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.

[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.

[JMA]

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.

Its only a major problem if you keep pushing raw 18-19 year olds into high stress (combat) situations and then tie their hands with hugely restrictive RoE.

There is an easy solution. Conscription.

Target universities where the commentators and analysts (who come up with the crazy ideas) reside and conscript them. Then watch and learn.

[Adam L]

Conscription isn't a bad idea!

Adam L

[jmm99]

JMA:

Given a compliant indigenous folk with an underwhelming ability to resist, your suggestions and your multi-national force would probably be quite effective as you say:

I would suggest under circumstances where the situation requiring humanitarian intervention bring troops from many countries all across the world the word needs to be spread to any Crockett, Bowie. Boone or Carson types running around in the woods armed that the carrying of weapons for the duration will be problematic as the soldiers will not wait to be shot at but rather enforce the peace and reduce the number of weapons carried by the citizenry which could potentially confuse matters.
....
I tend to go with and thorough prep-fire of the objective followed up with prodigious levels of prophylactic fire while sweeping through and clearing the objective. Not likely to find a living thing there when you arrive.

Solitudinem facient et pacem appellant. (Tac.)

I fear I am a better Celt than a Roman.

--------------------------
MAL (mon "jumeau mal" ! )

A large recent literature exists on military commisions; but that is mostly in the context of the Gitmo MCs, which are very close to formal courts-martial. Besides the 1953 JAG School article I cited above, I've found , e.g., recent articles on the use of US field MCs in the Mexican War and Civil War.

Myers, Conquering Peace: Military Commissions as a Lawfare Strategy in the Mexican War (2008)

Vagts, Military Commissions: The Forgotten Reconstruction Chapter (2008)

The use of field-expedient military tribunals goes well back in time. You might be especially interested in this example, since it involved the "Colonial Troops", 1684: Indian murderers punished by Du Luth (starting at p.114 - 12 pages; you can check out the original when you are next in Paris). This is a translation of his 1684 report, which illustrates the use of diplomacy and smarts over brute force (which "Du Luth" didn't have anyway).

"Du Luth" was really Daniel Greysolon-Delhut, who was a talented officer and above average in Canada (bios in French and English). He could have treated the murders of the French-Canadian fur traders as a native uprising or as a law enforcement matter. He selected the latter approach and did not simply execute the murderers.

From the English bio, a brief summary of this case:

He commandeered the services of licensed traders to help fortify Michilimackinac, reprimanded the Potawatomis for their lukewarm attitude toward the French, and renewed his peace-making efforts among the Foxes, Sioux, and Chippewas. The last of these nations was especially difficult to manage as was demonstrated in 1684 when four of its warriors murdered two French traders. When one of the culprits appeared at the Jesuit mission of Sault Ste Marie the staff of 12 on duty there did not dare to arrest him, fearing the reprisals of his tribe. Dulhut, as soon as he learned of the incident, hurried to the mission [JMM: with 6 troopers], rounded up the suspects, including the chief Achinaga and his two sons, and put them on trial. Achinaga was acquitted and his younger son pardoned, but the two others who had been found guilty were executed before 400 Indians. By coldly meting out this punishment, Dulhut taught the natives that the French were a people to be respected and feared.

This is a good case study in how to handle situations when your force is underwhelming.

I can see the murder scene from this room when the leaves have fallen. One of the six troopers with Greysolon-Delhut, when the principal murderer was arrested at Sault Ste. Marie (about 250 miles from here) (see p. 115), was one "Le Mire" (prenom: Joseph - one of my many TdMs in Canada).

The suggested use of military commissions in the field may well find few advocates. That despite the fact that it could provide prompt justice as an alternative to either "justice" delayed (as at the Hague; and hence, in reality, often denied) - or to shooting prisoners, which even if effective leaves no honor as recompense for the shooters.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

JMA:

Given a compliant indigenous folk with an underwhelming ability to resist, your suggestions and your multi-national force would probably be quite effective as you say:

I suggest that the force level required and the type of forces be selected on the dynamics on the ground. What type/quality of combatants are you likely to come up against and what is the expected reaction of the population under threat.

If you have a small group of perpetrators inflicting misery on a largely passive population then a reasonably competent paramilitary force followed up by police action should do the business. (A bit like Timor)

The suggested use of military commissions in the field may well find few advocates. That despite the fact that it could provide prompt justice as an alternative to either "justice" delayed (as at the Hague; and hence, in reality, often denied) - or to shooting prisoners, which even if effective leaves no honor as recompense for the shooters.

