SFC Taylor, the Fog of War and Army duplicity

[Polarbear1605]

Thanks JMM, You always help by adding clarity but, and as usual, you do raise questions, at least in my mind.

Working my way through this reference because it seems to be a footnote in most of the discussions on ROE. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND THE CONCEPT OF UNIT SELF DEFENSE by Lieutenant Commander Dale Stephens, Royal Australian Navy

A Right Sui Generis Part I of this article asserts that the right of unit self defense is a right sui
generis which exists independently under customary international law.

Unit self defense is characterized by its personal focus and has its origin
"directly and chiefly, in the fact that nature commits to each his own
protection." It is this focus which gives the right of unit self defense its
prime characteristic: that of a non-derogable human right. Accordingly, it
is not a right which is dependent upon a 'proper' interpretation of Article
51, nor is it one that derives from the jus in bello, or belligerent
customary rights which are dependent upon a state of armed conflict. It is
a legal right which stands alone and possesses its own indigenous
authority.

With this heritage, the right of unit self defense stands apart from rights
enjoyed under national self defense. Notwithstanding this inexorable
conclusion, there persists a residual academic view that Article 51 has
assimilated all exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force.
Significantly, however, even the adherents of this 'literalist' view
recognize the existence of an independent right for military forces to
defend themselves.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA359487

Can self-defense be called a duty? I ask because I see that duty word in your references.

Discussion
The accused acts at the accused’s peril when defending another. Thus, if the accused goes to the aid of an apparent assault victim, the accused is guilty of any assault the accused commits on the apparent assailant if, unbeknownst to the accused, the apparent victim was in fact the aggressor and not entitled to use self-defense.

How long as that been on the books? I was a little taken aback by that one because I can see all kinds of issues with that on a battle field.