[VID]Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants

[K e r b e r o s]

I never thought you were just being blindly conservative, since you're not exactly a Republican mouthpiece, but your arguments did not stand up. That was all.

Our arguments tend to be perceptions (at certain moments); and we bump heads with each other during debates because we each see a different thing. It's no big deal, really.

my initial statement was vague, but you completely ignored the clarification:

I think we both ignored things, probably out of our usual habits; and thats wanting to correct each other simultaneously by restating our positions sometimes without realizing its no longer nessecary. This time, you clarified and I ooops'ed. My bad.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And also because you keep editing your posts D:

That is an interesting picture. In light of it, I see how it would have been justifiable for you to begin your thread title with "two [unidentified] helicopters..." To your credit, one of the choppers does look like it could be an apache.

I GUESS THE THREAD TITLE WAS SLIGHTLY LESS TROLLISH THAN INITIALLY THOUGHT

 

[Kadayi]

Yadda yadda yadda

*exits stage left........

So you're not going to answer the question then? ;(



:dozey:

 

[lefty]

Kadayi, why are you always so tired?

 

[CptStern]

he's stoned, not tired ....damn stoners

 

[Tyguy]

So you're not going to answer the question then? ;(



:dozey:

You asked me when is it not ok to shoot a civilian. It's never ok to shoot a civilian. Was the guy in the video a civilian? Well, I stated SEVERAL times that I was operating under the assumption that he was an insurgent, and that all of my opinions were based on that assumption. Just like you made the automatic assumption that he was a civilian. Do you understand this concept? I don't think you do because you keep trying to make it sound like I think its ok for pilots to strafe and fire at the ground killing everybody in sight. I'm still not sure that you have actually read the entire discussion.

If this doesn't answer your question then its apparent you are just trolling along trying to derail this even further. As I said in my previous post, PM me if you want to talk, Id rather not waste everyone else's time by playing your games.

 

[Glirk Dient]

If this doesn't answer your question then its apparent you are just trolling along trying to derail this even further. As I said in my previous post, PM me if you want to talk, Id rather not waste everyone else's time by playing your games.

Insurgent isn't a classification. He is either an enemy combatant or a civilian. If he were a civilian the pilot should not shoot him when surrendering. If he were an enemy combatant the same rules apply. You never shoot someone who is surrendering for any reason.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If this doesn't answer your question then its apparent you are just trolling along trying to derail this even further. As I said in my previous post, PM me if you want to talk, Id rather not waste everyone else's time by playing your games.

I think I find the international law debate more interesting than the scrutinise-the-grainy-video debate.

I'd still like to know why you think it would be alright to shoot a civilian combatant who surrenders. To surrender is to deliver yourself into the hands of the enemy. To be in the hands of the enemy is, as per the Geneva Conventions, to be treated as a POW. Because if there is any doubt at all as to whether a combatant is a legitimate one [there is in this case] his status must still be determined by tribunal before he can be declared an unlawful combatant. 'Protected persons' get protection, and the term 'protected person' is defined as anyone who falls into the hands of a Party to the conflict in any manner whatsoever.

The conventions quantify necessity, which is why it's alright by them to shoot an enemy in combat, but not to shoot a surrendered adversary.

So he's an "insurgent". When is it not alright to shoot a surrendering insurgent?

EDIT: I made a post below, which was responding to Nuri's post a while back, but then I realised that his argument was self-evidently full of assumptions that were untenable (like "the pilot definitely definitely fired before the man threw up his hands", or that a car that is coming to a stop can reasonably be seen as a "resisting and a potential threat" to a helicopter), and kept claiming of me of things I never said (like "you want me to accuse the pilot of murder").

 

[lame-o]

I don't usually post here but seeing this I feel like actually logging in and typing something...

First of all, hasn't anyone seen Apocalypse Now?

