US forces accused of murder of civilians in Afghanistan and coverup of murder

[Japanrocks12]

As I said in the other thread, and nobody has responded to this point, we need a zero-tolerance policy as a rudimentary way to deal with unwarranted civilian deaths in raids like these. You mess up, you kill even one non-military individual who is not a combatant in any way, then you are out. "Honorable" discharge, or whatever. Make them clean the toilets or whatever the military's idea of a degrading job is, because they cannot be trusted with weapons and implements of power.

 

[Silurian]

Japanrocks12@

As I said in the other thread, and nobody has responded to this point, we need a zero-tolerance policy as a rudimentary way to deal with unwarranted civilian deaths in raids like these. You mess up, you kill even one non-military individual who is not a combatant in any way, then you are out. "Honorable" discharge, or whatever. Make them clean the toilets or whatever the military's idea of a degrading job is, because they cannot be trusted with weapons and implements of power.

But in a lot of cases who do you blame.

The soldier who shot someone because they picked up a gun when they heard intruders in their home.
The commander who ordered the raid
The intelligence office who passed on the wrong intelligence
The military trainers for did not give the others enough training in counter insurgency.

You cannot always blame the person who pulled the trigger and if you do we will have no soldiers.

What would be better is saying "no comment - all we can confirm is the raid took place" " " we will release a statement tomorrow when we have the facts"

Rather as in this case spinning about honour killings etc. Once you have said something it is very difficult to take it back.

Maybe there should be a small amount of oversight by the justice department on how the military investigates the death of civilians.

 

[frekk]

You cannot always blame the person who pulled the trigger and if you do we will have no soldiers.

If it's that widespread (ie every soldier has done it) then maybe you shouldn't have any.

Also, this sort of reasoning is totally unacceptable. "I was just following orders" ... we didn't let that fly at Nuremburg and we shouldn't now.

 

[Silurian]

frekk@

I think the number of soldiers who have committed crimes is small, but not nonexistent.

We need a military to defend us and others.

I do not know if military crimes and mistakes is increasing or decreasing but would assume that in the long term it is decreasing.

Access to knowledge about military activities is increasing rapidly. I can access NATO press releases, old newspapers etc which would have been impossible fifteen years ago. I believe that the increase in knowledge is going faster than the reduction in military crimes and mistakes.

Also the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming more unpopular as time passes so more people look.

When the military carry out crimes and or make mistakes the people responsible should be held to account. The problem in different cases may be the individual or it may be a wider military problem which needs sorting.

 

[Flying Pig]

As I said in the other thread, and nobody has responded to this point, we need a zero-tolerance policy as a rudimentary way to deal with unwarranted civilian deaths in raids like these. You mess up, you kill even one non-military individual who is not a combatant in any way, then you are out. "Honorable" discharge, or whatever. Make them clean the toilets or whatever the military's idea of a degrading job is, because they cannot be trusted with weapons and implements of power.

A huge number of absolutely professional, capable people end up shooting civillians. There was one case during Op GRANBY in which one of my friends was involved where there was a firefight coming out of a wadi - a patrol of eight came under fire from about ten Iraqi soldiers. When they took the ridge on which the enemy were stationed, my mate's section found ten dead men, ten rifles, and a dead kid. He actually got really bad PTSD after this and left the forces after the Op, but the point is - what the hell could they have done about that? The enemy were too far away to even tell he was there and even then there's no way they were going to hold back and just take the rounds, because they'd have been shot to bits or at the best pinned down and then killed in a few minutes. While there's the famous dit about the SAS patrol in Malaya refusing to shoot a barge with the enemy high command aboard it because their families were on it as well, it's not always so easy - at the time they weren't getting shot at.

Also, this sort of reasoning is totally unacceptable. "I was just following orders" ... we didn't let that fly at Nuremburg and we shouldn't now.

Actually (I heard this from MobBoss, who's a lawyer with the spams so he's probably better equipped than me to say this) that only holds for low-level things, like the corporal telling you to shoot the women and children. It doesn't hold when it's been cleared 'above your pay grade'; so regardless of the outcome of the enquiry as to whether TELIC was legal, nobody who went on it can be prosecuted. I would assume that going on a raid which turns out to be at a civillian property, as long as you didn't know it was, is the same idea.

 

[frekk]

I think the number of soldiers who have committed crimes is small, but not nonexistent.

Then you don't have to worry about not having any soldiers.

