Can't say whether he violated the rules or not, wasn't there.
Nor do I believe anyone else who was not can make that determination -- and that includes the members of the Court...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
socal1200r
Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda...did he, or did he not, violate the ROE's that were in effect at the time, yes or no? Can't make it any more black and white than that...I say "yes", others say "no", so it'll be up to which side has the better lawyers in the end...
You may be correct in your final assessment, however, the real question is; Should it come to that point?
ROE are necessary but like all rules and regulations they are merely a guide. Human judgment has to be applied and sometimes those rules must -- I use that word advisedly -- be transgressed. Slavish adherence to rules is, simply, stupid because no rules can account for every situation. In war or combat, such adherence is not only potentially stupid, it is literally a killer (not least because it sets up mind numbing predictability, a tactical no-no for thousands of years...).
War requires a lot of judgement calls and entails taking risks -- anyone not willing to acknowledge and live with that ought to find another line of work. The 'safety' of adherence to rules is remarkably inimical to combat survival but it's great for job security in an Army at peace -- and make no mistake, the US Army as an institution is at peace and has been since 1945.
Slapout is right, we're being played for yo-yos. Our fetish for 'rules' and the 'better lawyer' syndrome are not helping.
Battle Hymn Of Lt. William Calley
Link to
"The Battle Hymn Of Lt. William Calley"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNsXIxBkqs
Question and an observation ...
First, the question: Does anyone know who his BDE Commander is?
Second, the observation: I was stuck in Kuwait in 2004 ... Day trips and week-long boondoggles into Iraq ... but mostly stuck in Arifjan. Anyway, a guard at Camp Doha, where there was no action occurring, was confronted with a person trying to enter the post through the gate he was guarding. The soldier was not guarding an entry control point, just a usually unused logistical access point. The person was drunk and was not responding since he did not understand English. He continued to approach the gate. The ROE at that time basically said that if you were threatened you should engage the threat. Instead the Soldier fired a warning shot. He received an ART 15 for not following the ROE. If he had believed the individual was a threat he should have shot the individual.
My how things have changed. :confused:
Article 32 100% in favor of Walter Taylor
LA Times, Officer advises against court-martial in Afghanistan shooting death (3 Aug 2012; by Kim Murphy):
Quote:
An Army sergeant facing a charge of negligent homicide in the fatal shooting of a popular Afghan physician should not have to face court-martial, a military hearing officer concluded Thursday.
In a strongly worded report, Lt. Col. Alva Hart found in favor of Sgt. 1st Class Walter Taylor on every point, saying there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The shooting — following a confusing firefight in central Afghanistan — has raised questions about the strict rules of engagement to which U.S. soldiers are held in attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
...
Hart found no fault with the rules of engagement or with Taylor. He said the 31-year-old noncommissioned officer had complied with rules as well as could be expected.
Several members of the convoy had opened fire on Hikmat's car long before Taylor began approaching it, he noted, and at least one of them had positively identified it as hostile.
"By driving into the firefight, the vehicle operated in a manner inconsistent with the prior experience of any of the testifying members of the [platoon]. Due to its unusual behavior, the potential threat posed by the vehicle as a possible [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device] should have increased in the minds of [platoon] members," the officer found.
"Therefore, I find that a reasonable person, under these circumstances, with the training provided, and knowledge gained through daily operations, would determine that the vehicle's actions were the prelude to an imminent use of force against" the platoon, he said.
In any case, he added, positive identification of hostile combatants "is based on a reasonable certainty … not a 100% mathematical certainty, and … requires balancing the risk of collateral damage with mission objectives and force protection."
The Convening Authority could override the Article 32 officer; but that would be unusual.
Regards
Mike