Secondly, why does everyone all of a sudden take side with the LAW? The law is morally meaningless as many of you have shown yourselves through smoking pot or downloading movies/games/music. It's simply a means of controlling a population.

Lastly, this really isn't something you can debate about. The incident was the outcome of many choices, both good and bad, made by many people. That's life. And life is most perfectly expressed through war. How can there be war without tragedy anyway?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Secondly, why does everyone all of a sudden take side with the LAW? The law is morally meaningless as many of you have shown yourselves through smoking pot or downloading movies/games/music. It's simply a means of controlling a population.

My, it would certainly interesting to debate what is wrong with the Geneva laws. Perhaps you'd like to start the thread.

 

[VirusType2]

Insurgent isn't a classification. He is either an enemy combatant or a civilian. If he were a civilian the pilot should not shoot him when surrendering. If he were an enemy combatant the same rules apply. You never shoot someone who is surrendering for any reason.

what if there is a good chance they have a bomb strapped around their waist?


I'm not condoning it BTW, just adding another possible reason for this - not entirely understood scenario in the video.

 

[Tyguy]

I think I find the international law debate more interesting than the scrutinise-the-grainy-video debate.

I'd still like to know why you think it would be alright to shoot a civilian combatant who surrenders. To surrender is to deliver yourself into the hands of the enemy. To be in the hands of the enemy is, as per the Geneva Conventions, to be treated as a POW. Because if there is any doubt at all as to whether a combatant is a legitimate one [there is in this case] his status must still be determined by tribunal before he can be declared an unlawful combatant. 'Protected persons' get protection, and the term 'protected person' is defined as anyone who falls into the hands of a Party to the conflict in any manner whatsoever.

The conventions quantify necessity, which is why it's alright by them to shoot an enemy in combat, but not to shoot a surrendered adversary.

So he's an "insurgent". When is it not alright to shoot a surrendering insurgent?

EDIT: I made a post below, which was responding to Nuri's post a while back, but then I realised that his argument was self-evidently full of assumptions that were untenable (like "the pilot definitely definitely fired before the man threw up his hands", or that a car that is coming to a stop can reasonably be seen as a "resisting and a potential threat" to a helicopter), and kept claiming of me of things I never said (like "you want me to accuse the pilot of murder").

I'm looking at this situation through a pilots perspective. If all soldiers are on the ground and this man surrenders, I fully support the notion that he should be apprehended and face our judicial system. My point is that when you are flying a chopper (sometimes hundreds of miles away from the nearest base) you aren't in a position to take prisoners. Furthermore, you aren't in a position to send in troops to apprehend this suspect who cannot be identified. Such an idea is ludicrous and would never be accepted as a military operation. So, I hope that covers the whole "ground team" scenario.

What's left is what to do when you see an insurgent (who happened to be fleeing the scene). He has already been engaged by the pilot, meaning that he was obviously seen violating his right to be considered a civilian. Some of you would suggest affording him rights he is now not entitled to under the geneva convention. I keep hearing the term POW float around, yet this man is not a POW, a detainee, ect. The only other option this pilot has besides engaging him further is to abort and go home.

This is what I meant earlier when I said there seems to be a loophole with this kind of reasoning. If an enemy combatant can surrender without the possibility of apprehension, the most obvious course of action he will take is to run away and continue what it was he was doing. I don't know why I was accused (several times) of condoning the death of innocent civilians but if you watch a bunch of these kinds of videos with audio, you will usually hear the pilot/gunner request permission to engage targets he feels are a direct threat to coalition forces.

It all boils down to we either let him go or kill him. I understand having a helicopter is an extreme advantage over insurgents, but such is life. As Nuri and I have said, an insurgent cannot qualify as a member of a recognized armed force. Instead, they are recognized as individuals who break the laws of war (IE wearing civilian clothing, taking hostages)
I understand seeing a person who appears to be innocent is the major catalyst for your arguments but you have to realize that he was more than likely engaging in hostile activities.

