Results 1 to 20 of 120

Thread: Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)

    Moderator's Note

    The author of this post suggested the thread's title be changed from 'Achilles Heel: getting our arses kicked by kids?' and so with consummate legal skill jmm99 has suggested:
    'Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations'

    So far a number of those "special protectees" have been mentioned:

    1. child soldiers
    2. children in general
    3. civilians in general
    4. persons held under a belligerent's power (de hors rule #1)
    5. persons wounded (de hors rule #2)
    6. persons surrendering (de hors rule #3)
    7. medical rescuers (military & civilian)

    We might subtitle it:

    "How honest, law-abiding regular forces are getting their arses shot off because a cloud-cuckoo-wunderland morass has been imposed on them to create criminal sanctions against dishonest, law-shirking regular and irregular forces who could care less because the Hague is too remote".

    With credits to Tukhii and NZ O'Neill.
    Original Post below


    I have been thinking about ways our enemies could continue to gut us morally (in terms of atatcking the legitimacy of our governments at home) and of how Muslim combatants could pursue their goals by using our own culture against us. So, what would our strategy, or more importantly, our rules of engagement be, if, say during a "humantarian" intervention into Darfur or Ethiopia we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers?
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-01-2010 at 08:53 PM. Reason: 1) Change thread title, 2) Add Mod's note

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default First off, my druthers are not to intervene ....

    with US troops in either Darfur or Ethiopia (perhaps, funding of efforts by Lagrange et al, but no military intervention).

    That being said, you have two very different military responses.

    One is from The Horse Soldiers, where Wayne and his troopers are confronted by the cadets from a local military school (Jefferson Military Academy). The scene in the movie is known appropriately as "The Great Skedaddle".

    The other is from Dr. Zhivago, where his Red partisan unit is confronted by the cadets from a local military school (St. Michael's Military Academy). That scene should be called "Well-aimed MG and rifle fires are always effective against soldiers of all ages".

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 09-14-2010 at 05:21 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    South of Camp Pendleton
    Posts
    8

    Default in a children's crusade, who plays the heavy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    ... if we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers[/url]?
    Mexico just celebrated the anniversary remembrance of their young cadets glorious 'death before surrender' at the hands of the US expeditionary force approaching (and occupying) Mexico City.

    On the level of unintended consequences, our rapid successes during the invasion of Mexico led to the reinstatement to command of liberation general Santa Ana, hated by Texans as the 'butcher of Goliad'. Vigorously opposing Polk's war nearly ended the political career (and did unseat) freshman Congressman Abe Lincoln.

  4. #4
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Once, the French COS were interviewed about the same question: what to do in front of child soldier. The answer was interesting: we have to remember that we have children in front of us but we have to not forget that they are soldiers too.
    The IHL gives a clear line: children are not to be soldiers and are protected both as legitimate target and troops.
    In the case of being confronted to child soldiers (Mike will clarify this much better than me), norm is that you try to restrain a maximum. Anyways, the one who is really guilty is the one who recruits children to be soldiers, not the one being confronted and has to defend.
    A lot of interesting stuff on the Save The Children and ICRC web sites.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default There are two rules of engagement to consider

    One is the rule based on self-defense. That rule is always in play and permits killing a hostile threat - an armed, hostile threat from a child is the same legally as an armed hostile threat from an adult.

    In both of the movie scenes, the child soldiers were in attack mode against the Union cavalry in one case and the Red Guards in the other (a less aggressive attack in the latter case, but an advance none the less). So, the always in effect self-defense rule applied in both cases.

    Both movies are set in civil wars. Since both groups of child soldiers involved uniformed military forces, the cadets could be regarded as designated hostile forces as to which kill or capture would apply regardless of an armed, hostile threat or not.

    I seriously cited the two movies as examples.

