"laws within war" ???

LighterGuy

To make a long story short,
Was watching this video on youtube:

To give a summary its a report from CBS news in 2007. They talk about how snipers will use "bait" - such as "detonating cord or ammunition" in order to lure potential "bad guys" to it and kill them.

At the 1:00 minute mark of the video a Law Professor by the name of Gary Solis says: " ... it doesnt take a lawyer to know that you cant kill civiallians merly because they've stopped to pick up something that you've planted there..."

Now, am I mistaken, or isnt this war?
And in war, there are no rules. It doesnt matter what certain people think back in the safety far away from conflict?
As learned in the Vietnam war, the "opposing force" would often masquerade as civiallians.


So boards.ie - the ultimate question is ... do you see this as acceptable in war? or not?

johnmcdnl

Well I voted NO because I think you mean baiting civilians in and killing them which is obviously wrong...

if he's baiting an enemy sniper well fair dues to him for out witting him I suppose... not that I'm an advocate for war but isn't out smarting your opponent the way you win a war (unless of course the other army brings water pistols instead of army tanks)

is it any different to say Napolean outsmarting who ever he bet in whatever wars he was famous for...

EDIT - watched the video there and yeah there's no question but that's just wrong..

and the sniper's defense - if he picks it up and leaves with it he's going to use it against us how does he know the lads won't bring them down to the local US army barracks and hand it in....

LighterGuy

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Well I voted NO because I think you mean baiting civilians in and killing them which is obviously wrong...

if he's baiting an enemy sniper well fair dues to him for out witting him I suppose... not that I'm an advocate for war but isn't out smarting your opponent the way you win a war (unless of course the other army brings water pistols instead of army tanks)

is it any different to say Napolean outsmarting who ever he bet in whatever wars he was famous for...

Johnmcdnl,
the nature of the story (and topic) is of course the baiting method.
But to not view it on the surface but to think about it overall. Its designed to "bait" the enemy (a positive) But the results can be a civillian aswell ( a negitive) And the overall question of the thread is "laws within wars" - war is a terrible thing. But yet "laws" ? ... is there such a thing as law in war? .. when you think about it.

LighterGuy

johnmcdnl wrote: »

and the sniper's defense - if he picks it up and leaves with it he's going to use it against us how does he know the lads won't bring them down to the local US army barracks and hand it in....

Well,
Isnt that the same logic of thinking, or assumption, that if you dropped your wallet someone would bring it to a local gardai station? .... or steal your cash and credit cards?

To give another example,
its as police all over the world have done time and time again... "bait" someone for prostitution or to "bait" to be stolen (ie, act drunk with a fancy watch and wallet in site)

is that too, wrong? ... but yet, thats considered legal?

Einhard

How could anyone think this was a legitimate tactic? There's absolutely no way of discerning whether the person who lifts the "bait" is an insurgent, or a civilian. Anyone who partook in this should be charged either with murder, conspiracy to murder, or some variant. Anyone who votes yes in the poll needs their heads, or consciences, examined.

Einhard

LighterGuy wrote: »

Now, am I mistaken, or isnt this war?
And in war, there are no rules. It doesnt matter what certain people think back in the safety far away from conflict?
As learned in the Vietnam war, the "opposing force" would often masquerade as civiallians.

You are mistaken. There are rules in war.

LighterGuy

Einhard wrote: »

How could anyone think this was a legitimate tactic? There's absolutely no way of discerning whether the person who lifts the "bait" is an insurgent, or a civilian. Anyone who partook in this should be charged either with murder, conspiracy to murder, or some variant. Anyone who votes yes in the poll needs their heads, or consciences, examined.

Again, I bring up the topic of whats right in war.
To throw out an example, many african countries have be war-ridden. Namly the somlian-US conflict in 1993. Many 13year old boys had AK-47s. So it would be ok for a US soldier to shoot a 13yo if he had a weapon? ... but at the same time, wrong if he was going to pick up a weapon?

pragmatic1

OP even in war there are rules.

