Or perhaps there’s more than one reporter who likes to make stuff up.
Perhaps the lightning will indeed strike twice in the same place in a matter of days. And then the NY times will surely lose the impeccable reputation it has enjoyed for so long. Not very likely though. 
What!!! the NY Times was wrong? Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Quite the difference between being wrong and lying about ones sources, Jack.
Only one of those qualifies as lightning.
To his credit, the Commanding General, Third Infantry Division, when asked about this supposed policy said, to paraphrase, “Not in my damn division.”
The order, as reported, is/was a mistake. Perhaps it never existed, perhaps it was rethought and retracted. But let me address the support for the same, expressed here so… interestingly.
Robust, even aggressive, policing is necessary now. The situation in Baghdad and Iraq generally is growing worse with lawlessness and spreading health problems clearly undermining an already fragile and negative American image.
Primo, while a robust response is necessary – absolutely necessary, the American soldiers do not speak the language, do not know the culture, nor the particular society. Speaking from experience, real on the ground experience, I can say that it is fairly easy to manipulate perceptions – above all of folks who don’t really know what is going on – and depend on translators who may or may not have their own agendas. Secundo, shoot on sight as others have noted, shoot on sight in a situation where the soldiers may not know who is who, or what has happened is a recipe for yet more own goal propaganda, and for explosion. Iraq is awash in weapons, the borders are poorly controlled, and Americans are in a region with little love for its soldiers or its government. Two or three mistaken shooting incidents will only help push more of the population into extremism.
I initially wrote, before reading the denial of the order that “I expect and hope that on the ground commanders will be intelligent enough to construct strict rules of engagement and rely on police and not military tactics.” In that context, to date, on the ground forces appear to be using intelligent discretion for the most part, and I understand for the people on the ground they are stretched too thin. That second issue is the fault of higher command, not theirs.
As for the prediction, from Alabama that a secular regime will be established by the summer, well hopefully the prediction is wrong insofar as such will be a disaster. In regards to shooting a few looters, well yes, if they were looters, it would help. The key there would be if. If there are mistakes, and in the real world Murphy’s Law holds so there will be (depending on the structure of the engagement rules more or less likely). Now our dear interlocutor from Alabama, of all places, see fit to hold forth on the legality and efficacy of the order, per se, and if I may quote:
Wonderful posturing, all emotional and self-righteous. I’m sure it feels nice.
However, the reality is political. Yes, political. Primo. Lawful order to stop. Whose lawful order, and what language? What about those who don’t understand English, or those confusing circumstances where an Iraqi is following local mores and chasing looters, but our dear soldiers, whose linguistic skills I can report directly leave much to be desired, don’t quite understand what is happening? And everyone has guns, everybody does for that is the sole method to stay safe. Well, a shot, and then … massacre? Or course it does not happen on purpose, but for those of us who actually know the region and have seen the … wrinkles of cross cultural communication where there is not shared language nor standards, well……
Secundo: well we’re not in the States, not in motherfucking Kansas my dear Alabama, nor even in Alabama, whatever standards one might have in that state. It’s all wonderful to talk about soldiers just nipping folks in the leg, but the reality it political, and the objectives are political. Nor is the response simple “mindless retribution by Islamic extremists” – however comforting and simplifying for the world it is to simply lump one’s opponents into one dehumanizing category. No the response is nationalist and particular, as well as driven by pre-existing prejudice.
All these items are doubtless among the reasons the order was either never done or rescinded.
In short, your second paragraph is rather typical but rather equally misplaced red herring. The world is not black and white, except for simpletons, and the reality is that there is an interplay between imposing order and winning the legitimacy to do so.
It seems to me the in Iraq commanders are displaying a fair regard for these issues, albeit with not enough tools to adequately address the situation.
Hell, is there anything left to steal?
Milum, that is what a brave man looks like.
Hvae you read the posts? I only read that snippet of the Geneva con posted her- but that snippet was enough for dudes here to accuse the USA of violating it.
No- persons taking part in civil crimes are NOT taking part in the hostilities. If they were “taking part in the hostilities”, and they were armed, and not a part of any military, the USA could shoot them immediately. But if you say they were we could shoot them- the point being made here is that they are civilains engaging in normal crime- thus according to the out of context snip-we couldn’t.