    Regards

    Mike

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Mike - Great examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    So, what would our strategy, or more importantly, our rules of engagement be, if, say during a "humantarian" intervention into Darfur or Ethiopia we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers?
    Let's hope that the child soldiers find CS gas terrifying and incapacitating. If not, the operation will end as soon as the photos of a dozen dead child soldiers killed by the peacekeeping forces hits the media. As interesting and important of an issue this is, what our rules of engagement will be is less critical than what our information campaign will be domestically. It is inevitable that despite our best preparations we will end up killing child soldiers at some point. It doesn't matter whether it's 15 or 100, it will be a nightmare.

    Adam L

  7. #7
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam L View Post
    Mike - Great examples.
    Let's hope that the child soldiers find CS gas terrifying and incapacitating. If not, the operation will end as soon as the photos of a dozen dead child soldiers killed by the peacekeeping forces hits the media. As interesting and important of an issue this is, what our rules of engagement will be is less critical than what our information campaign will be domestically. It is inevitable that despite our best preparations we will end up killing child soldiers at some point. It doesn't matter whether it's 15 or 100, it will be a nightmare.

    Adam L
    The problematic of child soldiers acceptance by the masses is interesting at several levels.
    Few years ago, Save The Children made a survey on DDR programs for children; What came out is:
    - no one is ready to accept the idea that under 15 children could be warriors. This despite reallity. It seems that for most of the military cultures under 15 boys are too young to be "soldiers/killers".
    - Even less people are ready to accept the idea that under 15 girls could be child soldiers and not just sexual slaves. The idea that a 7 years old boy carrying a weapon is more acceptable than a 10 years old girl fighting.
    - Most, if not all, communities around the world banished the use of child soldiers as a rule of stump. (Which does not mean that no one is using them.)
    - All professional soldiers were shocked by having to conduct demobilisation activities with under 15 years old children (boys and girls). But demobilizing under 15 years old girls is considered as even more traumatising that demobilizing young boys.

    The main exception to this, as far as I know during the seccond half of 20st century, has been the use of children by Iran during the Irak/Iran war. But even then, it was not that popular inside the Iran’s population.
    My point is that using only children would be a strong challenge even inside the supporting population.

    And finally, it is interesting to define what a child soldier is? A 17 years old boy or girl (A cadet even less) taking side is finally very much acceptable. It's illegal but the moral question is not really there.
    But what to do when you face a group of 10 boys between 8 and 13 years old? With a 10 years old girl as commander...

    NB: there is an interesting point on the definition of child soldier. Under 7 years old, children are considered as useless for war. This limit of childhood in war is very ancient as you find notes on this in the Bible (Deuteronom) and even more ancient law texts on war (Manu code…). Nowadays, it is considered that a below 7 child is not strong enough to carry a gun or shoot with.
    Last edited by M-A Lagrange; 09-15-2010 at 08:11 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    I have been thinking about ways our enemies could continue to gut us morally (in terms of atatcking the legitimacy of our governments at home) and of how Muslim combatants could pursue their goals by using our own culture against us. So, what would our strategy, or more importantly, our rules of engagement be, if, say during a "humantarian" intervention into Darfur or Ethiopia we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers?
    In the examples you use (Darfur and Ethiopia) and to which you can add Congo, Somalia and others the best route is to use proxy forces from the AU (like Uganda in Somalia) and let them deal with it to the best of their ability.

    This way western countries will be able to avoid the angst and hand-wringing that goes with engaging children in combat.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In the examples you use (Darfur and Ethiopia) and to which you can add Congo, Somalia and others the best route is to use proxy forces from the AU (like Uganda in Somalia) and let them deal with it to the best of their ability.

    This way western countries will be able to avoid the angst and hand-wringing that goes with engaging children in combat.
    I agree completely. I just logged on to make the same comment.

    Adam L

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In the examples you use (Darfur and Ethiopia) and to which you can add Congo, Somalia and others the best route is to use proxy forces from the AU (like Uganda in Somalia) and let them deal with it to the best of their ability.