LighterGuy

Einhard wrote: »

You are mistaken. There are rules in war.

what rules?
Last time I checked. Hitler killed alotta jews.
Sadamm killed alot of people.
US soldiers killed alot of vietnam citens.

Einhard

LighterGuy wrote: »

Again, I bring up the topic of whats right in war.
To throw out an example, many african countries have be war-ridden. Namly the somlian-US conflict in 1993. Many 13year old boys had AK-47s. So it would be ok for a US soldier to shoot a 13yo if he had a weapon? ... but at the same time, wrong if he was going to pick up a weapon?

It's never right to deliberately target civilians in such circumstances. Pretty simple really. I can accept that civilians will always die in war situations, but I cannot accept such deliberate targeting of non-combatants.

LighterGuy wrote: »

what rules?
Last time I checked. Hitler killed alotta jews.
Sadamm killed alot of people.
US soldiers killed alot of vietnam citens.

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

Saddam killed a lot of people, was tried and executed for his crimes.

The Nazis killed a lot of innocent civilians, and their top leaders faced justice after the war.

There are murders every year in Ireland- by your logic that means there are no laws against murder in Ireland.

Fox McCloud

Geneva conventions dude.

All laws surrounding the treatment of PoWs, civillians in occupied territories, how and when you can legally kill someone(i.e. they have combatant status) proportionality in attacks, etc.

Then theres a host of international treaties regarding the use of certain methods like landmines, cluster bombs, child soilders etc.

The problem with the GCs is that they only really apply in interstate conflict, there is a small section on intra state conflict but it doesnt offer much legal protection and most wars these days are intrastate. Then you have a list of war crimes that apply everywhere like genocide and ethnic cleansing.

dsmythy

I'd make few judgements on the actions of people in war on the basis of not having a clue what it is like to be in a war and on a battlefield.

joe stodge

the only laws in the afghan/iraq wars seem to affect the nato forces. but in every conflict there is always one side who seems to occupy some kind of moral high ground.

furthermore the rules are made by the victor.

Duggy747

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA

hardy_buck

Einhard wrote: »

You are mistaken. There are rules in war.

Its depends on what kind of war. In total war, both (or more) belligerents mobillise EVERY asset and resource they have including populace effectively eliminating civilians in the legal sense. For example, the allied firebombing of Dresden in WW2 and Hiroshima / Nagasaki. Its a horrible premise but in reality, laws/ politics and all social establishments go out the window on the battlefield.

Voodu Child

They make sure to only shoot terrorists who pick up their bait and not regular civilians.

They can tell which ones are terrorists because they are foreign looking with beards and turbans.

Overheal

The rules, or rather the conventions of war, frankly have been getting broken for decades. I hate to have to point this out again, but the insurgency is an irregular guerilla force that uses schools and religious buildings as cover to fight. Where is their court martial? Where is their International Court of Justice?

If war was entirely fought by the convention by one side, but not the other, the other would always prevail. Then it becomes a question of who is willing to break the rules.

Einhard wrote: »

How could anyone think this was a legitimate tactic? There's absolutely no way of discerning whether the person who lifts the "bait" is an insurgent, or a civilian. Anyone who partook in this should be charged either with murder, conspiracy to murder, or some variant. Anyone who votes yes in the poll needs their heads, or consciences, examined.

I'm not read up on military or war law but I'm fairly sure this doesn't fit the description of 'murder'. Or to be converse and far more pedantic, more deaths in that conflict ought to be listed as 'murder' because the targets were not in uniform and the kills could not be confirmed. Remembering the helicopter incident released by Wikileaks, what would have happened if those 'civilians' were just allowed to walk away with all of the weapons on the scene it would have been this lovely scene for a reporter to stumble across later that basically showed a bunch of apparent civilians riddled with 30mm Apache rounds.

They make sure to only shoot terrorists who pick up their bait and not regular civilians.

They can tell which ones are terrorists because they are foreign looking with beards and turbans.

