Haiti (Catch all)

[Tom Kratman]

we now can exclude mass lynching.

So, what should the rules of engagement be (not "are" - I know those), from your moral and ethical standpoint, with respect to the felons about which you are concerned ?

Drilling down to your bus vignette in post #19 - a Narrative which Cabral would probably recite (if still alive), or one that I would recite if in Labaan's sandals (if he could afford them) - what are your solutions to the various problems recited ?

Hopefully now a better level of discourse.

Mike

If you mean a way to make aid go to those around the world who really need and could make good use of it _without_ at the same time demoralizing and corrupting the societies it is going to, sadly, except for things that are merely tactical, I don't _have_ any. I wish I did. I worked at this sort of thing for quite a while, tactically, commanding a CA team, also a bit on the money-raising side, and strategically/doctrinally, as de facto in house counsel (technically, Director, Rule of Law) for the PKSOI. The more I worked at it, the more hopeless I became that any real solutions were possible and practical. That said, there is something to be said for the United States, as a condition of aid, insisting on the at least partial surrender of sovereignty to the extent of allowing us to seize, try, and punish those in the recipient countries guilty of corruption that involves our money or goods or our citizens' money or goods.

I don't think we have the internal moral wherewithal for that so it strikes me as useless to contemplate doing it, by the way.

And, ere we get too very upturned-nosey at the corruption in the Third World, our NGOs and charities are all too often guilty of equal corruption, coupled with no small amount of outright fraud.

As for ROE for use of deadly force in emergency situations, we've given the order, "shoot to kill or maim looters and arsonists," within the United States within the last 42 years and, I think, more recently than that. Though I would be inclined to add to it the still lawful (generally and technically, but don't hang your hat on it) fleeing felon rule. It is critical to establish order quickly and thoroughly in circumstances where wolves (the two legged kind) are at large and people's lives depend on the aid the wolves will steal, given the chance.

The fleeing felon rule, by the way, is not a rule of summary execution. It authorizes deadly force, yes, to prevent escape, but felons (common law felons, rather) who surrender are to be arrested and taken for trial. The purpose of the rule is to keep them from escaping to commit yet more crimes. Accepting that mistakes will be made, I think it is overall a good rule, generally, and certainly in a place that was hit as Haiti was. Oddly enough, the fleeing felon rule is pretty much dead for police officers here, but still valid for civilians.

(Is there ever a place for summary execution? The UCMJ says "yes." It is very narrow, however. Look up mutiny.)

At the time of writing, I didn't realize you were a lawyer and likely know all of this. Others, however, will not.