I just heard on the news that the U.S. army is now going to shoot Iraqi looters on sight to get the message across that looting will not be tolerated. According to what I heard, the U.S. army is planning on making an example of a few looters and counting on that to deter other looters. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the looters, but this seems unduly harsh, cruel and stupid considering alot of these people are just trying to survive. What do you guys think?
My feeling is that it’s an understandable short term response that’s needed to compensate for the apparent lack of any workable pre-war plans to restore law and order in the event of a complete collapse of Iraqi institutions.
But, more instances of Americans or Brits shooting Muslims is probably not going to do much to win hearts and minds in the long run regardless of how necesary it may be in the current situation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
For a start it’s illegal under the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War. Of course it’s wrong, summmary executions cannot be justified/
I think it’s ridiculous. The looting has been going on for weeks, the museums are pillaged, the hospitals ransacked, almost everything of value has been stolen or destroyed (expect for the ministry of oil, of course). And NOW the US military are saying it’s time to get tough?
Surely there must some way to deal with the looters without killing them? Some of them may be outright criminals, but I suspect that many are just desperate civilians who are trying to scrape together a little something amid the anarchy.
What kind of message will it send out when marines start killing (yet more) civilians? Why not just arrest them? They’ve done it before.
Ah - very good point. I agree.
here’s the report:
Are the US marines really just incapable of arresting looters?
May we have a cite for such an illegal and immoral order being issued?
Well it doesn’t appear to be absolutely postive that the order has been issued, the source inthe article posted above is an anonymous US official who attended a meeting with US administrater of Iraq, Paul Bremner.
Order cite, from NY Times
Geneva Convention cite
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
- Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
- The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
A shoot to kill policy. Finally something that the Brits have more experience than the US
It’s also worth remembering that this tactic and other later shoot to kill allegations (read Shoot to Kill by John Stalker) was a major source of hatred and resentment from the local and a huge aid in recruiting for the IRA.
And add to that the recent revalations concerning the use of Loyalist paramilitaries as de-facto death squads by the UK’s Force Research Unit and the role of “Stakeknife”.
Is it still a time of war? Does the Geneva convention apply?
Smack Fu even though the war is over, the US and Britain are bound over by the parts of the Geneva convention which refer to occupying powers, this does not change until they leave.
That particular convention runs for a year after the war ends - might not be in my quote from it but it is in the full thing.
*Iraqi Looters To Be Shot On Sight. Will this tactic really work? *
Yes. Few will be killed. Order will be restored. And a secular government will be put in place by the end of summer.
so that’s ok then millum:rolleyes:
or possibly a few will be killed and riots will ensue.
And a few more terrorists created from each dead person’s extended family I’d guess.
I don’t see how, if the US are genuinely in the country to help the people there, an iron-fist policy can be justified.
It smacks very much of a desperate “what the F else can we do?”
Given that victory was certain but the post war survival or co-operation of Iraqi institutions was not, the US/UK alliance should have gone in with solid plans and pre-positioned personnel to deal with law and order and particularly to protect known sites with nuclear material.
Yeah I guess that if you peak out from under your covers and see the sky falling that does seem like its a hopeless world of “what ifs”.
But the United States is the only hope for a safe world for all mankind, so why do you people wring your hands with gloom and wish for a future of failure and ruin? Do you feel unloved? We , the good people of America, love you. Grab a flag.
- Are you crazy Columbus, there’s sea monsters in them seas what’ll eat you before you fall off the edge.* ~ Old Saying