As stated in the video you can greatly eliminate the possibilities by selecting when and where you deploy this tactic. A schoolyard during recess would not exactly be the ideal candidate spot.

jugger0

The rules of war thing is a bit of a joke, most countries only follow a few of them, and you can be sure if a side was losing a war they would resort to anything to win rules be damned.
In this instance i think its only going to harm the Americans in the long run, if they do end up shooting a civilian, that guys family and friends are going to want revenge, so thats creating more enemies for themselves in the long run... i cant see it being an effective tactic.
I dont understand rules like taking prisoners, people trying to kill you moments earlier throw down their weapons and your supposed to look after them?

biko

LighterGuy wrote: »

Now, am I mistaken, or isnt this war?
And in war, there are no rules. It doesnt matter what certain people think back in the safety far away from conflict?

There are rules of engagement and to be honest baiting is a very very bad strategy that the US probably didn't think would come to light.

They previously have dropped bombs that killed many children because of their toy-like appearance, so I guess next step is to plant gun replicas with bombs inside for someone to pick up.

Einhard

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd make few judgements on the actions of people in war on the basis of not having a clue what it is like to be in a war and on a battlefield.

Right so, let's just release Ratko Mladic from prison in the Netherlands, ad exonerate Charles Taylor from the massacres and rapes ordered by him in Liberia, because, not having been on the battlefield ourselves, who are we to judge?

hardy_buck wrote: »

Its a horrible premise but in reality, laws/ politics and all social establishments go out the window on the battlefield.

But they shouldn't is my point, and actually, is the point of international law. I understand that horrible things need to be done in war, but there has to be a line somewhere, and not doing anything to discriminate between civilians and combatants in situations such as that referred to in the OP is immoral IMO.

Overheal wrote: »

The rules, or rather the conventions of war, frankly have been getting broken for decades. I hate to have to point this out again, but the insurgency is an irregular guerilla force that uses schools and religious buildings as cover to fight. Where is their court martial? Where is their International Court of Justice?

There is none, but does that mean we should stoop to their level? One could make much the same point about drug gangs, and advocate a shoot to kill policy for them.

If war was entirely fought by the convention by one side, but not the other, the other would always prevail. Then it becomes a question of who is willing to break the rules.

I'm not so sure they would. Shooting civilians in cold blood is hardly conducive to a war effort, and indeed, as we have seen, such actions as contravene public morality and international law, have had serious negative consequences for the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not read up on military or war law but I'm fairly sure this doesn't fit the description of 'murder'. Or to be converse and far more pedantic, more deaths in that conflict ought to be listed as 'murder' because the targets were not in uniform and the kills could not be confirmed.

I don't necessarily think that shooting civilians is murder; I do think that shooting someone who is no threat to you, and who, is at least as likely to be a civilian as anything else, does constitute murder.

prinz

LighterGuy wrote: »

Now, am I mistaken, or isnt this war?
And in war, there are no rules. It doesnt matter what certain people think back in the safety far away from conflict?
As learned in the Vietnam war, the "opposing force" would often masquerade as civiallians. So boards.ie - the ultimate question is ... do you see this as acceptable in war? or not?

Unless the sniper can positively identify whoever tries to grab the bait as a fighter then no, it's not acceptable at all. If a kid walks along and picks up the ammunition does the sniper shoot them? How does he differentiate between opponents and your average Joe Soap who wonders what a box of ammunition is doing on the street and goes to hide it/move it to safety.

They are not baiting insurgents they are baiting anybody who happens along and might approach it for any reason. That's like saying a fisherman fishing off the pier is only going to catch x type of fish. Awful tactic IMO. Brings to mind the actions of snipers in the Yugoslav war, the sniper alleys of Sarajevo etc.

Artur Foden

I don't think it is acceptable whatsoever to kill civilians. However the tactic itself is legitimate as far as Im concerned, if only it would be used againsy identifiable enemy troops

The fact that the Taliban are breaking the rules themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants in the war, it does not surprise me that soldiers have had to resort to such tactics.

Overheal

I don't necessarily think that shooting civilians is murder; I do think that shooting someone who is no threat to you, and who, is at least as likely to be a civilian as anything else, does constitute murder.

They are a threat though when the devices in question can be used to deploy IEDs.

