you, your ROE and whatever moral standards of conduct you've managed to retain in a lethal environment. IMO, if you have reason to suspect he's the enemy, you take the shot. When a head-of-state orders a multiple cruise missile launch against "suspected" terrorist training bases and some of the cruise missiles wipe out civilian villages, is it murder, negligent homocide, a regrettable error? To the families of the dead children it's murder.

Who is the murderer? The soldier who takes the shot with the reasonable belief that his target is the enemy? Or the president who orders the cruise missile launch with the knowledge that some of the targets are just "suspected" and not necessarily confirmed?

The Special Forces sergeant in the above link took the shot. Then he was charged with murder. WTF? What was the line in Apocalypse Now? "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."

On reading your post, It seems you are too quick to use the term murder.

Killing is not the same as murder. When in view of the facts murder is and killing is not based or personal subjection but by actual definition. Moral relativism does not apply except in a philosophical debate.


Also in this case scenario, there are several factors we all have seen before. How a event is perceived going into it and then the investigation/fact or fault finding that follows. The defender has choices, if they act above board, their action later will be review. That review could mean they will be held labile or criminally for any mistake of judgment on their part.

If they choose to act as a unknown then they might be able to reduce any liability on their part or make it worse. This would probably be done in a movie not in real life. It could change a justifiable homicide charge into a murder charge.

 

[arizonaguide]

So, is there a similar organization to the ACLU in Israel?
How would the original terrorist in a bar scenario have played out there, I wonder?

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html

 

[Marauder06]

So, is there a similar organization to the ACLU in Israel?
How would the original terrorist in a bar scenario have played out there, I wonder?

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

 

[arizonaguide]

Crazy talk? Darwin candidate? ACLU? What about "next attack"?

I guess we're not Israel, of course. I'm sorry to say it'll probably take another 9-11 for that kind of change.
As has been pointed out, there is SO MUCH fear from ACLU, Politics, Lawyers, retribution, etc...it's like a "parallisis".

I don't know what the long term solution is.
But, like the Boy Scouts used to preach: Be Prepared!
I think these "scenarios" really help with that Mara, thanks!

 

[arizonaguide]

I found this guy, in researching further.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZjPq2V1y80"]YouTube - Juval Aviv Your Turn[/ame]

If you click on the YouTube link (or Google) there are several good video cuts.

 

[arizonaguide]

I remembered this interesting info about IDENTIFICATION techniques also:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13438/washpost.html?breadcrumb=/issue/publication_list?id=420

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_Action_Coding_System

I can't find anything specific (USA)to "civilian responses", except the general stuff that Razor and 7point62 mentioned. Lots of Israeli civilian responses/situations. Seems like there's much to learn there.

 

[7point62]

Our enemy wore civilian clothes and did not always show any outward sign of being enemy, other than age (there were no young men in the villes and hamlets, they were all either in the ARVN or the Vietcong), so young men in their 20s & 30's were always suspect. Sometimes--if we were spotting possible enemy from cover--initiation of contact boiled down to the advice of our counterparts. If they said the targets were enemy, then we engaged.

 

[JBS]

Regarding the subject, here is- in real life- what I'd do:

I'd go back to drinking.

The guy is a poser, and I just drank a hundred bucks worth of free booze.

There is no conceivable way to confirm this guy one way or the other, and I've got 5 seconds to make the decision. If I'm even slightly persuaded that he is who he says he is, I'll pull out he cell phone camera, and say "If you're Al Qaeda, then you won't mind if I take your pic". I'd get another gratuitous ass shot of the taxi, and then go back inside and finish my drinks.

I would then decide what to do the next morning after I - and my buddies- sobered up.

 

[0699]

Regarding the subject, here is- in real life- what I'd do:

I'd go back to drinking.

Same thing I said 58 posts ago...