Haiti (Catch all)

[Tom Kratman]

Since the bus vignette and its Narrative seemed realistic to me, I thought Labaan might have some suggestions. He sounds like an interesting character.

As to shooting looters, that was part of the Detroit Riot - discussed as part of the COIN comes home thread. Ken White's unit did not find it necessary to shoot anyone, Went there, did that. "Shoot all the looters" is a good soundbite; so also "Shoot all irregular combatants".

As to the "fleeing felon" rule, some materials re: Tennessee v Garner are linked here, Tennessee v. Garner (part of the Astan ROE Change thread).

As to mutiny, I couldn't find any summary execution provisons in the Manual for Courts-Martial re: "mutiny" (searched all returns on the word). Obviously, during the active mutiny, we have a combat situation where "armed, hostile, shoot" would be a valid rule. Once the mutineers have surrendered, another story - see, Summary Execution.

True that Tony Waller was acquitted at his 1902 CM (for reasons that mostly avoided the merits); but in that case, there was more relative filth to cast at the flag grades (see J. Franklin Bell and Jacob H. Smith) than with the field and company grades who had to carry out the orders (dirty or not).

Within my own personal package of morals and ethics (and a vivid imagination), I could think of scenarios where my morals and ethics would allow summary actions (including executions) in sitations where "exigent circumstances" or "absolute necessity" exist. Others' morals and ethics would collide with mine. In general, discussing the extremes leads to extremes in discourse. In any event, "exigent circumstances" and "absolute necessity" are "jury nullification" arguments, which are thin reeds indeed. In Waller's case, they worked, but he never got to command the Corps.

Regards

Mike

Labaan is actually a "bad guy," except that he isn't. He's a good man doing a bad thing for the only group that matters to him, his tribe. He does have one such idea. I don't recall if it's before that passage or after. Forget the idea of African "countries," in most cases. Split them back up into their tribes. One of the things, one suspects, that leads to such bevatheft in Africa (and the problem isn't restricted to there), is that, for the most part, people simply don't care about, or don't even consider to be fully human, people of other tribes. Thus theft has all the moral connotations of stealing a dog's bone. Short version: "Why not steal? It's on behalf of my tribe."

It's not unreasonable to expect a certain, shall we say, diminution (at least) in the intensity of looting should it be ordered that looters will be shot. Of course, talk is cheap and demonstrations might be required.

I was familiar with Garner. That's why I mentioned that it was a fairly dead letter with regard to the police. It does not, on the face of it, appear to take the fleeing felon rule from privati, however. Note for the audience: you would be _SUED_ blue if you actually did it.

You didn't dig far enough. It falls under the "do utmost to prevent." In the explanatory sections you'll find: "Utmost includes the use of such force, including deadly force, as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition." Tack onto that that failure to do "the utmost" to suppress a mutiny is also a capital crime. "Reasonably necessary" is something of a weasel phrase, of course. It is not hard, however, to come up with scenarios where it would be reasonably necessary. Note, however, that in this age, it would be career death to actually do it, quite despite that it is a capital crime also to fail to do that utmost to suppress a mutiny.

Addendum:

By the way, with the Waller case, it is by no means clear that the Filipino porters were even subject to the UCMJ (Articles of War, back then), such that they even _could_ be in a state of legal mutiny. It strikes me as fairly obvious that it was murder.