My name is URL

Well, leaving aside the ethical rights and wrongs of it, when methods like that are used - and innocent people killed, then it perpetuates the whole thing further. More and more 'innocent' people become aggrieved and may side with the bad guy. I doubt there's any easy solution to it though.. maybe stop getting involved in questionable wars in the first place?

prinz

Overheal wrote: »

They are a threat though when the devices in question can be used to deploy IEDs.

Surely the best course of action in that case is not to leave such devices lying around

figarofigaro

1 The US should never have gotten involved in a war with Iraq in the first place.

2 No American soldier is there against his own will. They all joined the military voluntarily. Nobody put a gun to any any US soldier's head and forced them to join in on the occupation of another country.

So my opinion is that they should ****ing well be made to obey the rules of war even if it means they put themselves in more danger. They knew the risks. After all they've done to the people of Iraq, that is not asking much.

seamus

Overheal wrote: »

The rules, or rather the conventions of war, frankly have been getting broken for decades. I hate to have to point this out again, but the insurgency is an irregular guerilla force that uses schools and religious buildings as cover to fight. Where is their court martial? Where is their International Court of Justice?

If war was entirely fought by the convention by one side, but not the other, the other would always prevail. Then it becomes a question of who is willing to break the rules.

This.

The very nature of war means that it's impossible to have a one-size-fits-all policy.

You'll notice that after the most recent major wars, it's generally the losers who end up on international tribunals faced with atrocious war crimes.

Does this mean that the winners have always engaged in acceptable tactics? My arse.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Does this mean that the winners have always engaged in acceptable tactics? My arse.

No it doesn't. It also doesn't mean we have to condone or accept stupid tactics at present or in the future.

Manic Moran

It is worth noting that the article states that the whole reason this came to public notice for the report was that the US Army had charged one of its troops with murder for engaging a particular target with this technique. There is little doubt that it can be taken too far. However, using the right bait, situation, and selection criteria, I can see how some targets could also be legitimate.

As an aside, I am not a fan of many of the laws of war. There is no 'Good sportsman' consolation prize when you lose just because you played nice and the other guy didn't. The rules almost try to make it into a a sports match, or at least a civilised duel to settle differences on the field of honour, which, I think, a war isn't. The purpose of a war is to win it, not joust by the rules. The rules exist, professional militaries have no choice but to follow them, but that doesn't mean that they all make sense.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

prinz wrote: »

Surely the best course of action in that case is not to leave such devices lying around

Thats all very well, but not all ordnance explodes.. Soldiers & vehicles drop equipment ie ammo boxes, jerry can's, tools, clothing etc..

The battlefield is littered with souvenirs.

Do I think its right to bait targets like this, no I don't - but then neither do I think its right that the media feels entitled to be embedded with an army anyway

prinz

James Prehistoric Myth wrote: »

Thats all very well, but not all ordnance explodes.. Soldiers & vehicles drop equipment ie ammo boxes, jerry can's, tools, clothing etc..

That's fair enough. It happens. Deliberately planting something in the hope that someone will happen along and try to remove it is completely different.

In a combat zone where the civilians/bystanders etc have been evacuated and all that's left are the soldiers/fighters on both sides then I think there is an argument that baiting like that could be acceptable.

Using it as a tactic in a war where combat areas/front lines are fluid through populated and in some cases heavuly populated areas then it's totally uncalled for IMO.

LighterGuy

I think alot of this thread can be tagged with ".. in an ideal world ... "

Personally, i think its a different story when in a war. Its all grand for people well away from any conflict to say "thats wrong!" ... yet, if they were in the middle of a conflict. Would the same people have the same "moral objection"

"Rules of engagement" is a load of boll*x when you think about it. A war is killing people. Horrific it certainly is. But its all just "official crap"

My name is URL

LighterGuy wrote: »

Personally, i think its a different story when in a war. Its all grand for people well away from any conflict to say "thats wrong!" ... yet, if they were in the middle of a conflict. Would the same people have the same "moral objection"

Would you say the same for suicide bombers? I mean, they're in a conflict so I take it you have no moral objection to the methods they use either?