Sulk, you said yourself, surrendering is delivering yourself to the hands of the enemy. Except, we cannot take control of this individual in any way, shape or form. Extracting this man from hostile territory is too risky and quite frankly, not worth our resources.

I know I said I was done with this thread but as long as it's kept impersonal, Id love to continue this talk.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter to me that he was "engaging in hostile activities". If he surrenders, he is in your hands, and you shoot him because to do otherwise would be inconvenient, that is summary execution. That isn't justice. And 'justice', we are continaully assured, is what we are doing in the middle east.

Spoiler

that would surfice as my rebuttal on its own! And yet I can't help mentioning that you are making a rather large and unfounded assumption when you say that the area is 'hostile', that it'd be impossible to get ground people in, that there'd be no ground troops nearby (it's a road!), that ooh I dunno the Iraqi police could be of no conceivable assistance, etc. It's a big assumption that "we cannot take control of this indiviual in any way, shape or form", just as it's a big assumption that because the guy is an insurgent, he gets to die. If he can be captured alive, he should, because if he's such a self-evide bad boy and done such bad things then it'll come out in a trial, won't it? Not to mention that if there are places in Iraq where it is possible to catch an insurgent but not be able to capture him, that says very bad things about the military's competence.

Further, you seem to have ignored once again the reason that the term POW is floating around. I believe it has been explained clearly already but for your benefit I will repeat: to surrender is to become a detainee, and to be a detainee is to be treated as a POW until combatant status can be decided. And it's a court that makes that call. It is in the Convention. It is clear as day. You can say to me that sometimes the Convention is not sufficient, and that sometimes it is justifiable to go outside of it, but please don't try to claim that you can shoot a surrendering man and still be within the law. That just isn't true.

Finally, I'd like to elaborate on me saying "it's wrong". I accept that bad things happen in war. War makes it necessary to do things that are morally wrong. It is important to remember that this does not make those things not wrong, and even if you do them (maybe I would myself), when someone hears about it afterwards in a bar, and they crack you in your fucking nose, you are very aware that you deserve it. When you claim you have a moral motive for going to war, you better stick to your fucking principles. If not, then until you can demonstrate that you have ultimately saved and improved more lives than you have destroyed and diminished, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Tyguy]

Id like to address further the notion of apprehending this man if I may. I understand attempting to apprehend this man is not impossible, but unless you have one individual who is by himself, a ground team is going to make contact with insurgent forces while trying to get the guy. Maybe we differ here but I do not think it is logical to devote those kinds of resources in bringing in an individual who "isnt worth more than his gun". Do you?

 

[Glirk Dient]

what if there is a good chance they have a bomb strapped around their waist?


I'm not condoning it BTW, just adding another possible reason for this - not entirely understood scenario in the video.

If that is the case they are forfeiting their surrender as a suicide bombing is an aggressive action and the soldier can fire upon the person of they represent a threat, or a standoff will take place.

I'm looking at this situation through a pilots perspective. If all soldiers are on the ground and this man surrenders, I fully support the notion that he should be apprehended and face our judicial system. My point is that when you are flying a chopper (sometimes hundreds of miles away from the nearest base) you aren't in a position to take prisoners. Furthermore, you aren't in a position to send in troops to apprehend this suspect who cannot be identified. Such an idea is ludicrous and would never be accepted as a military operation. So, I hope that covers the whole "ground team" scenario.

What? Ever hear of the gulf war? Hundreds of enemy soldiers would surrender to a helicopter. Did they shoot all of the just because they didn't feel like waiting for ground troops? No, people would have been tried for war crimes. Laziness is never a reason to kill someone. I am not sure how you can possibly justify killing people because you just don't feel like letting them live.