I am not against tribunals at all but I do see claims of "jungle justice" and "kangaroo courts" being raised and even to a more shrill level if the death sentence is dished out. You are talking about a form of martial law right?

I do not advocate shooting prisoners but I am not a proponent of taking prisoners (if you know what I mean) unless they are really needed for intel gathering purposes. As I said before a difficult subject to deal with in the public domain.

[M-A Lagrange]

I do not advocate shooting prisoners but I am not a proponent of taking prisoners (if you know what I mean) unless they are really needed for intel gathering purposes. As I said before a difficult subject to deal with in the public domain.

Actually, it's not really a question of choice and feelings.
The Law of War (The Hage convention) in its article 23 is pretty clear:
Art 23
- c: It is forbidden to kill those who are disarmed
- d: It is forbidden to declare no quarter.

The Geneva Convention is even clearer on that matter.

Taking prisonner is an objective (for intelligence) AND an OBLIGATION at the momment an opponent is surrending.

[JMA]

Conscription isn't a bad idea!

Adam L

Especially when you are looking for people in a non-soldier type role. Somewhere between the Military Police and the Peace Corps. People who can be taught a different approach to such matters (as advocated university based think-tanks and assorted analysts). Then when you have to evacuate them from the country Dunkirk style you ask them "OK, so what went wrong smart guys?"

[jmm99]

are a "form of martial law" - governed by the Laws of War (or more quaintly, the "laws of honest warfare").

And, yes, I do "know what you mean"; but fail to see why it's a difficult topic to discuss in the public domain. No one is asking anyone to lay bare what they have actually done. The issues hinge on who should be killed in armed conflicts and under what circumstances - not an unknown public discussion topic by any means.

The basic question is what alternatives one can present (if one so believes) to the conduct exemplified by and to Anne de Batarnay de Joyeuse, Baron d'Arques, Vicomte then Duke of Joyeuse (d. 20 Oct 1587), who massacred 800 Huguenots at Saint-Eloi, Poitou, 21 June 1587; but who lived by that sword, died by that sword, at Coutras:

The Catholic line was shattered into fragments and rolled up from the flank; Joyeuse took to his heels and was cornered by a group of Huguenot cavalry. He threw down his sword and called: "My ransom is a hundred thousand francs!" His reward was a shot in the head: for the commander who had ordered Huguenot wounded to be killed on the field and who had butchered garrisons that had surrendered relying on the laws of honest warfare, there could be no quarter.

Those particular and other incidents in the "Wars of Religion" started folks thinking about the "laws of honest warfare" (that is, warfare with honor). The irregularities of the next subsequent Thirty Years' War further exemplified the need for what are in effect "honor codes".

Like other "honor codes", they can be bypassed by winks and nods, as illustrated by this example of convoluted logic:

from JMA
I am not against tribunals at all but I do see claims of "jungle justice" and "kangaroo courts" being raised and even to a more shrill level if the death sentence is dished out. You are talking about a form of martial law right?

I do not advocate shooting prisoners but I am not a proponent of taking prisoners (if you know what I mean) unless they are really needed for intel gathering purposes.

Like giving only limited quarter is not a form of "jungle justice".

Those "laws of honest warfare" also do not operate so well where "insiders" and "outsiders" are involved, and where reciprocity does not exist.

[JMA]

are a "form of martial law" - governed by the Laws of War (or more quaintly, the "laws of honest warfare").

I would like to hear what if anything the Hague or Geneva Conventions say about such tribunals. Can you help?

Like giving only limited quarter is not a form of "jungle justice".

OK so where do you draw the line as to how much preparatory bombardment and supporting fire is needed on a given objective?

What constitutes "no quarter given"? I understand that to mean that no prisoners are taken. That would include in shooting the wounded and any you try to surrender. I don't advocate that.

But can you accept that if you have given a said objective a solid stonking the issue of prisoners, wounded or otherwise, is less likely to arise.

And as I asked M-A L: "Are you suggesting that a soldier is obligated to attempt to take prisoners under all circumstances or do you accept that it is enough to honour bona fide attempts to surrender where and when they occur?"

Those "laws of honest warfare" also do not operate so well where "insiders" and "outsiders" are involved, and where reciprocity does not exist.

Can you rephrase that for me please?

[JMA]

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.

Morally? What on earth are you talking about?

Thankfully you are not a soldier otherwise there would be great concern that soldiers somewhere may be at risk of having their lives played with like a game of chance. Thank heavens for small mercies.