The problem in different cases may be the individual or it may be a wider military problem which needs sorting.

I agree, but it doesn't get the person who pulled the trigger off the hook. You are responsible for your actions, even if you have been given orders to commit a crime.

 

[Silurian]

frekk@

Then you don't have to worry about not having any soldiers

Sorry I do not understand.

NATO forces and others have done some good in the world in preventing conflicts spreading.
In some cases the military should have been used more others less.
We also need the military to deal with a conventional conflict.

The person who pulls the trigger is not always responsible.
The people who decide on the tactics and strategy may be the cause.
And as flyingpig posted it was no way the soldiers fault in that case

 

[frekk]

Sorry I do not understand.

Well, you said that if we prosecuted all the soldiers involved in war crimes, you wouldn't have any soldiers left.

The person who pulls the trigger is not always responsible.
The people who decide on the tactics and strategy may be the cause.
And as flyingpig posted it was no way the soldiers fault in that case

You are always responsible for your own actions. If the soldiers do not realize they are attacking noncombatants, it is not a crime. Intent is a fundamental part of a crime. If they knowingly attack noncombatants, it doesn't matter if they were ordered to or not ... it is murder and they are responsible. Their superiors may be responsible as well, but that doesn't get them off the hook.

 

[Flying Pig]

If they knowingly attack noncombatants, it doesn't matter if they were ordered to or not ... it is murder and they are responsible. Their superiors may be responsible as well, but that doesn't get them off the hook.

As I said, grey. For example, during your Ops during the second gulf war the USAF (with support from British and coalition aircraft) sent bombers into Baghdad. That killed and injured noncombatants but undoubtedly shortened the war and so saved the lives of coalition troops on the ground. Even in ground operations - I suggest you read Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab. Half of the events should probably carry a fiction tag, but there are bits of it that really 'draw back the curtain'. There was one part where they were (apparently) laying low in observation of an MSR (think a motorway for the military) when a teenage goatherd came over the hill and saw them. They had a serious mental debate as to whether to shoot him. As it happens, they didn't (I would have, very quickly) and they ended up on the run, getting captured and getting tortured - and failing to disable the SCUD missiles which were their objective. That could have meant nuclear attacks on Israel or allied troops - that would have meant many deaths. It's not always clear-cut at all.

And then what about enemy soldiers that are holding their weapons in the air, or asleep, or running away? Sure, they're not a threat now, but the minute you turn your back they'll start shooting your mates. I remember at one point our unofficial procedure for prisoners was take their weapons, strip them, take the BCA (weighs about 200 grams and fits easily in your pocket, and is needed to fire the weapon) and tie them to a tree before telling another callsign where to find them. Sometimes we even broke or took their bayonets. You can't just leave - in some cases a platoon of - enemy around on trust.

 

[Silurian]

frekk@

Well, you said that if we prosecuted all the soldiers involved in war crimes, you wouldn't have any soldiers left

I said no such thing

Japanrocks12 referred too

unwarranted civilian deaths in raids like these

I would also assume he is concerned about the Apache gun site video as I am

Soldiers or anyone else who commit war crimes should be prosecuted and people who cover up for them should also be prosecuted.

Deaths due to other reasons may require prosecution of individuals or may be due to wider failings of the military. The individual soldiers are not always to blame.

If they know that they will be scapegoats if anything goes wrong recruitment will go down.
And if anything does go wrong everything will be covered up to protect the soldiers rather than finding out if there was a crime and prosecuting the guilty.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Who in Afghanistan started the war? I'm not aware of anyone.

It was when the people of Afghanistan held the national referendum to attack the United States and they voted "yes." Did you miss that?

Cleo

 

[frekk]

I said no such thing

You said, "You cannot always blame the person who pulled the trigger and if you do we will have no soldiers."

In context, we were talking about pulling the trigger on noncombatants.

 

[Flying Pig]

It was when the people of Afghanistan held the national referendum to attack the United States and they voted "yes." Did you miss that?

Cleo

Irony, right? One of the trade offs of having govenments is taht when there's a war fought against the government the people are the ones who actually have to live with it. Cf Gulf Wars, Second World War, Great War - just about every large scrap in human history.

 

[RedRalph]

Irony, right? One of the trade offs of having govenments is taht when there's a war fought against the government the people are the ones who actually have to live with it. Cf Gulf Wars, Second World War, Great War - just about every large scrap in human history.

The government of Afghanistan did not declare war on the US anymore than the government of Ireland and the US declared war on the UK during the troubles.