I didn’t say the treaty was PC babble. Have you been tested for reading comprehension? I said that is the Treaty did not include a clause allowing peacekeeping occupying forces the same right to use deadly ofrce as our police forces at home didwhich I was sure was in there somewhere, just not in the small out of context snipped supplied then it would be “babble”. But I am sure such wording is in there- my point was- since such w0ording HAS to be in there- porviding us with a small out of context snippet, and then accusing the USA of being war criminals is ridiculous.
** the Commanding General, Third Infantry Division, when asked about this supposed policy said, “Not in my damn division.”**
“Milum, that is what a brave man looks like.” ~ Latro rejoined
No Latro, that is what a brave man talks like. If I wanted to see what a brave man talks like I could look into a mirror.
But… if the Commanding General of the Third Army has the balls and good judgement to strike mortal fear into the greedy hearts and criminal minds of the opertunistic looters and thereby rescue the newly freed Iraqians from anarchy, then he will be seen by all as a very brave man.
My dime to your singled-holed donut he will.
If the looters want to make off with Iraqi assets they can set up their own damn puppet government like anyone else.
…IF it in fact was true that looters would be shot on sight. And that would indeed have been a violation of the Geneva convention as was pointed out.
Yep. But out of nowhere you brought up a number of hypothetical situations were looters would indeed take part in hostilities and made a big deal about you (mis-) interpreting the cite from the Geneva convention in such a manner that it would be illegal for US soldiers to return fire. Your bad.
Yes this was indeed the point being made before entrance Deth. IF an order had been made that civilians engaging in ordinary crime could be shot on sight THEN that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention.
The whole problem was that you happened to not thouroughly read that part of the cite that clearly stated that it did not apply to fighting parties, or if you did then you did not draw the appropriate conclusions from it.
So in coclusion: you started a lot of ranting that was uncalled for. Again, your bad.
Someone has a very high opinion of himself.
In all fairness, if you do not want a program of absolute curfews, general suppression of disorder by gunfire, if you do not seek something that look an awful lot like the Boston Massacre, Bloody Sunday and twice a week tank mounted incursions into North Gaza, you do not let infantry and tankers act as policemen. You get MPs in there just as quickly as you can and hold the infantry outside of town to back up the MPs when things get completely out of hand. In the meantime you work hard to set up some sort of locally recruited constabulary.
It seems to me that this whole thing came off a whole lot faster than the civilian bosses at Dept of Defense ever expected, or if as expected, the level of disorder was unanticipated. I am afraid that until a constabulary is established thing are only going to get worse as more and more locals become more and more disenchanted with the speed of a return to normal and the length of the occupation.
Shoot to kill orders are pretty silly when you are shooting automatic weapons mounted on armored and semi-armored vehicles.
“We have a strict drug policy here…Anyone found on drugs… must immediately share with all others”. So- where’s my share?
Let us go over this slowly. I’ll use smaller words.
-
Someone said the US had issued a “shoot on sight order”. and Dudes said that such an order was illegal inder the Geneva accords
-
Next, Tagos posted an out of context snippet of those Geneva accords. Dudes pointed out this meant this US was violating same.
-
I pointed out that that out of context snippet was indeed-
out of context as it did not allow for US Peacekeepers to use “deadly force” in the same sort of situations where it would be perfectly legal in the good old USA. Thus, that snippet was meaningless- as it was so out of context.
-
Ravenman came up with the silly concept that a armed looter was “engaging in hostilities” under that Out of Context Snippet, thus the OoCS was indeed, correct.
-
I replied- No someone commiting a civil crime is NOT “engaging in hostilities”, thus still, our freind- the OoCS- was still invalid.
So- again, for the 3rd time- my issue is not with the good old Geneva convention- it is with some armchair lawyer that thinks that quoting a small out of context snippet actually proves something. It does not.
