Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations

[Michael OLeary]

I guess I was expecting some SUGGESTION of a threat, rather than just shooting.

Silly me for reading the scenario.

 

[George Wallace]

Nice cut and paste job. My full reponse, with the relevant bits bolded, was:

Actually, No.  I cut out and quoted the only important part of your flawed reasoning.  All the rest if fluff.  You are bound by the laws of the land, Canada and whatever nation you may be in; the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict.  ROEs have very little to say about the shooting of any unarmed belligerent, whereas all of the afore mentioned do.  ROEs are derived from these laws, not the other way around. 

 

[George Wallace]

Can you shoot enemy soldiers who are not armed and actively engaging you? Yes, provided your ROEs don't remove this option from you.

I don't know what your fixation is on ROEs.  ROEs change with every Peacekeeping Msn.  ROEs are a recent invention to put down legal parameters drawn from our existing Laws by which troops would follow on recent Peacekeeping Msns.  I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy.  We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.  What makes your interpretation of this scenario any different?  You haven't killed an enemy combatant, you murdered him.

 

[George Wallace]

.........., please quote me the LOAC/GC article.

Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 3)

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.






Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 130)

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

 

[McG]

I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy. 

There were.  Even in the Second World War there were RoE attempting to limit damage as the Allies pushed through France.

We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.

There have been trials for shooting pers that were hor de combat, but can you find one war-time example of a trial for shooting an un-armed enemy soldier who was not hors de combat?  Simply not having a weapon in one's hands does not make one hors de combat. 

If you doubt me, check with your legal advisor.  I have had this conversation with mine.

 

[Kat Stevens]

A declared, identified  enemy soldier is ripe for a ventilating, threat be buggered.  Does a sniper in concealement wait to come under effective fire before killing an enemy combatant?  Of course not.  Step in the beaten zone, expect to get beaten.

 

[Brutus]

There is no indication that he 'laid down his arms' (an act of talking oneself out of the fight), but rather that his weapon is not in his hands. There is nothing to suggest that he has surrendered. Your ref does not apply to this enemy soldier.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What I took from the question (which I may not have explained very well in hindsight) in the example given to us was that it was a given that your soldier indeed broke the law and your options were to

a. Report the soldier
b. Pretend it never happened.

a was the DS answer.
The temptation for b comes into play in that there was a really big chance if you didn't report it no one would ever know a law had been broken as well the assault/rape was thrown in to give some the suggestion of "good for him he got what he deserved"

 

[dogger1936]

I have to agree with MCG. There is a soldier in a room and you got the drop on him (his back is to you) plug him till he dies. Regardless of where his weapon is/ who raped who he is your enemy ...why give him the chance to do anything?

Now if the story played out during a OP Harvest in yugoslavia you walked in on a serbian soldier doing this yes roe /esclation up to deadly force would be used.

however in this scenerio plug him report and carry on. No questions asked.

 

[PuckChaser]

You're making assumptions; one must deal with the facts at hand. The "facts" you work with are given in the scenario - we are not supposed to "assume" anything; we are supposed to act based on the facts at hand. There's no choking, no knife, no rushing the troop given. Nada. Given that there was none of those in the scenario ... what would you do using the "facts" of the scenario - that is the question.

Of course if I was investigating this scenario I'd never lead the soldier in question as to what "could" have allowed him deadly force. Just simply stating for arguments sake that there are other conditions that could have existed outside of the given information that may have occured.

 

[Cdnleaf]

I don't know what your fixation is on ROEs.  ROEs change with every Peacekeeping Msn.  ROEs are a recent invention to put down legal parameters drawn from our existing Laws by which troops would follow on recent Peacekeeping Msns.  I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy.  We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.  What makes your interpretation of this scenario any different?  You haven't killed an enemy combatant, you murdered him.

From a historical perspective, it would be interesting to see if there are any declassified ROE or cards if they existed for Korea/WWII.  Must ask that question next time I'm at the War Museum.  It would be a great question to ask some of the vets at The Perley Rideau if the relationship was there to talk about it.  Unfortunately both my Grandfathers / WWII Veterans have passed, though I still have a greatuncle who was a pilot during WWII.  Thanks.