Magic Beans

If there was even the remotest justification for the invasion of Iraq this discussion would be meaningful. But there wasn't so how do you justify any killing whatsoever?

LighterGuy

My name is URL wrote: »

Would you say the same for suicide bombers? I mean, they're in a conflict so I take it you have no moral objection to the methods they use either?

Haha,
You do realise you've just made a great point. But a point that doesnt go within your side of the argument.

Take the US forces, they do not use the "suicide bomber" method ... but they have in recent years gone up against opposition who has. Bombers who dont care who they kill along side with US soliders... civillians... kids etc.

Ok thats wrong what they do. The US forces dont do that. Thats good. So ..at the same time ... its wrong to "bait" - knowing your enemy is perfectly willing to strap a bomb to themselves, killing personnel and innocent people. But thats ok, thats "what they do" - but if the US army "baits" - "holy lord, that should be condemned!" :rolleyes:

discus

I think it's acceptable. Just look at this cases highlighted here - guys are on trial for getting it wrong. If the oversight is there, then fire away

discus

LighterGuy wrote: »

Haha,
You do realise you've just made a great point. But a point that doesnt go within your side of the argument.

Take the US forces, they do not use the "suicide bomber" method ... but they have in recent years gone up against opposition who has. Bombers who dont care who they kill along side with US soliders... civillians... kids etc.

Ok thats wrong what they do. The US forces dont do that. Thats good. So ..at the same time ... its wrong to "bait" - knowing your enemy is perfectly willing to strap a bomb to themselves, killing personnel and innocent people. But thats ok, thats "what they do" - but if the US army "baits" - "holy lord, that should be condemned!" :rolleyes:

Well said LighterGuy.

The Taliban will shoot medics, even though the Red Cross / Red Crescent will be visable. On top of that, the taliban neglect to wear uniforms... Both going against the "laws of war" aka The Geneva Convention.

KeithAFC

They should not be on trial even if they get it wrong. They are in a bad war and it is ugly. Like Stalingrad, im sure many things went wrong in that battle.

My name is URL

LighterGuy wrote: »

Haha,
You do realise you've just made a great point. But a point that doesnt go within your side of the argument.

I'm actually not really on any side of this particular argument tbh. It causes too much cognitive dissonance =p

Imho, you can't justify one side using methods which contravene the laws of war and at the same time condemn the other side for using other types of illegal tactics. Fwiw though, I think suicide bombing is way way worse than this so called 'baiting'.

im invisible

Duggy747 wrote: »

war, its fantastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCCyvAwbbso

Jamie Starr

No touching of the hair or face.

Manic Moran

Magic Beans wrote: »

If there was even the remotest justification for the invasion of Iraq this discussion would be meaningful. But there wasn't so how do you justify any killing whatsoever?

You are looking at the classic distinction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. How or why the war started is of no relevance to the conduct within that war.

NTM

LighterGuy

discus wrote: »

Well said LighterGuy.

The Taliban will shoot medics, even though the Red Cross / Red Crescent will be visable. On top of that, the taliban neglect to wear uniforms... Both going against the "laws of war" aka The Geneva Convention.

Good points.

jill_valentine

James Prehistoric Myth wrote: »

but then neither do I think its right that the media feels entitled to be embedded with an army anyway

Aware I'm likely to skew matters off topic but come on dude, media wouldn't be embedded if it wasn't something that served the ends of both the journos and whatever force they're embedded with.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are looking at the classic distinction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. How or why the war started is of no relevance to the conduct within that war.

NTM

" "How? Why?" doesn't really matter now. What does matter is that as of this moment, we are at war."

LighterGuy, I wish you'd made that poll clear. I thought I was voting for laws within war, which I see as to be avoided at all costs, but to be fought at all costs should it be brought to you. Baiting civilians isn't war, it doesn't serve any military objective. If anything it makes things difficult for the forces carrying out the act.

tallus

Overheal wrote: »

They are a threat though when the devices in question can be used to deploy IEDs.

It's a "manufactured" threat as the devices wouldn't even by lying around if they weren't planted by U.S. troops, so your point doesn't really hold water.