Disclosure: Am USAF veteran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Sung
The US recently murdered 10 innocent civilians in a drone strike in Kabul. Not 1 enemy person was killed by the drone attack .... ONLY 10 innocent civilians were killed by the US.
|
Flawed intelligence mitigate the murder charge. The word 'murder' involves full knowledge of the target's characters and the attacker's intent with said full knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Sung
Imagine the outrage in the US if a foreign country sent a drone to the US to attack a military target, but instead the drone attack killed 10 innocent civilians. The US would call it a "war crime" and would attempt to hunt down and kill those responsible.
|
It depends.
How was the target changed from 'military' to 'civilian'? If the change was from a technical error, then it is not a war crime. The technical issues includes intelligence error, some kind of hard/soft ware malfunction, and even the weather can factored in.
The problem for the charge of 'war crime' is compounded by the way the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters conduct themselves.
Under Geneva Convention III Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, there is the concept of a 'privileged combatant', meaning one is allowed to kill without
LEGAL repercussions. Companion to the 'privileged combatant' is the concept of the 'legal target', meaning one who fits certain criteria cannot be killed in the course of a war.
So what made me, when I was active duty, a 'privileged combatant' ?
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
It does not matter my job. The moment became a
UNIFORMED member of the US military, all of the above criteria applied.
But that does not mean I am 'licensed to kill'. The second concept, that of a 'legal target', comes into play.
So who would be my 'legal target'? Anyone who fit the 'privileged combatant' criteria.
In other words, soldiers can kill soldiers, airman against airman, and sailors against sailors. All legal. There are finer points regarding those who surrendered or wounded, but we can leave that for another discussion. Another finer point is that the chaplain, while a uniformed member, is not a 'privileged combatant' therefore an 'illegal target', meaning the chaplain cannot kill and cannot be killed without
LEGAL consequences.
Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters falls under item 'a':
That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
But they stopped at 'a'.
No one forced them to stop at 'a'. Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters do not have to wear camo-ed BDU or anything like Western militaries do. They can wear distinctive turbans, armbands, or different robes for all we care. As long as they made themselves standouts from non-combatants, item 'b' would apply and make them 'privileged combatant'. But since they refused to comply with 'b' they are not 'privileged combatants'.
Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters often do not comply with item 'c', that of carrying weapons in the open. The reason for this requirement is philosophical in that if you carry weapons, you must be a 'man-at-arms'. The corollary to this requirement is that you must somehow be physically apart from non-combatants as much as possible. In other words, no mingling with non-combatants. Failure to comply made Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters not 'privileged combatants'.
Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters do not respect the long list of what constitutes 'honorable combat', aka those laws and customs of war. Executions of POWs without trials, for one example. Using 'human shields', for another example. Drafting of lower than 18 yrs of age into its ranks, for another example. Refusal to comply with 'd' make them not 'privileged combatant'.
If you are not a 'privileged combatant', you are an 'illegal combatant', then you can be killed and those who killed you will face no
LEGAL repercussions.
But precisely because Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters uses human shields, hide their weapons when convenient, and do not separate themselves from non-combatants, we have to rely on HUMINT to tell us who is or is not a 'legal target'. In this event, HUMINT failed US. We can say that the US was negligent and/or hasty to pull the trigger, but not necessarily 'murderous', as in we know
EXACTLY those people were 'illegal targets' and killed them.
There is a reason why I used the word 'non-combatant' and not 'civilian'.
Legally speaking, all Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters are civilians. Back in WW II, militias resisting Nazi occupations were legally civilians. But they were combatants. Many of them conformed to general principles of a uniformed military. Many did not. The current Geneva Convention were created after WW II but we can apply the conventions
post hoc, for the sake of discussion.
When I was active duty, can I somehow become an 'illegal combatant'? Yes. Any uniformed member of any military is legally obligated to be in uniform when in combat operations. Just to use three examples: if I discard my uniform and fight, or discard my uniform and don civilian clothing to conduct reconnaissance, or put on the Red Cross emblem, I become an 'illegal combatant'.
If I discard my uniform and conduct reconnaissance operations, then if I am captured, I do not earn POW status and the enemy can execute me on the spot with no legal repercussions. I was a soldier turned spy, therefore, forfeited all Geneva Convention protections.
If I got shot down and survived, can I discard my uniform, don 'civilian' clothes, and mingle with the general population to escape detection/capture? This is a grey area. You cannot deny the human urge for self preservation. I can argue that since all I did was hide, I have Geneva Convention protections as a POW. But the enemy can execute me because I was out of uniform and did it deliberately.
In the movie 'The Dirty Dozen', in an exercise the team disguised themselves as medics and took over some critical targets. What they did was illegal under accepted customs of war. Philosophically speaking, medics should be protected but they must display prominently on their persons the Red Cross, or the Red Crescent, or any other emblem signifying humanitarian missions. It is illegal to kill any medic if the medic conformed to the requirements. In the fog of war, such is not always observed but the legal requirements are still there for all sides. So when the Dirty Dozen disguised themselves as medics, they put all medics in danger. There are finer distinctions between a medic and someone who is a combatant but have medical training, like the USAF Pararescue airmen. PJs are
NOT medics. PJs are 'privileged combatants' therefore 'legal targets'.
The list of legal issues in war is beyond the scope of this discussion/debate, and is long enough to warrant a full military career devoted to that list.
What I posted is not meant to excuse the tragedy but to point out the moral dangers of the charge of 'murder' without knowing the legality and the details of the event. The word 'murder' is both a legal and emotionally incendiary charge. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda know full well that Western mililtaries observed the Geneva Convention and
WILL exploit what they believe to be a weakness. When I got orders to deploy to Desert Storm, part of the deployment included a briefing on how the Iraqi Army, despite being a formal army,
WILL, not merely suspected, of resorting to illegal means of combat, and that allied forces are still expected to obey the Geneva Convention no matter what the Iraqi Army do. Like it or not, that part of the world is not as legally and morally sophisticated as the West. Call me a bigot, if you want, but for anyone, civilian or military, have been over to the ME, quickly he will see the truths about the society there.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