The non-existant order might or might not have been illegal under the GC. That snippet is meaningless to attempt to discern this. Unless…say Randy- are you a Lawyer specializing in International Law, or perhaps an accredited Diplomat? I thought not. Maybe it would be illegal to issue such an order- but that OoCS doesn’t prove it is. Note that one can quote the CA Penal code to show that killing someone is illegal- even if in self-defense, or even under a State execution. That is- one could do that if one selectively posted one small “Out of Context Snippet” of said CA Code. Got it? That OoCS proves NOTHING at all about this issue. It is so out of conext to be completely, utterly worthless. If you are basing your thesis on that- your thesis doesn’t even have “feet of clay”.
I am sure that US occupying troops do indeed, under the GC (even though this OoCS does not say so) have a similar legal right to use “deadly force” as normal police forces here in the USA do. But that OoCS doesn’t say so. I am sure that is covered elsewhere. Dudes who commit civil crimes after the war is over are NOT “taking an active part in the hostilities”. That means fighting in the damn war. Not looting- armed or no- or holding up a bank.
Now, Randy, if you read any lengthy article about the GC, it talks about their “inspectors” (in WWII, they were called “the geneva boys”, a term I like), and what they can & cannot do. The US does indeed recognize their authority- although I am sure if push came to shove, we could & would claim soveriegn immunity, or claim the Constituion overrides a treaty (which it does). However, although we doubtless *could * do so, and the Bush admin might do so- so far we haven’t yet done so. AFAIK, the “Geneva boys” have not registered any serious complaints about the Coalition’s actions in Iraq. Even if the USA did ignore those complaints (and I agree with you that GWB might do so)- they would still be “registered” and I can guarantee that you would read about them in some slightly liberal press, or from Amnesty International. So far- nada.
Thus- the USA has not, as of yet- commited any such serious violations of the Geneva accords- that is accoring to the dudes who enforce & interpret such accords. Those “dudes” NOT being some armchair lawyer here on the SDMB. Nor have we yet been charged with- by any recognized agency- any violations of “International Law”. Could be some are forthcoming, and the UN GA might issue a toothless resolution (toothless until the UN SC agrees that something should be done).
So, see if I get this.
If I see a man beating up a child in the street, I should assume that his actions are quite lawful. 'cause I know shit about the law.
Until somebody, a true lawyer, presses charges, the man is doing nothing wrong. As I don’t see any lawyers about doing something, I should just keep quiet and continue on my merry way.
:rolleyes: You don’t possibly think that since it was in a NEWSPAPER article for gods sake, that perhaps, just maybe- someone out there might just possibly know about it and refer it to the proper authorities? And, then of course, taking your silly analogy a bit further- how on earth is mentioning that you saw somebody beating a child here on a MESSAGE BOARD going to help the “child on the street”?
But you DIDN’T see this happening did you? You READ ABOUT IT. If you read about a child beating in the damn newspaper, do you call the Police to report it? :rolleyes: (you know sometimes, even the rolleyes smiley isn’t sufficient)
DrDeth:
I am now certain that I understand jack of the logic in your posts. But i’ll give it a try. Please do your best to help.
You were originally speaking of a hypothetical case where a looter were shooting at a US soldier. Consulting the cite from GC: that looter would then not count as “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities” and would indeed be “fair game” so to speak. This conclusion quite obvious, no?
But, now you seem to be speaking of looters just carrying guns? Correct? Are you saying that they to is “fair game”?
Ah, ok, think I got it.
I can’t comment on a MESSAGE BOARD about stuff I read in newspapers.
I can’t speak for the Army but the Marine Corps runs on strict fire discipline. An individual Marine NEVER fires a weapon without a direct order from his immediate superior. Application of the standing rules of engagement are the responsibility of HMFIC be it corporal or general. This “shoot on sight” is pure fiction. Obviously the exception to the rule is an ambush but if looters resort to ambush tactics they’re “enemy combatants” instantly.
I think Millum’s simplistic point was that “talk is cheap.” Anyway, I agree with you. The military personell that are in Iraq right now are neither trained for nor meant to act as policemen. The infantry that are there right now are just adding to Iraqi resentment with their seeming inability to control the chaos. Add this to the resentment that is already present because of American occupation and you have a recipe for disaster. The longer the instability grows in Iraq the worse the the civil unrest will be. And that’s not good. Get the MP’s in there and let them serve their function.