Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)
Moderator's Note
The author of this post suggested the thread's title be changed from 'Achilles Heel: getting our arses kicked by kids?' and so with consummate legal skill jmm99 has suggested:
Quote:
'Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations'
So far a number of those "special protectees" have been mentioned:
1. child soldiers
2. children in general
3. civilians in general
4. persons held under a belligerent's power (de hors rule #1)
5. persons wounded (de hors rule #2)
6. persons surrendering (de hors rule #3)
7. medical rescuers (military & civilian)
We might subtitle it:
"How honest, law-abiding regular forces are getting their arses shot off because a cloud-cuckoo-wunderland morass has been imposed on them to create criminal sanctions against dishonest, law-shirking regular and irregular forces who could care less because the Hague is too remote".
With credits to Tukhii and NZ O'Neill.
Original Post below
I have been thinking about ways our enemies could continue to gut us morally (in terms of atatcking the legitimacy of our governments at home) and of how Muslim combatants could pursue their goals by using our own culture against us. So, what would our strategy, or more importantly, our rules of engagement be, if, say during a "humantarian" intervention into Darfur or Ethiopia we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers?
First off, my druthers are not to intervene ....
with US troops in either Darfur or Ethiopia (perhaps, funding of efforts by Lagrange et al, but no military intervention).
That being said, you have two very different military responses.
One is from The Horse Soldiers, where Wayne and his troopers are confronted by the cadets from a local military school (Jefferson Military Academy). The scene in the movie is known appropriately as "The Great Skedaddle".
The other is from Dr. Zhivago, where his Red partisan unit is confronted by the cadets from a local military school (St. Michael's Military Academy). That scene should be called "Well-aimed MG and rifle fires are always effective against soldiers of all ages".
Regards
Mike
in a children's crusade, who plays the heavy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tukhachevskii
... if we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers[/url]?
Mexico just celebrated the anniversary remembrance of their young cadets glorious 'death before surrender' at the hands of the US expeditionary force approaching (and occupying) Mexico City.
On the level of unintended consequences, our rapid successes during the invasion of Mexico led to the reinstatement to command of liberation general Santa Ana, hated by Texans as the 'butcher of Goliad'. Vigorously opposing Polk's war nearly ended the political career (and did unseat) freshman Congressman Abe Lincoln.
There are two rules of engagement to consider
One is the rule based on self-defense. That rule is always in play and permits killing a hostile threat - an armed, hostile threat from a child is the same legally as an armed hostile threat from an adult.
In both of the movie scenes, the child soldiers were in attack mode against the Union cavalry in one case and the Red Guards in the other (a less aggressive attack in the latter case, but an advance none the less). So, the always in effect self-defense rule applied in both cases.
Both movies are set in civil wars. Since both groups of child soldiers involved uniformed military forces, the cadets could be regarded as designated hostile forces as to which kill or capture would apply regardless of an armed, hostile threat or not.
I seriously cited the two movies as examples.
Regards
Mike
Again, JMA, not quite ...
with this:
Quote:
from JMA
If he is armed... you shoot him.
Lots of folks run around armed in many areas of the world; e.g., Pashtunistan, Dayuhan's Mountain Province and even Michigan. So, some indicia of hostility must be present.
Now, if where you are people are not armed (unless they are good guys or bad guys), being armed is itself an indicia of hostility. Also, if the person is PID'd as a member of a designated hostile force, whether he is armed or unarmed, hostile or not hostile himself, are not material to the shoot.
As to dealing with war criminals in the field, I'd much prefer on-site military tribunals over not taking prisoners. Once upon a time (through WWI per our Articles), the field commander could convene a board (usually 3 or 5 members) and try war criminals on the spot.
Regards
Mike