|
|
Post by lew on May 12, 2009 9:30:42 GMT -6
Clair, You may very well be correct that fewer than 346 Waffen-SS prisoners were killed at Dachau. However photos taken during the event seems to indicate more dead than the U.S. military claims. It would seem that Division the 45th Infantry had a history of killing prisoners dating back to Sicily."Following the capture of Biscari Airfield in Sicily on July 14, 1943, 74 Italian and two German POWs were shot by American troops of the 180th Regimental Combat Team, 45th Division during the Allied invasion of Sicily. The killings occurred in two separate incidents between July and August 1943. The first incident involved 34 Italians and two Germans, while the second involved 40 Italians." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacreGeneral Omar Bradley was informed of the massacre, and in turn informed General Patton that roughly 50 to 70 prisoners had been murdered in cold blood. Patton noted his response in his diary. I told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it.[ |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 10:49:49 GMT -6
Crzhrs,
Would be interesting to see your definition of when a Soldier is "justified" in shooting somebody.
And then a definition for when shooting somebody constitutes an actual crime.
Is there room in the middle for some category of shooting...say "not justified, but unavoidable shooting?"
Right, but it is Army policy to avoid such things, so we train our Soldiers to avoid this, and punish those that do. Here we brought charges against them, but dismissed their cases as either unprosecutable, or understandable and forgiven.
But if they did this today in Afghanistan, the Soldiers would probably be sent to prison. We just sent one soldier to prison here in Kentucky for murdering an Iraqi family after the soldier raped their 14-yr old daughter. He doesn't deserve the capital "S."
Wholeheartedly agree...let's avoid it as much as possible.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 10:52:01 GMT -6
Lew,
Yes, such things happen in most every war, and we try to keep a lid on it, both our Soldier's conduct, and out of the press.
There were many such incidents in WWII...Patton's 4th Armored Division was called "Roosevelt's Butchers" by the Germans after such an incident near Normandy.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 11:06:19 GMT -6
<Would be interesting to see your definition of when a Soldier is "justified" in shooting somebody. And then a definition for when shooting somebody constitutes an actual crime.
Is there room in the middle for some category of shooting...say "not justified, but unavoidable shooting?">
Shooting an enemy who is actively trying to kill you . . . is justifiable.
An enemy who is not actively trying to kill you can be justifiable . . . some soldiers would shoot an enemy if they were not a threat . . . all depends on the person's moral character. Some soldiers would not shoot an opponent if they were not an immediate threat.
Shooting someone who has surrendered . . . is unjustifiable.
Shooting a family member of an opponent who is not a combatant is unjustifiable.
Shooting an opponent who is wounded and no threat . . . is unjustifiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 11:24:36 GMT -6
<Would be interesting to see your definition of when a Soldier is "justified" in shooting somebody. And then a definition for when shooting somebody constitutes an actual crime. Is there room in the middle for some category of shooting...say "not justified, but unavoidable shooting?"> Shooting an enemy who is actively trying to kill you . . . is justifiable. An enemy who is not actively trying to kill you can be justifiable . . . some soldiers would shoot an enemy if they were not a threat . . . all depends on the person's moral character. Some soldiers would not shoot an opponent if they were not an immediate threat. Shooting someone who has surrendered . . . is unjustifiable. Shooting a family member of an opponent who is not a combatant is unjustifiable. Shooting an opponent who is wounded and no threat . . . is unjustifiable. I think you well describe general rules for a policeman, but not a Soldier. Here is what we train Soldiers, then and now: Certainly if a target is a threat to your safety you shoot him. You also shoot him if he/she is a threat to any other friends or civilians, or anybody/anything you don't want harmed/destroyed. If you have to blow up a house with an enemy that is a threat to you, you can do it, even if it is full of innocents. If you can get rid of the threat without doing this, fine, but you are justified in leveling the house just because one sniper is in there. When in doubt...SHOOT. This is just the opposite of policemen...when in doubt, don't shoot, eh? In wild combat, there is LOTS of doubt. So you shoot at lots of things. If somebody can't absolutely PROVE that what you shot should not have been shot at in the half-second you had to make up your mind, then you are justified in pulling the trigger. Make sense? Now I'll go much further in what the Army considers to be "justifiable lethal force"... You can destroy anything that helps any enemy who might want to harm you or what you are protecting. That means villages, warehouses, businesses, bridges, airfields, water wells, etc...anything that might help your enemy is fair game for destruction. Populations that help the enemy can be controlled. We have a task we train today's Army brigades called "Establish Civil Control." You can guess what that means...it includes moving hostile populations onto reservations so you can control them more easily. Now in counter-insurgency operations, where one of our goals is to win the support of the people, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we try to minimize a lot of this, and are more careful than we were in, say, WWII. But against the Native tribes, that was not considered a counterinsurgency, since they were not American citizens. So we didn't have as much incentive to preserve the civilians ways of life like we do in Iraq, et al. So we treated them with Christian charity, but not much more, and we certainly didn't hold back in destroying villages that supported the Warriors, whether they were filled with civilians, or not. The presence of enemy civilians are not protection against destruction of the means the enemy uses to support his fight. Now the presence of friendly (i.e., white) civilians will cause the Army to pause, if they think their safety can be assured by doing so... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 11:29:17 GMT -6
During wartime, you have a moral right to kill an opposing soldier who in turn has a moral right to kill you because each of you is armed and has been instructed to protect themselves and their nation.