    This way western countries will be able to avoid the angst and hand-wringing that goes with engaging children in combat.
    Agreed,

    But that's assuming they'll fight as cleanly and legaly as we would have..after all, being branded child killers by proxy is the same as doing ourselves, in fact possibly worse. Anyone remember the ECOMOG/Nigerian intervention into Sierra Leone?.

    And here...
    ECOMOG soldiers always disgraced themselves first before they would begin to disgrace those they were deployed to help. How long did Lieutenant-General Arnold Quainoo remain in his post as ECOMOG commander in Liberia before he surrendered his headquarters to Prince Johnson, a known warlord, to slaughter the Samuel Doe presidential party he was hosting? He had been in Liberia fewer than three weeks. He arrived in Liberia in mid-August 1990. On September 10, 1990, General Quainoo was holed up at the fortified ECOMOG base in the Port of Monrovia, waiting for his ship to come in to take him home to his native Ghana. He probably had no plans for keeping warring factions apart, and perhaps felt he might lose his life to another mistake of similar magnitude.

    Gen. Quainoo's departure was followed by a half dozen fire-breathing Nigerian commanders in successive order. But each was compromised by either bribes or the structural ineptitude that was evident before he arrived. All this never prompted any soul searching in ECOWAS.

    I met Gen. Quainoo and asked him what went to wrong, he shrugged his soldiers and said "It's Africa, what do you expect" and downed his whisky (we met at a Conflict Resolution workshop to boot!)

    IIRC it took UK forces to actually get the job done. Sure, proxy forces are OK so long as they know what they're doing and won't cause even more trouble for their "sponsors" to deal with.

  11. #11
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    I have been thinking about ways our enemies could continue to gut us morally (in terms of atatcking the legitimacy of our governments at home) and of how Muslim combatants could pursue their goals by using our own culture against us. So, what would our strategy, or more importantly, our rules of engagement be, if, say during a "humantarian" intervention into Darfur or Ethiopia we were confronted with hordes of child soldiers?
    During a humanitarian intervention, the only appropriate use of deadly force would be for self-protection. Given that other means are available to preclude the use of deadly force, the ROE ought to be to use such means whenever possible.
    I'd suggest that those involved in a humanitarian intervention be primarily (perhaps exclusively) equipped with incapaciting agents/devices. Chemical examples can be found here. Other items that are capable of causing incapitation are available. Some examples include electromuscular incapacitating devices (EMD), AKA stun guns or Tasers®, and high intensity noise generators.

    As others have noted, a vigorous information operations (IO) campaign, one that pre-empts the opponent's PR strategy is also required. Such a media campaign must alert the world to the possibility of engagement by "child soldiers" and and explain the intended responses to be used should such engagements arise. The IO campaign needs to be initiated prior to deployment and continued at least until the intervention force redeploys, if not longer.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    During a humanitarian intervention, the only appropriate use of deadly force would be for self-protection. Given that other means are available to preclude the use of deadly force, the ROE ought to be to use such means whenever possible.
    I'd suggest that those involved in a humanitarian intervention be primarily (perhaps exclusively) equipped with incapaciting agents/devices. Chemical examples can be found here. Other items that are capable of causing incapitation are available. Some examples include electromuscular incapacitating devices (EMD), AKA stun guns or Tasers®, and high intensity noise generators.

    As others have noted, a vigorous information operations (IO) campaign, one that pre-empts the opponent's PR strategy is also required. Such a media campaign must alert the world to the possibility of engagement by "child soldiers" and and explain the intended responses to be used should such engagements arise. The IO campaign needs to be initiated prior to deployment and continued at least until the intervention force redeploys, if not longer.
    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.

    Humanitarian intervention refers to armed interference in one state by another state(s) with the objective of ending or reducing the suffering of the population within the first state. That suffering may be the result of civil war, humanitarian crisis, or crimes committed by the occupied nation (such as genocide). The goal of humanitarian intervention is neither annexation nor interference with territorial integrity, but minimization of the suffering of civilians in that state.
    Engage and kill the perpetrators and thereby protect the people.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-16-2010 at 03:51 PM.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi wm,

    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.

