6 ms·

really interesting article, but a few questions: 1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? 2) if "no one wanted detainee

really interesting article, but a few questions: 1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? 2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed? 3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him? 4) why did "no one want detainees"?

Volpe 15y ago
When did it come "okay" for governments to send kill squads into another country?
- palish 15y ago
  About... 1200 BC.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Is that a reference to the Trojan War?
- ovi256 15y ago
  In polite society, it's frowned upon. In the real world, they laugh and say "Oh what a sweet kid" when you ask such a question.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  When said country is harboring (whether intentionally or ignorantly) an international terrorist and mass-murderer.
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    We believe in rule of law (when convenient).
demallien 15y ago
Well, I don't know about the rest, but question 1 is a direct consequence of unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms. You know, the reason that we use uniforms is so that combatants are easily identified, which indirectly protects civilians, by clearly indicating that they aren't targets. If you're going to hang out with someone that has made a habit of launching attacks against a country whilst running around in civilian clothing, then yeah, you're at risk of becoming collateral damage. Don't do that.
- ovi256 15y ago
  >unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms I think you mean armed combatant. An unarmed man being by definition a non-combatant. The reason western militaries use uniforms is very different from the one you give. The fact that it differentiates conventional combatants from civilians is a consequence of wearing uniforms, not the reason. The original reason going back some centuries was to provide adequate, uniform, protection to poor peasants that lacked good clothing, distinguish own's troops from the enemy and instill "esprit de corps". The whole uniformed troops clearly marked as combatants is today a very Western value. We obviously would like everyone to fight like this, especially because Western armies are very good at this kind of fighting and would win quickly. Instead, they fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we can go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs. And the whole "protecting civilians" argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era.
  - demallien 15y ago
    Hmmm, it was more 'combatant' armed or not. The definition of what is and is not a combatant is rather blurry though, and ultimately comes down to the judgment of the individual soldier. Obviously a group of schoolgirls doesn't qualify, and a squad of advancing infantry does qualify, but in-between there are many shades of grey, and only the most flagrant targeting of civilians is prosecutable. As always, proportionality applies. You're wrong about the reasons we wear uniforms today, although there is some validity to your remarks with respect to history. But these days, in the era of ubiquitous camouflage, the reason we wear a uniform is because the Geneva Convention requires it of combatants wishing to be protected under the Convention's provisions - from the International Committee of the Red Cross's website (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/methods-means-warfare/overview-methods-and-means-of-warfare.htm http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/meth...) : "IHL includes a number of corollaries to the principle of distinction in order to secure the protection of civilian persons and objects. For example, it stipulates that combatants in an international armed conflict are required to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (normally by wearing a uniform) while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. In addition, IHL prohibits indiscriminate attacks and provides for the principle of proportionality, which dictates that the so called "incidental loss" of civilian life and/or property should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In order to implement the restrictions and prohibitions on targeting, specific precautions must also be observed by all Parties to an armed conflict." For more information, you can try googling "Principle of Distinction"
shareme 15y ago
Ex military.. Enemy combatants are never considered unarmed..it has been that way since WWII..enemy combatants are considered unarmed when we have unarmed them.. No wanted detainees because ahem its Pakistan rules if in their country and have captured enemy combatants alive..
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
These seem like loaded questions. It's appropriate in certain scenarios where the combatant is perceived to be a threat (that someone is unarmed cannot be known until they are killed/apprehended). In this case Bin Laden used his wives as human shields and only froze after that plan was foiled. Note that the first SEAL used non-deadly force on one of the women and even risked his life in bear-hugging them to protect his teammates. They said that capture would have been possible had he surrendered immediately; he didn't do this, he used his wives as human shields.
lucasjung 15y ago
>1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? It has always been OK to shoot enemy combatants who are not actively communicating their intent to surrender; just because someone is not obviously armed, does not mean that he is definitely not a threat. The more important question is, "How do you know if someone is an enemy combatant?" This becomes especially difficult if the enemy does not wear proper identifying clothing or insignia. In the most unambiguous cases, the inherent right to self defense kicks in: if someone has a gun and is acting in a threatening manner, you get to shoot. Beyond that, rules of engagement will define criteria for determining if an individual or unit should be considered hostile ("hostile" has specific meaning, including, "OK to shoot at."). UBL was unambiguously an enemy combatant, so the ROE in this scenario apparently defined him as hostile. >2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed? I don't think that phrase was meant to be as general as you are taking it to be. I think what was really meant was, "No one wanted to try to bring detainees out of Pakistan on the helicopters." The choice in re. UBL and his sons was to either kill them on the spot, turn them over to the Pakistanis, or fly them out on the helicopters. Turning them over to the Pakistanis has so many problems that I'm not even going to try to get into it. Trying to fly them out is risky because something could go wrong (e.g. helicopter shot down or crashed), resulting in escape, or capture by the Pakistanis. The highest priority here seems to have been closure, to get UBL out of the picture for sure, and flying him across a mountain range in a helicopter puts that objective at risk. The same three choices (kill, turn over to Pakistan, or extract) applied to the women, but the need for closure didn't apply, so turning them over to the Pakistanis actually made the most sense. >3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him? Freezing alone has never been considered a form of surrender. Just freezing can indicate indicision, panic, or calculated caution just as easily as it can indicate a desire to surrender. Surrender requires a deliberate indication of an intent to surrender, such as putting your hands in the air or laying down on the ground. The fact that he used his wives as human shields indicated an intent to continue resisting, and he did nothing to adequately indicate that he had changed his mind and wanted instead to surrender. You can switch from fighting to surrendering at any point, right up to the moment before you are killed, but the other side has no obligation to pause at that moment to evaluate if you have changed your mind. >4) why did "no one want detainees"? See my answer to #2.
smhinsey 15y ago
The first known officially sanctioned assassination by the United States of an enemy leader was when Roosevelt authorized[1] the Navy to intercept the airplane carrying IJN Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto[2] on an inspection tour of installations in the Solomon Islands. This was in April of 1943. [1] Operation Vengenace [2] The planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as the driving force behind the modern, carrier-centric Japanese Navy
- shrikant 15y ago
  That's some heavy Cryptonomicon memories right there.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    You know, as much as I like his other books, and the genre in general, I never made it that far into Cryptonomicon.