What's left is what to do when you see an insurgent (who happened to be fleeing the scene). He has already been engaged by the pilot, meaning that he was obviously seen violating his right to be considered a civilian. Some of you would suggest affording him rights he is now not entitled to under the geneva convention. I keep hearing the term POW float around, yet this man is not a POW, a detainee, ect. The only other option this pilot has besides engaging him further is to abort and go home.

Insurgent is still not a classification. This person is either a civilian or an enemy combatant. Forget the word insurgent. No matter what this person is classified you can never shoot someone who is surrendering.

This is what I meant earlier when I said there seems to be a loophole with this kind of reasoning. If an enemy combatant can surrender without the possibility of apprehension, the most obvious course of action he will take is to run away and continue what it was he was doing. I don't know why I was accused (several times) of condoning the death of innocent civilians but if you watch a bunch of these kinds of videos with audio, you will usually hear the pilot/gunner request permission to engage targets he feels are a direct threat to coalition forces.

Because they are killing people, not surrendering. There is a major difference.

It all boils down to we either let him go or kill him. I understand having a helicopter is an extreme advantage over insurgents, but such is life. As Nuri and I have said, an insurgent cannot qualify as a member of a recognized armed force. Instead, they are recognized as individuals who break the laws of war (IE wearing civilian clothing, taking hostages)
I understand seeing a person who appears to be innocent is the major catalyst for your arguments but you have to realize that he was more than likely engaging in hostile activities.

Why can't the helicopter continue to strafe while it waits for nearby enemy troops? We have soldiers peppered all over, it wouldn't take days to get soldiers there, hours at most. It's also reasonable to understand that helicopters often support ground troops so we can assume ground troops would be in the area. Also you are still creating your own classification. It is generally understood that people who take arms against an opposing force are considered enemy combatants. Yes there is a grey line but you still can't create your own classification.

Sulk, you said yourself, surrendering is delivering yourself to the hands of the enemy. Except, we cannot take control of this individual in any way, shape or form. Extracting this man from hostile territory is too risky and quite frankly, not worth our resources.

How would he be a threat under arrest? Why can't we take control and arrest him and try him for whatever crimes he committed? Also it's not for us to decide who dies based upon our resources. We follow the Geneva convention no matter what. We can't commit war crimes just because it's convenient.

 

[Kadayi]

It's never ok to shoot a civilian.

Se we are agreed on that principle. That it's never acceptable to shoot civilians.

Now my next question is when is it acceptable to shoot someone whose surrendering?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Now my next question is when is it acceptable to shoot someone whose surrendering?

To be fair, I think Tyguy has answered this fairly clearly: in his opinion, it's okay to shoot someone who's surrendering when it's inconvenient to do otherwise.

Or, to be more charitable, specifically when it is utterly impossible to take someone into custody.

Spoiler

I don't think it would have been impossible, or even very inconvenient (compared to what troops do on a daily basis - slog) to take this particular man in. If he was driving along a road in a civilian car, hey, what are the odds it was a populated area with troops or even Iraqi forces/police fairly nearby?

 

[Escaep]

Maybe Osama was driving and we don't know it.

 

[Kadayi]

To be fair, I think Tyguy has answered this fairly clearly: in his opinion, it's okay to shoot someone who's surrendering when it's inconvenient to do otherwise.

Inconvenient as opposed to just? So trial without certainty seems to be the order of the day. God forbid the military get it wrong and follow the wrong man, I mean given the high incidence of friendly fire, what do you think the odds are that civilians do get killed, fair to middling?

 

[Tyguy]

What? Ever hear of the gulf war? Hundreds of enemy soldiers would surrender to a helicopter. Did they shoot all of the just because they didn't feel like waiting for ground troops? No, people would have been tried for war crimes. Laziness is never a reason to kill someone. I am not sure how you can possibly justify killing people because you just don't feel like letting them live.

gulf war was not fought by insurgents, it was fought by Iraq and coalition soldiers.

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but I think its relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNwbMeckS10&feature=related

 

[Solaris]

What use is that video?
Shows they execute a wounded man, thus breaching the geneva convention.

