Is this a crime?

Goobieman said:

As long as the soldiers were not deliberatly targeting said civilians, any civilian deaths caused by legitimate combat operations are not a crime.

Click to expand...

What if the soldiers specific rules of engagement said no fire is allowed in situations where civilians injury was likely, and the soldiers knew civilian injury was likely even though they weren't targeting them?

Soldiers are under certain rules of engagement concerning civilians which are determined by their own leadership and sometimes in conjunction with the host country.

The Geneva convention has no place in this discussion. It is dealing specifically with intentional killing of civilians out of combat. This does not cover accidental deaths or other collateral casualties. If a nations rules of engagement (ROE) allows for it, they could bomb a packed kindergarden schoolhouse to get to an enemy using the kids as human shields.

However, countries like the United States and many European countries have strict ROE's dealing with civilians. After action reports are done after each fight and if a civilian gets himself shot it will be added to the report and investigated. Reprimands and charges will follow if there was severe negligence and a breaking of the ROE's. One of the biggest reasons why insurgents have moved their operations completely within cities is due to them knowing all about Western nation ROE's.

Blackwater recently got into some serious trouble over this. Despite being in a dense civilian area they fired indiscriminately at everyone and employed class III destructive devices (grenade launchers) in the area which have specific restrictions on their use according to the contract Blackwater made with Iraqi leaders to let them use the launchers. Take in mind though that Private Military Contractors (PMC) have much stricter ROE's than the military.

People must understand these things.
War is, in itself, a crime.
Civilians , in a wrong place, suffer the most during war, even more that the soldiers.
For the Jewish people, the wrong place was 99.99% of Europe..
Generally, it has always been this way for thousands of years..
Do not have war and the civilians will be safer - for a time....
Its the Iraqi people, all of them, to the last man and woman, who will have to fight and stop the criminal/insurgents, and there will be huge amount of causalities.. .at first.

Iriemon said:

That's a what if too. What if fire wasn't necessary to save their own lives?

That's why the hypothetical is too vague to answer.

Click to expand...

Iriemon, this is war ! During war-time, it is either shoot or be shot.

Iraq, is a battle field..

And, in this area, there will never be peace as long as Islam exists..

earthworm said:

People must understand these things.
War is, in itself, a crime.

Click to expand...

War is politics by other means. It is the only way to resolve certain issues, which, ultimately, all derive from human nature.
Thus, war is a function of human nature, exercised on a societal scale.

Civilians , in a wrong place, suffer the most during war, even more that the soldiers.

Click to expand...

They do now. It wasnt always that way.
But, that civilians might suffer, is not an argument against war.

There will always be war. There will always be people who want power, or whatever it is that other people have, and will be willing to kill to get it.

The best we are ever going to be able to do is carve out areas of the world where Renaissance and Enlightenment principles reign, and where people are willing to fight to preserve them against those who don't share them.

Unfortunately, those things -- the principles, and the willingness to defend them -- are being rotted from within at increasing speed. Could be that it's an inevitable cycle of human nature. I had only hoped I wouldn't live to see it.

The real crime is the soldiers being there in the first place.

Khayembii Communique said:

The real crime is the soldiers being there in the first place.

Click to expand...

:roll:
A non-answer, masquerading as a sophomoric deflection

Khayembii Communique said:

The real crime is the soldiers being there in the first place.

Click to expand...

If that's a crime, if it was a wrong, then it should be undone, no? Everything put back as it was as if they were never there?

Which means that the Baathist regime, in all of its facets, should be restored to full power in Iraq and returned a pre-2003 level of military power.

Are you willing to have the courage of your convictions and say that?

Keorythe said:

Soldiers are under certain rules of engagement concerning civilians which are determined by their own leadership and sometimes in conjunction with the host country.

The Geneva convention has no place in this discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes I think I was wrong, I didn't know what other rules were appliable

It is dealing specifically with intentional killing of civilians out of combat. This does not cover accidental deaths or other collateral casualties. If a nations rules of engagement (ROE) allows for it, they could bomb a packed kindergarden schoolhouse to get to an enemy using the kids as human shields.

However, countries like the United States and many European countries have strict ROE's dealing with civilians. After action reports are done after each fight and if a civilian gets himself shot it will be added to the report and investigated. Reprimands and charges will follow if there was severe negligence and a breaking of the ROE's. One of the biggest reasons why insurgents have moved their operations completely within cities is due to them knowing all about Western nation ROE's.