Volpe 15y ago

When did it come "okay" for governments to send kill squads into another country?

palish 15y ago
About... 1200 BC.
- arethuza 15y ago
  Is that a reference to the Trojan War?
ovi256 15y ago
In polite society, it's frowned upon. In the real world, they laugh and say "Oh what a sweet kid" when you ask such a question.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
When said country is harboring (whether intentionally or ignorantly) an international terrorist and mass-murderer.
- mcantelon 15y ago
  We believe in rule of law (when convenient).

demallien 15y ago

Well, I don't know about the rest, but question 1 is a direct consequence of unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms. You know, the reason that we use uniforms is so that combatants are easily identified, which indirectly protects civilians, by clearly indicating that they aren't targets. If you're going to hang out with someone that has made a habit of launching attacks against a country whilst running around in civilian clothing, then yeah, you're at risk of becoming collateral damage. Don't do that.

ovi256 15y ago
>unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms I think you mean armed combatant. An unarmed man being by definition a non-combatant. The reason western militaries use uniforms is very different from the one you give. The fact that it differentiates conventional combatants from civilians is a consequence of wearing uniforms, not the reason. The original reason going back some centuries was to provide adequate, uniform, protection to poor peasants that lacked good clothing, distinguish own's troops from the enemy and instill "esprit de corps". The whole uniformed troops clearly marked as combatants is today a very Western value. We obviously would like everyone to fight like this, especially because Western armies are very good at this kind of fighting and would win quickly. Instead, they fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we can go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs. And the whole "protecting civilians" argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era.
- demallien 15y ago
  Hmmm, it was more 'combatant' armed or not. The definition of what is and is not a combatant is rather blurry though, and ultimately comes down to the judgment of the individual soldier. Obviously a group of schoolgirls doesn't qualify, and a squad of advancing infantry does qualify, but in-between there are many shades of grey, and only the most flagrant targeting of civilians is prosecutable. As always, proportionality applies. You're wrong about the reasons we wear uniforms today, although there is some validity to your remarks with respect to history. But these days, in the era of ubiquitous camouflage, the reason we wear a uniform is because the Geneva Convention requires it of combatants wishing to be protected under the Convention's provisions - from the International Committee of the Red Cross's website (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/methods-means-warfare/overview-methods-and-means-of-warfare.htm http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/meth...) : "IHL includes a number of corollaries to the principle of distinction in order to secure the protection of civilian persons and objects. For example, it stipulates that combatants in an international armed conflict are required to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (normally by wearing a uniform) while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. In addition, IHL prohibits indiscriminate attacks and provides for the principle of proportionality, which dictates that the so called "incidental loss" of civilian life and/or property should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In order to implement the restrictions and prohibitions on targeting, specific precautions must also be observed by all Parties to an armed conflict." For more information, you can try googling "Principle of Distinction"