 

[Silurian]

frekk@
Yes we were talking about pulling the trigger on non-combatants.

Pulling the trigger on non-combatants is not always a war crime.

The policeman and family who were killed in the raid described in this thread may have been targeted by someone who disliked him by giving wrong info to the US troops. Or maybe the raid was badly planned.
Does that make the soldier who actually pulled the trigger guilty or someone else?

Things like this should be investigated to find out what happened and try to prevent them happening again.

 

[Flying Pig]

The government of Afghanistan did not declare war on the US anymore than the government of Ireland and the US declared war on the UK during the troubles.

I know. However, they provoked a war against them by their actions. There was definitly no public referendum

 

[frekk]

Yes we were talking about pulling the trigger on non-combatants. Pulling the trigger on non-combatants is not always a war crime.

Then you don't need to worry about losing all your soldiers.

The policeman and family who were killed in the raid described in this thread may have been targeted by someone who disliked him by giving wrong info to the US troops. Or maybe the raid was badly planned.
Does that make the soldier who actually pulled the trigger guilty or someone else?

It depends. It could be somebody else AND the soldier. It could be somebody else. It could be just the soldier. Or it might just be an accident.

There are alot of things that go into determining a crime, but one of the most important concepts is mens rea which means "guilty mind". This means that if a reasonable person should have known what they were doing is wrong, they are guilty of a crime.

Now let's remember that these people were tied up, gagged, and then stabbed. Anyone who is bound and gagged is not a threat; killing someone who is bound and gagged is clearly murder. It doesn't matter if they were given bad intel or whatnot. Once those people were bound and gagged, killing them is murder, and that's it. Whoever did the deed deserves to rot in hell.

Things like this should be investigated to find out what happened and try to prevent them happening again.

The only way you can prevent anything from happening is to put the responsible people's (if any) @sses on the line. If there are no consequences, expect no change. You can't just issue some policies etc. Wrongdoers don't care.

 

[frekk]

For example, during your Ops during the second gulf war the USAF (with support from British and coalition aircraft) sent bombers into Baghdad. That killed and injured noncombatants but undoubtedly shortened the war and so saved the lives of coalition troops on the ground.

Taking responsibility for your actions means you believe they are sufficiently worth doing that you're prepared to accept the consequences.

There was one part where they were (apparently) laying low in observation of an MSR (think a motorway for the military) when a teenage goatherd came over the hill and saw them. They had a serious mental debate as to whether to shoot him. As it happens, they didn't (I would have, very quickly) and they ended up on the run, getting captured and getting tortured

There's a concept in law called "duress". Duress defines a situation where you are in such a severe degree of certain mortal danger that you are deprived of free will, having no choice in the matter (for instance, someone puts a gun to your head). That might factor in, in such a situation. But shooting civilians warrants an investigation of the responsible individuals, to make that determination.

And then what about enemy soldiers that are ...

Let me stop you there; these aren't noncombatants.

 

[Flying Pig]

Let me stop you there; these aren't noncombatants.

I know. I was just presenting it as an example of where people in civvy street who think that their idea of a hard time is playing rugby in the rain actually have little idea of how warfare works on a ground level. I would go so far as to say most people here would never shoot anyone who wasn't actually shooting at them - that's not the case all the time.

Taking responsibility for your actions means you believe they are sufficiently worth doing that you're prepared to accept the consequences.

So you would have jailed the pilots on the grounds that they killed civvies and should be happy with it because they took responsibility for their actions? I'm confused here

 

[frekk]

So you would have jailed the pilots on the grounds that they killed civvies and should be happy with it because they took responsibility for their actions? I'm confused here

Let me give you a theoretical situation. Let's say Nazi Germany is winning the war. It's victory is only a matter of time. Some terror bombings against London and New York will, perhaps, shorten the war.

Presuming you were in Germany or one of the occupied countries, would it be the right thing to do for you to go out and sign on as part of a bomber crew and incinerate a few thousand Americans and Brits, whole families huddled in their homes?

I think we can't really know these things sometimes. Like you say, the morality gets pretty muddy sometimes. That's why we have rules that apply to everyone, no exceptions - we call this the rule of law, the idea that justice is blind, no one is exempt, no one is above the law.

I know that if I thought it was necessary to bomb a city and cause hundreds of innocents to die by my hand, I would have no trouble spending the rest of my life in jail. If it was worth that many innocent lives, what's one more?