Blackwater recently got into some serious trouble over this. Despite being in a dense civilian area they fired indiscriminately at everyone and employed class III destructive devices (grenade launchers) in the area which have specific restrictions on their use according to the contract Blackwater made with Iraqi leaders to let them use the launchers. Take in mind though that Private Military Contractors (PMC) have much stricter ROE's than the military.

Click to expand...

thanks for this post, it is interesting

earthworm said:

Iriemon, this is war! During war-time, it is either shoot or be shot.

Iraq, is a battle field..

And, in this area, there will never be peace as long as Islam exists..

Click to expand...

So what's your point? Soldiers can indiscriminately shoot civilians and that's fine, because this is war!?

There wouldn't be peace whether Islam existed or not. If not them it's the Russians or the Germans or the Chinese or someone. Too many benefit from an external threat.

Goobieman said:

They do now. It wasnt always that way.
But, that civilians might suffer, is not an argument against war.

Click to expand...

It certainly is! Or should be.

Goobieman said:

Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?

Click to expand...

The incident should be investigated since there was loss of civilian life, just as it would be investigated if US soldiers were killed/wounded.

bub said:

why? he's still responsible!

when you kill someone while driving your car, it's not a "crime" but you still have killed someone and depending on the circumstances you could spend several years in jail

=> if he could not have seen the civilians, or if it was very unlikely to hit them, or if he was under enemy fire and was trying to protect himself and has not seen them, then OK he should not be sued

but if it was obvious that there were civilians around the armed guy, he should not have opened fire

Click to expand...

Uh, Bub, the rules and laws are different in combat-- that's why you're allowed to kill people in combat. You do know that one is normally restrained for doing this, and that the law outside of combat frowns on this practice, yes?

I see there are no military personell who have responed to this so... In the military we, like police officers are taught to be mindful of where we fire, including of those that are behind our target. If we fire at our target and hit an inocent civilian then thats our butt. There would be much ut rage if a police officer fired at a bank robber and hit some poor kid in the back ground, it is that same for us. It is illegal and we are held accountable for it.

kamino said:

I see there are no military personell who have responed to this so... In the military we, like police officers are taught to be mindful of where we fire, including of those that are behind our target. If we fire at our target and hit an inocent civilian then thats our butt. There would be much ut rage if a police officer fired at a bank robber and hit some poor kid in the back ground, it is that same for us. It is illegal and we are held accountable for it.

Click to expand...

Like the OP, I think your statement is too broad. As I explained in my previous post, much depends on circumstance and variables.

Goobieman said:

Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?

Click to expand...

Depends of RoE.

kamino said:

I see there are no military personell who have responed to this so... In the military we, like police officers are taught to be mindful of where we fire, including of those that are behind our target. If we fire at our target and hit an inocent civilian then thats our butt. There would be much ut rage if a police officer fired at a bank robber and hit some poor kid in the back ground, it is that same for us. It is illegal and we are held accountable for it.

Click to expand...

I think in the minds of some the Laws of War and RoE are immaterial if the ends seem to justify the means or as civilians they are ignorant to its existance for the Armed Forces.

Iriemon said:

So what's your point? Soldiers can indiscriminately shoot civilians and that's fineAnd I never said that; I am saying that war is hell and is not a place for civilians to be strolling about., because this is war!?
Yes and the horrible definition of war must be known by all - this does not seem to be the case.....There are areas in some American cities where a war zone exists..

There wouldn't be peace whether Islam existed or not. If not them it's the Russians or the Germans or the Chinese or someone. Too many benefit from an external threat.

Click to expand...

.
The Germans seem to be an-ex problem; the Chinese and Russians never were.
Radical Islam is a problem...
Total peace may be an impossibility as all groups have their criminal element..

Goobieman said:

Scenario:
-Present day
-US soldiers in Iraq, fighting a group of insurgents.
-US machinegun fire goes thru and then past the insurgents' position, striking a group of Iraqi civilians, killig several.

Have the US soldiers committed a crime?

Click to expand...

Just collateral damadge.

bub said:

why? he's still responsible!

when you kill someone while driving your car, it's not a "crime" but you still have killed someone and depending on the circumstances you could spend several years in jail

=> if he could not have seen the civilians, or if it was very unlikely to hit them, or if he was under enemy fire and was trying to protect himself and has not seen them, then OK he should not be sued

but if it was obvious that there were civilians around the armed guy, he should not have opened fire

Click to expand...

