Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)

[M-A Lagrange]

Guys,

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.

First I would like to ask why should you assume that CNN will advertise the fact that you killed child soldiers and not respond to unfriendly opponents using deadly force?

Many of the wars I have been in are/were conducted mainly by child soldiers and this has never been the angle used by media. In Sierra Leone, when the british interviened, they had to face forces composed for some up to 60% of child soldiers. And the media coverage was all about stabilising the place and freeing some UN peace keepers...

The second point is that it is also a "media" tool for your own propaganda. If you fight warlords using child soldiers and "only child soldiers" then you are the good guy per definition. Look at Khony and the LRA. Nobody is following them now. Yes, it has more to see with their political utility than the use of child soldiers but still... In the end the use of child soldiers is an aggraving fact against you.

In that case, the moral dimension of "child soldier" will bring media easily on your side. Do you really think that home opinion will be supporting an opponent that would send children to be killed by "peace keepers forces"?

ROE must remain situationnal and the use of non deadly force remains situationnal. But I tend to agree with the idea of take prisonners rather than kill every children is a best practice.
It also helps you in your counter propaganda. The UPDF is using that argument against the LRA: if you surrender and you are an abducted child forced to becaume combattant. Then you are covered by the child act and amnesty law.

Finally, to support somehow JMA point. In DRC, the Pakistany forces used to act as you describe: shoot first; ask how are you and shoot again if someone answers. Then go to the spot. Nobody did really react. The point was clearly, even in the "civilian f#&@% humanitarian" community that there were more benefits in saying nothing than screaming and have nothing done.
But still, this is a desperate solution. An effective one but better options can be found.

Mike,

I am quite interrested by the question of military tribunal.
First, I would say (As you know me, I start as the devil advocate) that there is room for on "the spot justice of the winner". Which is not a problem when the "winner" is a force respecting Law and acting according to it. But in other cases...

Seccondly, I am interrested because of the Thomas Lubanga case at The Haye. Thomas Lubanga was charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes and child soldiers recruitment. He has been released because of procedures. There was good chances he would have been found guilty and sentenced immediatly if this had been done during Operation Arthemis by the EU forces.