U.S. Snipers Accused of 'Baiting' Iraqis

[DinoDoc]

Do we even know this is actually happening though? Only source for it so far seems to be someone with an incentive to lie.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Guilt or innocence generally gets determined in a court of law. Based on evidence.

This appalling piece of rubbish does not rest on evidence but on an inference - that someone who picks up a thing which would be of interest to a terrorist is one.

That is nice and well in a civilized country with a rule of law.

Currently Iraq is a battlefield of insurgency, with tons of irregular combatants that disguise themselves as civilians.

Are you seriously suggesting that a huge insurgency / civil war, be fought with a full court procedure for every suspected insurgent combatant?

This is nuts!

[SlowwHand]

Terminal civilians should make no judgments.
You have no frame of reference and it makes you look ignorant, which you are, to say some the things which are said.

[TheStinger]

If your a US soldier who has just occupied a town on Okinawa where you know the entire population is hostile to you and you role there is conquer and pacify the population this tactic would seem somewhat justified.
However the US are supposed to be in Iraq as liberators and to help protect the popualtion form terrorists/insurgents.
To me it just seems counterproductive

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That is nice and well in a civilized country with a rule of law.

The rule of law is not abandoned in an occupied country.

If you look at the fourth Geneva convention

( http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm )

you will see that those suspected of acting against the interests of the state or the occupying power are to be tried in a court, not summarily shot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader


The rule of law is not abandoned in an occupied country.

If you look at the fourth Geneva convention

( http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm )

you will see that those suspected of acting against the interests of the state or the occupying power are to be tried in a court, not summarily shot.

Iraq is not occupied territory under fourth Geneva. Iraq is legally a sovereign state under the Baghdad govt, as recognized by the UN. The US occupation formally ended several years ago. Iraqi forces, and forces in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi govt (subject to a status of forces agreement), are allowed the same rights any other sovereign state is allowed in fighting an insurgency on its own terriory.

[Patroklos]

you will see that those suspected of acting against the interests of the state or the occupying power are to be tried in a court, not summarily shot.

Is that what it says? Some of the other articles are more important in this case.

EDIT: LOTM beat me :dotinnow:

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Iraq is not occupied territory under fourth Geneva. Iraq is legally a sovereign state under the Baghdad govt, as recognized by the UN. The US occupation formally ended several years ago. Iraqi forces, and forces in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi govt (subject to a status of forces agreement), are allowed the same rights any other sovereign state is allowed in fighting an insurgency on its own terriory.

If it is wrong summarily to shoot people in time of war there is even less excuse in peacetime.

Happily those who have charged this soldier understand that murder is unlawful (in peace or war).

The same evidently cannot be said of his superiors (if his story is true).

Nor seemingly of some Polytubbies.

[Patroklos]

Happily those who have charged this soldier understand that murder is unlawful

They are not being tried for baiting, it is entirely possible that even using the baiting policy so inadequately described they are still guilty of murder for some other reason. This is their EXCUSE, OJ had one of those as well.

You know a total of three lines of the policy, and not from a primary source. I am pretty sure a five year old who walked up and proceeded to have a tea party with a detonator cap and her doll camel would not get a .50 slug in the forehead.

But please, go on overreacting.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You need to talk apples and apples. You bring up all this civilian crap, with no one knowing WHO IS A CIVILIAN.

But justifies this to mark people as terrorists who pick things up from the street that could be of interest for an terrorist (but could also be interesting for an civilian as outlined in this thread) and therefore just kill them?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do we even know this is actually happening though? Only source for it so far seems to be someone with an incentive to lie.

The commander who testified about the baiting policy is not charged with any crimes. He has no incentive to lie, and as an officer, it is highly unlikely that he would lie about a military policy while testifying in a military court.

As well, the prosecution did not challenge his testimony.

Given all of this, we can safely say that the policy does exist and it was implemented.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader


If it is wrong summarily to shoot people in time of war there is even less excuse in peacetime.

Who said it was peacetime?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


But justifies this to mark people as terrorists who pick things up from the street that could be of interest for an terrorist (but could also be interesting for an civilian as outlined in this thread) and therefore just kill them?

1. has anyone asked if there were announcements to people NOT to pick up certain kinds of objects?

2. Im glad you know exactly how to stop folks trying to commit mass murder against their fellow Iraqis withouth using standard sniper tactics. Please let me know when Germany is going to send a division there to help accomplish that.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. has anyone asked if there were announcements to people NOT to pick up certain kinds of objects?

2. Im glad you know exactly how to stop folks trying to commit mass murder against their fellow Iraqis withouth using standard sniper tactics. Please let me know when Germany is going to send a division there to help accomplish that.

We wouldn´t have created the mess first place by invading the country

But if the UN had given approval for the invasion (for example because the Bush-Government had convinced the UN security council with sincere Arguments instead of trying to trick them into giving the permission for the invasion by outright lies) then germany would have excelled into training policemen and in humanitarian efforts and not in sniping people (without being attacked or having some kind of proof that the people in their crosshairs are terrorists).

I can assure you that such a story about german soldiers doing these things would lead to a public uproar in germany, that would cost the political career of those who approved the "bait" order or knew about it.

[Berzerker]

The UN cant authorize regime change, its beyond their charter. The UN deals with int'l affairs, expelling Saddam from Kuwait was one thing, expelling him from Iraq is another. Its my understanding the members of the UN did not want an int'l organization meddling in the internal affairs of the member states.