 

[KevinB]

I cannot beleive this scenario is still being discussed.

It is okay to shot the enemy.

It is not okay to knock him out, tie him up and use a blowtorch on his testicals.


Heck note it in your mission log and put Bloggins in for a CDS commendation if you want, it does not bear NIS/MP/CoC Investigation, unless Bloggins dick was out of his pants.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Heck note it in your mission log and put Bloggins in for a CDS commendation if you want, it does not bear NIS/MP/CoC Investigation, unless Bloggins dick was out of his pants.

Then again if you're force protection in Afghanistan there is an  "investigation" by the NIS/MP if you fire a pen flare in the air as an ROE escalation..

 

[Brutus]

I'd be interested in knowing why George and Michael felt this was not a legal act. I'd also really like to know why the ds of the OP felt this was illegal...perhaps the actual scenario did not state that the man was an enemy soldier, but just 'a man'.

 

[Brutus]

If you were manning the C6 in a raid, would you not put a burst into the outhouse? The barracks/sleeping quarters? Clearly any enemy soldiers in either of these locations are not currently a threat at that exact moment, but we kill them anyhow...right?

How does the OP's scenario differ in principle or ethics?

 

[McG]

What I took from the question (which I may not have explained very well in hindsight) in the example given to us was that it was a given that your soldier indeed broke the law ...

While your instructor may have presented an effective ethical lesson & discussion, he unfortunately reinforced a bad lesson in the laws of armed conflict.  Is it possible that you forgot to provide some background on RoE in the scenario you described, or that the "enemy soldier" was less certainly a combatant?

We haven't fought enemy soldiers since Korea, and this thread is showing an unfortunate result.  Over the last decades we have operated under RoE in theatres where we are conducting peace operations around belligerent soldiers, or where we are conducting combat operations against an irregular/guerrilla enemy.  RoE are always more restrictive than LoAC and they incorporate such other things as political considerations, command control measures, risk mitigation, and desired military effects.  Unfortunately, many are now confusing past RoE restrictions (based on peace-support mandates or designed to protect civilians where it is difficult to distinguish the enemy from the population) as being something more than RoE - these past RoE are being confused as the overarching LoAC that governs all conflict.

 

[dogger1936]

Then again if you're force protection in Afghanistan there is an  "investigation" by the NIS/MP if you fire a pen flare in the air as an ROE escalation..

That is sad.Glad my tour wasnt like that. However implication of micromanagement usually means things are getting slow/ safer. If not the snr NCO's arent doing their jobs.

 

[ArmyRick]

Time for my out spoken opinions (like it or not).

How about comparing this to some other "off" situations (by off, I mean outside the box). In Generation Kill (Evan Wright's book), they mention how the marines asked for a change in ROE to engage unarmed enemy soldiers using cell phones because they were suspected of being spotters. The change was approved. A tactical action is a tactical action. Period. Those spotters were not armed but they were performing a vital task to allow mortars to engage the marines.

What about the sniper who has been tasked to kill an enemy general? What if that general was unarmed? Does the sniper in his OP go "damn, he is not armed". No he goes with his mission and takes him out. That general may never carry a weapon through the war/battle but by his being their and making decisions, he is enabling tactical action.

How about thinking about stuff like that instead of really gay 90s scenarios about peacekeeping?

Food for thought.

"The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy"

 

[Michael OLeary]

Thinking .....

Like inventing scenarios that have nothing in common with the example to "prove" your point?

Yeah, thinking, got it.

Sorry, I thought it was an ethics question.

 

[ArmyRick]

This thread deals with ethical and legal issues in ops, right? I am just trying to get people to look at things from different angles. BTW, I am qualified unit ethics coordinator  :

If I said to a typical young soldier "Would you ever shoot an enemy soldier between the eyes who is completely unarmed and poses no immediate threat to you? You and I know, Mike, they would probably say no never, etc, etc.

But then look at my sniper scenario who mission it is to kill that enemy general. Or US Marines shooting unarmed spotters.

Both the general and the spotters are very legit targets, right?

I wanted to give troops something to think about. Legal and ethics are involved here.