Until you've spent time in combat you are not qualified to make such an assesment.

When a terrorist is shooting at marine; that marine is 100% justified in firing back.

Vader said:

Until you've spent time in combat you are not qualified to make such an assesment.

When a terrorist is shooting at marine; that marine is 100% justified in firing back.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to you Vader;

These scenarios are so superficial it's not possible to make a just determination and I understand your retort is based on a response to someone you feel is not qualified to make an informed assessment of combat and the engagement of the enemy.

May I state, as an add on to your response, that we who now serve and have served our nation faithfully will/would never engage the enemy in a manner which ignores the Laws of War nor the standing RoE nor purposefully endangers, injures or kills innocent/non-combatants. To do so would be a violation of the GC/HC, International Law, the UCMJ and is punishable under the MCM's.

Does that mean we can/could at all times keep from endangering, injuring or killing the innocent. No! Does that mean there are some in the service of our Armed Forces who would violate the LoW and Roe? Absolutely. Just as there are cowards who serve and by their inactions cause the direct death of their comrades in arms. But for the most part our men and women who fight will not purposefully murder, maim or destroy the innocent. That is the purview of terrorists.

rsixing said:

With all due respect to you Vader;

These scenarios are so superficial it's not possible to make a just determination and I understand your retort is based on a response to someone you feel is not qualified to make an informed assessment of combat and the engagement of the enemy.

May I state, as an add on to your response, that we who now serve and have served our nation faithfully will/would never engage the enemy in a manner which ignores the Laws of War nor the standing RoE nor purposefully endangers, injures or kills innocent/non-combatants. To do so would be a violation of the GC/HC, International Law, the UCMJ and is punishable under the MCM's.

Does that mean we can/could at all times keep from endangering, injuring or killing the innocent. No! Does that mean there are some in the service of our Armed Forces who would violate the LoW and Roe? Absolutely. Just as there are cowards who serve and by their inactions cause the direct death of their comrades in arms. But for the most part our men and women who fight will not purposefully murder, maim or destroy the innocent. That is the purview of terrorists.

Click to expand...

We do not set out to kill innocent people. We are there to do a job. Sometimes in the course of combat a terrorist will carry out an attack when civilians are present.

This is always unfortunate and it is a horrifying situation to be in.

There is a choice that every soldier must make when he or she is faced with the task of taking down a terrorist.

That choice is ... return fire or get killed. This is a choice that plagues good men and women in combat. I am sorry for those unlucky enough to get caught in the middle.

I would choose to live. I would fire on the terrorist in hopes of saving my life and the lives of everybody else concerned.

In terms of the USMC and the LOW, returning fire on those who attack us is an internationally accepted practice.

In combat, we often do not have the time or manpower to sweep a given area for civilians while engaging the enemy.

When civilians get injured as a result of a fire fight it is tragic. Though I think most people will run away when a gun fight breaks out. Those who refuse to do so are placing themselves in jeopardy.

These kinds of casulaties are not the result of a failure to obey the rules of engagement. There are an unfortunate side effect of a war.

Terrorist often choose to engage coalition forces when civilians are present because they like using civilians as shields.

The resulting fall out is often used by islam-o-nazi propagandists to further fan the flames of hate... despite the fact that the situation was created by the terrorists and those who order the attacks but lack the balls to carry them out.

I would like to say that I appreciate the kindness and respect you showed in addressing this issue. It means a lot to me that some people appreciate the sacrifice our armed forces make for us each and every day.

Vader said:

Until you've spent time in combat you are not qualified to make such an assesment.

When a terrorist is shooting at marine; that marine is 100% justified in firing back.

Click to expand...

He said insurgents, not terrorists.

Vader said:

We do not set out to kill innocent people. We are there to do a job. Sometimes in the course of combat a terrorist will carry out an attack when civilians are present.

...

I would choose to live. I would fire on the terrorist in hopes of saving my life and the lives of everybody else concerned.

Click to expand...

Would you fire if there was a slim chance of killing the insurgent and a high chance of killing civilians? Where do you draw the line between doing your job (ensure the stability of the Iraqi government and safety of its citizens) and saving yourself?