shareme 15y ago

Ex military.. Enemy combatants are never considered unarmed..it has been that way since WWII..enemy combatants are considered unarmed when we have unarmed them.. No wanted detainees because ahem its Pakistan rules if in their country and have captured enemy combatants alive..

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

These seem like loaded questions. It's appropriate in certain scenarios where the combatant is perceived to be a threat (that someone is unarmed cannot be known until they are killed/apprehended). In this case Bin Laden used his wives as human shields and only froze after that plan was foiled. Note that the first SEAL used non-deadly force on one of the women and even risked his life in bear-hugging them to protect his teammates. They said that capture would have been possible had he surrendered immediately; he didn't do this, he used his wives as human shields.

lucasjung 15y ago

>1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants? It has always been OK to shoot enemy combatants who are not actively communicating their intent to surrender; just because someone is not obviously armed, does not mean that he is definitely not a threat. The more important question is, "How do you know if someone is an enemy combatant?" This becomes especially difficult if the enemy does not wear proper identifying clothing or insignia. In the most unambiguous cases, the inherent right to self defense kicks in: if someone has a gun and is acting in a threatening manner, you get to shoot. Beyond that, rules of engagement will define criteria for determining if an individual or unit should be considered hostile ("hostile" has specific meaning, including, "OK to shoot at."). UBL was unambiguously an enemy combatant, so the ROE in this scenario apparently defined him as hostile. >2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed? I don't think that phrase was meant to be as general as you are taking it to be. I think what was really meant was, "No one wanted to try to bring detainees out of Pakistan on the helicopters." The choice in re. UBL and his sons was to either kill them on the spot, turn them over to the Pakistanis, or fly them out on the helicopters. Turning them over to the Pakistanis has so many problems that I'm not even going to try to get into it. Trying to fly them out is risky because something could go wrong (e.g. helicopter shot down or crashed), resulting in escape, or capture by the Pakistanis. The highest priority here seems to have been closure, to get UBL out of the picture for sure, and flying him across a mountain range in a helicopter puts that objective at risk. The same three choices (kill, turn over to Pakistan, or extract) applied to the women, but the need for closure didn't apply, so turning them over to the Pakistanis actually made the most sense. >3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him? Freezing alone has never been considered a form of surrender. Just freezing can indicate indicision, panic, or calculated caution just as easily as it can indicate a desire to surrender. Surrender requires a deliberate indication of an intent to surrender, such as putting your hands in the air or laying down on the ground. The fact that he used his wives as human shields indicated an intent to continue resisting, and he did nothing to adequately indicate that he had changed his mind and wanted instead to surrender. You can switch from fighting to surrendering at any point, right up to the moment before you are killed, but the other side has no obligation to pause at that moment to evaluate if you have changed your mind. >4) why did "no one want detainees"? See my answer to #2.

smhinsey 15y ago

The first known officially sanctioned assassination by the United States of an enemy leader was when Roosevelt authorized[1] the Navy to intercept the airplane carrying IJN Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto[2] on an inspection tour of installations in the Solomon Islands. This was in April of 1943. [1] Operation Vengenace [2] The planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as the driving force behind the modern, carrier-centric Japanese Navy

shrikant 15y ago
That's some heavy Cryptonomicon memories right there.
- smhinsey 15y ago
  You know, as much as I like his other books, and the genre in general, I never made it that far into Cryptonomicon.