"laws within war" ???

LighterGuy · 04-08-2011 05:09AM #1

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 · 04-08-2011 05:15AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:22AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:31AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:35AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:39AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:39AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:41AM

OP even in war there are rules.

LighterGuy · 04-08-2011 05:41AM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:46AM

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 · 04-08-2011 09:08AM

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 · 04-08-2011 09:22AM

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 · 04-08-2011 10:08AM

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 · 04-08-2011 10:30AM

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

hardy_buck · 04-08-2011 02:29PM

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 · 04-08-2011 02:47PM

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 · 04-08-2011 02:47PM

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 · 04-08-2011 02:50PM

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 · 04-08-2011 02:55PM

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 · 04-08-2011 03:07PM

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 · 04-08-2011 03:18PM

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 · 04-08-2011 03:48PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:03PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:05PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:06PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:25PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:52PM

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 · 04-08-2011 04:58PM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:08PM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:15PM

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 · 04-08-2011 05:22PM

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.

"laws within war" ???

Acceptable or not? 24 votes

Comments