 

[Escaep]

What use is that video?
Shows they execute a wounded man, thus breaching the geneva convention.

I guess then all troops in WW2 who shot an enemy after already shooting him once should be tried for war crimes?

 

[CptStern]

only if they surrendered

 

[Escaep]

only if they surrendered

The guy in the video Tyguy just posted didn't appear to be surrendering.

 

[Mr Stabby]

If an enemy combatant is incapacitated what justification is there to shoot them?

 

[CptStern]

The guy in the video Tyguy just posted didn't appear to be surrendering.

he had his hands up ..should he have been waving a white flag? ..pretty sure that only works in cartoons

 

[Tyguy]

I didn't mean to spark another debate with that video, just trying to show that this is what actually happens during these types of missions. If you can find one video where they abort engaging a target because they're surrendering, Id like to see it.

 

[Escaep]

he had his hands up ..should he have been waving a white flag? ..pretty sure that only works in cartoons

Are you talking about the same video i am talking about?

If you were you can clearly see the guy they were shooting at near the truck was not trying to surrender while he was crawling away.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Funny you should post that video, Tyguy, as guess what a former General of the US army and an expert on international law say about it?

According to the pilot the Iraqi resistance fighter is wounded. Nevertheless, the instruction is to kill him. I think it would have made more sense much to arrest the wounded one, and interrogate him. But completely apart from that: the killing of a disabled, wounded opponent is forbidden. According to the Geneva convention, that’s murder.

International law sets that opposing combatants may be only fired at, so long as, how should I put this, are militarily active, and if they refrain from combat are required to be spared. Thus to that extent, the suspicion is that an offence against international law is present here, and serious offences against international law, against humanitarian international law, are war crimes.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/286153.html

And to back that up from the Convention itself: Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that parties must always, as a minimum, treat combatants (unlawful or lawful) that are out of the fight due to wounds or any other cause with humanity in all circumstances. Furthermore, are specifically forbidden: "violence to life and person" or "the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court".

So by all accounts, there is the distinct possibility that a war crime was committed in the course of that video.

 

[Glirk Dient]

gulf war was not fought by insurgents, it was fought by Iraq and coalition soldiers.

Again with this insurgent garbage. Do you consider insurgents civilians or enemy combatants? Also you still haven't answered when it's OK to shoot someone surrendering.

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but I think its relevant.

No it's not relevant. It's an entirely different issue of shooting someone who is wounded versus shooting someone who is surrendering.

 

[Escaep]

Geneva laws are stupid. So i guess we should shoot every enemy once then arrest them all? Because we would be hanged if we shot them twice.

 

[15357]

Geneva laws are stupid. So i guess we should shoot every enemy once then arrest them all? Because we would be hanged if we shot them twice.

Even though I am in favor of the laws of war, I would like to say that it is generally impossible to capture all enemy injured, because they are not incapaciated, and injured opponents are still capable of killing you.

Like the guy who lost an arm and a leg (literally) but kept on firing the vulcan cannon at the enemy.


Incapaciation of a target would have the target

a) unconscious
b) dead
c) completly unable to resist due to debilitating injury or trauma

 

[Sulkdodds]

Geneva laws are stupid. So i guess we should shoot every enemy once then arrest them all? Because we would be hanged if we shot them twice.

Misapprehension, put your hat on and come on down to the party!

Please consider the meaning of the phrase 'out of the fight'.

Hors de combat, literally meaning "out of the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to soldiers who are incapable of performing their military function.

The Geneva laws don't ask soldiers to do the impossible, or to withold their fire from an active, dangerous enemy. The laws are designed to protect soldiers. It would be a short-sighted error to assume that they exist to unfairly hinder them from defending themselves.

Numbers is right when he stresses the definition of the word 'incapacitated'. Where he goes wrong is in thinking that the Conventions ask more.