By Cernig A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.The military have refused to comment, saying only that "we don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants." But is this a legitimate targeting method? Confederate Yankee has a thoughtful post which correctly differentiates between the program itself and the uses defense lawyers are putting it to in the cases of soldiers accused of planting bait items on dead Iraqis after killing them, although he is reluctant to acknowledge that the first certainly seems to have provided opportunity for the second. In his post, CY examines the legitimacy of this targetting method using bait. It's worth quoting at length: Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iraqi returning from a fellow tribesman's home in the afternoon heat. To gain some shade, you step off the main road and decide to take a shortcut down a path through a grove of trees. Before you, on the path, is a spool of wire often used by insurgents in building IEDs. Seeing no one around, you pick it up with the intention of giving it you your brother, a soldier in the Iraqi Army...Confederate Yankee seems to be genuinely unsure whether the gamble is acceptable or not - conflicted between his own sense of honor and rightness and a wish to see insurgents killed. But I would say that the gamble is an unacceptable one, not merely on ephemeral ethical grounds but on grounds of international law and the Geneva Conventions. The fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols make it clear that civilains should not be targetted. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present. I would argue that, by the simple thought experiment Confederate Yankee outlines, this baiting tactic is insufficiently discriminatory between legitimate targets and civilians. As such, the formulation, advocacy and implementation of the tactic is a war crime. And yes, I know that the bad guys don't observe the Conventions but that a murderer kills doesn't give an automatic right to lynch a suspected murderer in cold blood without observance of the law. Lynching a suspect in a murder case is itself murder by every law of jurisprudence. To incite a lynching is to be an accessory to murder. Likewise, killing a man with a sniper's bullet based entirely on the sniper's opinion of that man's likely motives in picking up bait is entirely unlawful and criminal, as is inciting such actions. Need I also mention that it is a terrible "hearts and minds" counter-insurgency tactic? Imagine you are an Iraqi mother who has kids playing in an area where this baiting is taking place. Do you trust the good heart of American snipers to decide your kid is too young to be an insurgent when he picks up the bright, shiny spool of wire they have left out in his path? |
Monday, September 24, 2007
U.S. Snipers Lay Bait In Iraq
Posted by
Cernig
at
9/24/2007 09:50:00 AM
Labels: Counterinsurgency, Iraq, Military, Rule of Law, US
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)


|