This does not give either soldier the moral right to take the life of any person from the enemy nation. The person they kill must pose a direct threat to their own life and the well being of their country.
Dropping a bomb on a village who has a terrorist threat along with many innocent families is not morally permitted. If a combatant walks up to an unarmed man, points a gun at them and then tosses them a gun while shouting “defend your life,” the combatant does NOT have a moral right to kill the other now armed person. However, the man who received the tossed gun suddenly has a moral right to kill the combatant because they have just cause to defend their life.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 11:35:52 GMT -6
Czyhrs...
I agree...but ONLY if that opposing Soldier is clearly marked as a combatant. He/she does NOT have a moral right to fire at us if they look like a civilian. That is a war crime.
Since in this war, the Warriors didn't have particular uniforms, any male that looked like a Warrior, and was suspected to be from a declared hostile tribe, was fair game...shoot first, and ask questions later.
Or...anyone who supports the enemy that can only be stopped from supporting him by killing them, can be targeted. Normally we take them prisoner if we can, but noncombatants who provide food and shelter for enemy forces are treated as enemy Soldiers. They can be targeted...that's the rules, then and now.
Yes, it is morally and legally permitted, IF that is the only way to eliminate the terrorist. Normally we won't resort to this, but we sometimes have to, such as in Fallujah, Iraq.
Uh...I suppose. This scenario has not come up in Army training. <g>
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 12, 2009 13:36:25 GMT -6
If you have to blow up a house with an enemy that is a threat to you, you can do it, even if it is full of innocents.
And if the innocents are your civilians?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 14:03:13 GMT -6
If you have to blow up a house with an enemy that is a threat to you, you can do it, even if it is full of innocents. And if the innocents are your civilians? If they are friendly civilians, you MAY choose to not level it...depends upon the situation. There may be circumstances where it is necessary to go in even if lots of your own civilians could be harmed. Waco might be one example of this, but not a good one. But usually, wherever the Army goes, there aren't many "friendly" civilians. So our training is tempered by that...we usually consider civilian noncombatants to at least be "hostile." Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 12, 2009 15:00:18 GMT -6
So some civilians are more innocent than others?
Collatoral damage is ok as long as the collatoral is on the other side?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 19:39:27 GMT -6
So some civilians are more innocent than others? Collatoral damage is ok as long as the collatoral is on the other side? As a rule yes, not because we don't philosophically value other people's women and children as highly as our very own families (we really don't, but in theory we do), but because it is the enemy's job to protect their own families, and if they allow them to get in the way of a fight, it is their moral responsibility for that, not ours. We will do the best we can to avoid killing his women and children, even if they are combatants, but that is not usually very possible. The main thing is to kill the enemy, at ANY cost. And often their families pay that cost when they are immoral enough to put them at risk in a fight. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 13, 2009 1:33:42 GMT -6
And often their families pay that cost when they are immoral enough to put them at risk in a fight.
Does rule apply to the US?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 6:52:09 GMT -6
And often their families pay that cost when they are immoral enough to put them at risk in a fight.Does rule apply to the US? Yes, and that is why the Army has extensive "noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO)" plans in every country where Soldiers families accompany them to a potential war zone, like Korea, Japan, Germany, Turkey, Panama, etc. As soon as hostilities are suspected of occuring, the plan kicks in and all our families get evacuated to safety in the United States or the nearest neutral country (in Germany, my family had a kit all ready to drive to Switzerland, and if possible, to south France to fly back to the U.S. should the Russians have attacked). The Native Americans sometimes used the option of sending their families to the reservations for safety, while war parties rode the plains and mountains, but this didn't work very well, because it was difficult to get back together again once the Army identified the hostile Warriors. And Warriors don't do too well for very long without their families and villages. Some Apaches tried to keep families in Mexico and raid out of there, but the armies of both Mexico and the U.S. eventually dug them out of there, too. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 13, 2009 9:33:47 GMT -6
<Since in this war, the Warriors didn't have particular uniforms, any male that looked like a Warrior, and was suspected to be from a declared hostile tribe, was fair game...shoot first, and ask questions later>
Doesn't Dick Chaney have the same philosophy?
|
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on May 13, 2009 10:19:41 GMT -6
It's not entirely clear that Cheney asks questions at any stage of the process he follows.
Gordie
|
|