    However, even if only "self-defense" ROEs were in force, one cannot remove the use of deadly force from the intervenor's table. By doing so, one could easily get into this situation from Sierra Leone, which I cited in this thread, U.S. troops face Afghan enemy too young to kill (3 pages):

    On Friday, 25 August 2000, British Major Alan Marshall, stationed at Benguema Training Camp decided to make a visit to one of UNAMSIL’s battalions near the town of Masiaka, about 65-kilometers east of Freetown. Marshall and his men were part of the stay-behind British training contingent. Accompanying him on this visit was an SLA liaison officer and 11 soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment. After visiting with Colonel Jehad al-Widyan, commander of the UNAMSIL battalion, he decided to take his patrol to the WSB base in nearby Magbeni. Marshall received an intelligence report that only a few rebels were present at the base and he wanted to check out the situation. His three Land Rovers were armed with .50-caliber heavy machine guns and the soldiers with SA80 rifles. As the patrol approached Magbeni, located 50 miles east of the capital in Freetown, the WSB blocked the road and denied them movement. Major Marshall tried to reason with them, but they insisted that he wait until their leader, 24-year old “Brigadier” Foday Kallay arrived.

    As they waited, Major Marshall carried on a conversation with the boys and offered them cigarettes. Communication with the base at Benguema Training Camp was established via radio and the base camp was informed that the patrol was being detained. Once Kallay arrived, the situation turned tense. Kallay began issuing orders to his armed soldiers, became angry with Marshall for entering an unauthorized area without coordination, and surrounded the patrol with soldiers and a captured SLA truck mounted with a 14.5-mm heavy machine gun. As Marshall made attempts to reason with the WSB, he was physically beaten. Within 5 minutes, the rest of the Royal Irish soldiers were overwhelmed, disarmed, stripped, and taken by canoes upstream, across Rokel River, to Gberi Bana, Kallay’s headquarters.
    From Larry J. Woods and Colonel Timothy R. Reese, Military Interventions in Sierra Leone: Lessons From a Failed State (The Long War Series, Occasional Paper 28, CSI Press 2008) pp. 77-78 pdf.

    Not a good use of my Mick cousins; and the rescue (p.83) probably led to much more loss of life than if the challenge had been met head on to begin with.

    I recognize the need for restraint (that is, to use the methods you suggest); but too much emphasis there can lead to bad situations. The Beirut Marine barracks bombing was another example of overly cautious application of the ROEs (which were not the model of clarity down at the sentry level).

    Regards

    Mike

  14. #14
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default Hello

    Well, I have to disagree also and support Mike approach and understanding of humanitarian interventiuon.
    The guy in front is not a nice guy and even if it's a child, he is using deadly force in some occasions.
    ROE and TOE must be looked at with a practical point of view. Being deterent is often the best first step, even in "humanitarian operations".

    The main question being how much weight 10 dead US soldiers against 10 kids of 12 to 15 years old.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    Well, I have to disagree also and support Mike approach and understanding of humanitarian interventiuon.
    The guy in front is not a nice guy and even if it's a child, he is using deadly force in some occasions.
    ROE and TOE must be looked at with a practical point of view. Being deterent is often the best first step, even in "humanitarian operations".

    The main question being how much weight 10 dead US soldiers against 10 kids of 12 to 15 years old.
    Lets try this... if the bad guys providing the justification for the humanitarian intervention are all 20-30 year olds I suppose a shoot on sight / shoot to kill policy would be fine?

    Now what changes if they, knowing the great concern among western countries (but probably not among most their combat soldiers) about ensuring they don't get drawn into combat with child-soldiers, push some kids into the front line?

    Why only on a humanitarian intervention? Why not in Afghanistan also?

  16. #16
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JMM
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by JMA
    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.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  17. #17
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by M-A Lagrange; 09-18-2010 at 08:33 AM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
    By davidbfpo in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 600
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 04:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •