lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Haditha, the Laws of War, and the Terrorists

2006-06-03
By

If the Marines at Haditha started indiscriminately killing civilians, they should pay for their crimes. I want that clear right now. The point of this piece is not to defend their actions. However, there are those who never cease the chance to start throwing corpses at political opponents who are using this event to paint the military as a bunch of baby-killers or “prove” the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are. Unlike disgraced ex-Marine Murtha (he disgraced himself after his service), I’m willing to let the facts be heard and a fair trail be had before trying to score political points on the backs of others.

There are laws of war in place to prevent this kind of thing. They’ve been in place hundreds of years before anyone conceived of a United Nations. At each step, the terrorists (and they are terrorists) have not only violated the laws of war, but used those laws of war against us to further attacks on our soldiers.

First, a military uniform was not created to give something for the woman to oogle at (though it is certainly effective at that). A uniform is a public statement to the enemy that you can shoot the person wearing it. Plain and simple, a military uniform is a full-body bull’s-eye. Why would any government want their soldiers to wear them then? Simple. It let’s both sides easily figure out who the civilians are so they don’t engage them. When the terrorists don’t wear uniforms, they might be able to eek out another kill or two, but they also but their own civilian population at risk because it becomes impossible to tell who is a combatant and who is not.

Second, the laws of war dictate you don’t attack civilian structures such as schools, houses, and churches. This should be obvious why this is so, but the rule comes with a caveat. The price for not getting your residential areas attacked is that you don’t use them for fighting to begin with. Many like to make much of the fact that US military has attacked mosques. What those same people refuse to acknowledge is that those buildings were used as weapon’s stores, sniper nests, and central places to coordinate attacks on the US military. The military was left with two options; either engage the enemy or surrender. It is not the US’s fault that fighting involved mosques, it was the terrorists defiled those buildings from houses of worship to dens of killing.

Third, when an enemy surrenders the fighting is over. Once an enemy affects his surrender by throwing up a white flag, raising his arms, or getting wounded they are no longer valid targets of attack. This also comes with a caveat. The surrendering person may no longer fight. Once they pick up a weapon, they are a fair target again. When the terrorists use our mercy against us, they put at risk those who legitimately want to surrender. Is this one going to pull out a grenade on us when we get close or does he really want medical care?

This is not an exhaustive list of all the ways that the terrorists have violated the laws of war but a mere few examples. These laws are not western impositions on the world but practices developed over centuries to minimize the abuses that could come with war. Almost every nation at least says they are going to respect these customs because they want to protect their own civilian population, even though some tactical benefit could be derived from violating those customs of war.

The terrorists simply don’t care about the civilian population. If the military mistakenly engages civilians or they hit civilian buildings after taking fire from them, the terrorists mark up another PR victory because of the willingness of the allies on the American left to use these incidents for political gain. In this way, the terrorists are extremely intelligent… and incredibly evil.

So those who wish to sit in judgment against the Marines at Haditha (before the investigation is even completed, mind you) manage to put on the blinders and refuse to consider how the actions of the terrorists almost guarantee these events will happen. If these Marines did snap and break the laws of way, they will be tried and punished. It is a damn shame, however, no one seems to blink and eye and stand up for the soldiers who have to put up with an enemy who consistently break the laws of war. It’s a national disgrace that some will stand up for the actions of those terrorists as legitimate.

195 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Azrael

    That’s precisely my point. In order for Geneva Convention protections to apply, or protections under any sort of Rules of Engagement, be they UN charter, any other written or unwritten rules of battle conduct…

    Both sides have to play by the rules. Period.

    If you do not, you have no protections or sanctions against the offending force that is rooting you out.

    I was not arguing about our position in Iraq or justifying our being there. I was speaking of a general principle which would apply even to us.

    When we fought the Revolutionary War we used guerrila-style tactics for a good portion of our battles. *DURING THIS TIME WE HAD NO PROTECTIONS* under any sort of battle codes that existed at the time. Nor should we have, because we weren’t playing by the acceptable standard.

    Guerrilla warfare and IED’s may be legal, I will not argue that. However, it is not only irresponsible but impossible for a soldier to be expected to be able to distinguish between “an innocent civilian” or a potential combatant when they’ve just been attacked and the attackers have a propensity to hide among the civilians.

    Unless you’re proposing we just paint targets on our boys and girls over there and have them just stand around waiting to be attacked? Get a clue, please.

    How many people do you know who have been over there? I have been there myself in the Gulf, and I know many who either have been there recently or were there during Gulf War I. There is always an element of people who will be unhappy with any sort of a change in the national environment. But the majority of people over there realize that these changes are for the better, and also understand perhaps better than us that sometimes those changes are paid in blood.

    Kinda like the blood our founding fathers bled when they fought for the freedoms of this country.

    I suggest that if you are seriously that concerned about the legal or illegal activities of our troops over there in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, that you go over there and do your part to ensure that they do not happen. With you acting as our moral conscience I’m sure that our soldiers would be so crippled they couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

  • Azrael

    That’s precisely my point. In order for Geneva Convention protections to apply, or protections under any sort of Rules of Engagement, be they UN charter, any other written or unwritten rules of battle conduct…

    Both sides have to play by the rules. Period.

    If you do not, you have no protections or sanctions against the offending force that is rooting you out.

    I was not arguing about our position in Iraq or justifying our being there. I was speaking of a general principle which would apply even to us.

    When we fought the Revolutionary War we used guerrila-style tactics for a good portion of our battles. *DURING THIS TIME WE HAD NO PROTECTIONS* under any sort of battle codes that existed at the time. Nor should we have, because we weren’t playing by the acceptable standard.

    Guerrilla warfare and IED’s may be legal, I will not argue that. However, it is not only irresponsible but impossible for a soldier to be expected to be able to distinguish between “an innocent civilian” or a potential combatant when they’ve just been attacked and the attackers have a propensity to hide among the civilians.

    Unless you’re proposing we just paint targets on our boys and girls over there and have them just stand around waiting to be attacked? Get a clue, please.

    How many people do you know who have been over there? I have been there myself in the Gulf, and I know many who either have been there recently or were there during Gulf War I. There is always an element of people who will be unhappy with any sort of a change in the national environment. But the majority of people over there realize that these changes are for the better, and also understand perhaps better than us that sometimes those changes are paid in blood.

    Kinda like the blood our founding fathers bled when they fought for the freedoms of this country.

    I suggest that if you are seriously that concerned about the legal or illegal activities of our troops over there in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, that you go over there and do your part to ensure that they do not happen. With you acting as our moral conscience I’m sure that our soldiers would be so crippled they couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

  • http://www.ciber-runa/ab amosbatto

    You repeatedly refer to the Iraqis being killed as “terrorists”. Who is the “terrorist” in this situation?

    You neglect to mention what “laws of war” you are refering to, but I can only assume that you mean international law and the UN charter.
    Remember that the US is the country which illegally invaded Iraq and the Iraqis have the legal right under international law to resist the illegal occupation of their country. The Iraqis have the right to defend their country against an illegal foreign invasion and the right to fight the illegal occupation of their country by a foreign power. They have the legal right to engage in guerrilla warfare–no international law says that you can’t use civilian structures as cover when firing on foreign soldiers.

    Secondly, it is important to remember that the Iraqis has nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack on the US. Yes, Iraq did illegally invade Kuwait, and the US and a coalition of other countries declared war on Iraq for that reason in the Gulf War I, but that did not give us any legal right under international law to invade and occupy Iraq in Gulf War II. The UN resolutions did not grant the US the right to invade Iraq, and you can’t claim this was a war of self defense under the UN charter.

    I’d also like to point out that there are numerous reports of massacres like Haditha. This was not an isolated event. The difference was that it was covered by US press like Time Magazine. Most of the time, US reporters think it is too dangerous to go to the site where these events are reported to have taken place. In this case, Iraqi Human rights organizations brought several of the victims into the Baghdad safe zone to US reporters who then interviewed them. When the reporters first reported the incident to the US military officials, they tried to cover it up.

    US troops have a standard policy of shooting anyone in the area after they have been attacked by an IED. A number of US soldiers have testified that they spray the area with bullets and any innocent civilians nearby will be killed after an IED explodes. Also keep in mind that in Fallujah one hospital was deliberately targeted, and the other was closed down. Similarly, the whole civilian population of Fallujah was targeted for attack. Not only was the whole city cordoned off, shutting off all access to water, food, and electrity, but White Phosphorous bombs–which meet the definition of a illegal chemical weapon–were used against civilians in Fallujah.

    Another fact to keep in mind is that the US has deliberately followed the “Salvador Option” which is a policy of terror used against civilian populations. The idea is to break popular resistance by using paramilitary death squads which dissappear, torture, and assassinate people in the civilian population in order break people’s support of guerrillas. J. Negroponte carried out this policy in the 1980s as the US ambassador of Honduras, which is why he was made the US ambassador in Iraq. When he was ambassador there, Shiite death squads were armed which carried out widespread killing and torturing of Sunnis.

    In short, the US military has committed a number of violations of the geneva conventions in the conduct of the war in Iraq.

    So the question is who are the “terrorists” in this situation? If you define terrorism as the policy of using violence against civilians to create terror, then the use of IEDs is certainly terrorism, but the sad truth is that most of that terrorism in Iraq has been perpetuated by Iraqis against other Iraqis. Most of the Iraqi attacks against US troops do not meet the definition of terrorism, since they are legitimate military targets under international law. You may think that guerrilla warfair and IEDs in this situation are dirty warfare, but they are legal. On the otherhand, our troops are the ones committing the illegal acts in Iraq.

  • amosbatto

    You repeatedly refer to the Iraqis being killed as “terrorists”. Who is the “terrorist” in this situation?

    You neglect to mention what “laws of war” you are refering to, but I can only assume that you mean international law and the UN charter.
    Remember that the US is the country which illegally invaded Iraq and the Iraqis have the legal right under international law to resist the illegal occupation of their country. The Iraqis have the right to defend their country against an illegal foreign invasion and the right to fight the illegal occupation of their country by a foreign power. They have the legal right to engage in guerrilla warfare–no international law says that you can’t use civilian structures as cover when firing on foreign soldiers.

    Secondly, it is important to remember that the Iraqis has nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack on the US. Yes, Iraq did illegally invade Kuwait, and the US and a coalition of other countries declared war on Iraq for that reason in the Gulf War I, but that did not give us any legal right under international law to invade and occupy Iraq in Gulf War II. The UN resolutions did not grant the US the right to invade Iraq, and you can’t claim this was a war of self defense under the UN charter.

    I’d also like to point out that there are numerous reports of massacres like Haditha. This was not an isolated event. The difference was that it was covered by US press like Time Magazine. Most of the time, US reporters think it is too dangerous to go to the site where these events are reported to have taken place. In this case, Iraqi Human rights organizations brought several of the victims into the Baghdad safe zone to US reporters who then interviewed them. When the reporters first reported the incident to the US military officials, they tried to cover it up.

    US troops have a standard policy of shooting anyone in the area after they have been attacked by an IED. A number of US soldiers have testified that they spray the area with bullets and any innocent civilians nearby will be killed after an IED explodes. Also keep in mind that in Fallujah one hospital was deliberately targeted, and the other was closed down. Similarly, the whole civilian population of Fallujah was targeted for attack. Not only was the whole city cordoned off, shutting off all access to water, food, and electrity, but White Phosphorous bombs–which meet the definition of a illegal chemical weapon–were used against civilians in Fallujah.

    Another fact to keep in mind is that the US has deliberately followed the “Salvador Option” which is a policy of terror used against civilian populations. The idea is to break popular resistance by using paramilitary death squads which dissappear, torture, and assassinate people in the civilian population in order break people’s support of guerrillas. J. Negroponte carried out this policy in the 1980s as the US ambassador of Honduras, which is why he was made the US ambassador in Iraq. When he was ambassador there, Shiite death squads were armed which carried out widespread killing and torturing of Sunnis.

    In short, the US military has committed a number of violations of the geneva conventions in the conduct of the war in Iraq.

    So the question is who are the “terrorists” in this situation? If you define terrorism as the policy of using violence against civilians to create terror, then the use of IEDs is certainly terrorism, but the sad truth is that most of that terrorism in Iraq has been perpetuated by Iraqis against other Iraqis. Most of the Iraqi attacks against US troops do not meet the definition of terrorism, since they are legitimate military targets under international law. You may think that guerrilla warfair and IEDs in this situation are dirty warfare, but they are legal. On the otherhand, our troops are the ones committing the illegal acts in Iraq.

  • Azrael

    As far as I’m concerned, none of these combatants or civilians in the Muslim nations have any rights towards any sort of redress or protection under the Geneva Convention or any other written or unwritten rules of war. As aptly stated above, they choose not to play by them, so they are not guaranteed any sorts of protections under them.

    This seems such a simple and logical premise, it’s amazing how often it’s not implied. There are rules put in place for a reason, to place some order in the otherwise chaotic nature of war.

    This also applies to several other things in our lives, where these sorts of principles are conveniently ignored. Take illegal immigration, for instance. That is a great example of how people are expecting to benefit from the system but refusing to play by it’s rules.

    With breakdowns like this, it’s only a matter of time before we come to realize we’re the only ones playing by the rules anymore. And God help the rest of the world when we get sick of doing so.

    They might hate us now, but as soon as we stop being the nice guy, they’re going to do more than hate us. They’ll fear us.

  • Azrael

    As far as I’m concerned, none of these combatants or civilians in the Muslim nations have any rights towards any sort of redress or protection under the Geneva Convention or any other written or unwritten rules of war. As aptly stated above, they choose not to play by them, so they are not guaranteed any sorts of protections under them.

    This seems such a simple and logical premise, it’s amazing how often it’s not implied. There are rules put in place for a reason, to place some order in the otherwise chaotic nature of war.

    This also applies to several other things in our lives, where these sorts of principles are conveniently ignored. Take illegal immigration, for instance. That is a great example of how people are expecting to benefit from the system but refusing to play by it’s rules.

    With breakdowns like this, it’s only a matter of time before we come to realize we’re the only ones playing by the rules anymore. And God help the rest of the world when we get sick of doing so.

    They might hate us now, but as soon as we stop being the nice guy, they’re going to do more than hate us. They’ll fear us.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search