Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)

[wm]

Hang on a minute. Humanitarian intervention is mere the basis/reason for the intervention. Those whose actions have led to the intervention need to be engaged in no uncertain military terms.

I also have to disagree to some extent. Choice of ROEs is situational (and also depends on the Laws of War, Laws of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the intervening force or forces). If an "armed conflict" exists (under Geneva), then it is possible that a "status" ROE (in addition to the always in effect "self defense" ROE) will apply.

Guys,

Thanks for the rehearsal of the jus ad bellum point about humanitarian interventions (i.e., it can be a just cause for engaging in war). However, I took the fact that the original post put humanitarian in quotation marks as implying that the intervention was being conducted in a humanitarian way. On that understanding, the claim is about jus in bello, which is, to some degree, analogous to Mike's claim that ROE choice is situational. I am sure we all realize that jus in bello and jus ad bellum are logically dictinct.

I believe the scenario as originally described is more concerned with an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason. Although the letter of the law and morality of war both would allow one to kill the evil doers and their proxies regardlkess of age and gender, the fact that CNN and others will broadcast the war around the globe in near real time would suggest that an alternative option be undertaken. That was why I suggested that deadly force was not an option in an interventiuon being conducted in a humanitarian fashion, that is, humanely.

One other point in response to the following:

If he is armed... you shoot him. Those 6 points are the stuff that gets soldiers killed and teaches them to be passive. Can't believe any self respecting general would inflict that upon his soldiers. We spoke about this before. This kind of work is for police, military police and paramilitaries not soldiers.

A hard truth is that, morally, soldiers must endure more risks because they get a significant exception to the rules of everyday living--the approval to kill for reasons other than self-defense. In exchange, soldiers must accept the fact that they are also more likely to be killed. I equate that higher likelihood of being killed to a requirement upon soldiers to take more risks to ensure non-combatants are not harmed. Being empowered to kill others that may not be a direct threat to themselves means that soldiers must take more risks to ensure that only appropriate targets are engaged. By the way, the 3 other categories of personnel in the above quotation who could be doing the work have the same restrictions placed on them.