# Targeted killings



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is an interesting and somewhat provocative article by Prof. Paul Robinson:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=51a2efd0-76cb-4523-8240-0f88f70892da


> We can't just take them out
> *It's tempting to simply fire a missile or sniper bullet and be done with suspected terrorist leaders -- but it's a lot more complicated than that*
> 
> Paul Robinson, Citizen Special
> ...



The ethical issue, the business of “the test of the categorical imperative” and “consequentialist reasoning,” is interesting and, for some individuals, maybe be mightily important. 

There is another issue, one that Prof. Robinson is trying to ‘drive’: public opinion. Canadians are, at best, _edgy_ about combat in Afghanistan. There is a well entrenched, albeit historically unjustified, national _mythology_ about Canada being a ‘kinder, gentler’ _nation of peacekeepers_. A substantial minority of Canadians will, almost certainly, choke on the idea that _their_ soldiers are *assassinating* Afghan _militants_. 

Finally, Prof Robinson asks: "does it [the targeted killing _programme_] enhance the legitimacy of the Afghan government?" He concludes, categorically, that it does not. I’m not so sure. I cannot see how the _legitimacy_ of the Afghan government is *enhanced* by a Taliban led insurgency; I also cannot see how the aggressive, even _murderous_ prosecution of a counterinsurgency campaign weakens the legitimacy of he government. Is the Israeli government less _legitimate_ because it uses targeted assassinations against terrorists? 

I dispute Prof. Robinson’s assertion that the “shoot to kill” policy made some Irish Catholics doubt the legitimacy of British rule in Ulster: they had doubted that legitimacy for centuries, that’s why the IRA had so much support.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 May 2008)

Presumably he would be equally outraged by insurgent attempts to kill government officials, senior army officers and police chiefs as has happened in the recent past. While I can see and accept the moral issues involved in targeting political and tribal/band leadership, military and paramilitary leaders are by the very nature of their role legitimate targets. The challenge is to identify and target them. Gee, maybe a humint organization would help here.


----------



## MedTechStudent (27 May 2008)

See here is the peace keeping stereotype again causing misguided assumptions and opinions of the Canadian Military.


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

His comparison between Afghanistan and a city in Canada is provocative and misplaced.   There's a great difference between actions in a town that has a lawless environment (where local LEO's are inactive, paralyzed or corrupt), and a town where the local LEO's are active, supported by a legal system, and the majority of the local population supports policing efforts.

The professer has also lumped together 'death squads' and 'special forces', which is particularily offensive.  There is a great difference between the two. 

This is not to say targeted assassinations are happening or not happening.  Its a theory he put together with no direct evidence at this time.  But if it were happening, it wouldn't be random.  The person(s) would be watched and observed and activities noted, and their efforts to make bombs and collect weapons would be recorded.  However, if local authorities refused to arrest or interdict the persons involved (for whatever reason), and an attack on a Canadian/NATO facility were imminent, what do you do?  Let them attack and take solace in the fact that you know who did it and you can arrest them afterwards?  Or take action?  It would be a moral and ethical dilemna for all involved, not some random raid.

All he's done in his article is raised the traditional moral dilemna thats been around for over fifty years - would you commit a 'crime' in order to prevent a 'greater crime'.  e.g. if you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler before he came to power?  Maybe he should read Stephen King's 'Dead Zone'...


----------



## dglad (27 May 2008)

It's an interesting ethical question for sure.  During war, killing leaders is a recognized and effective tactic; when I did my sniper course way back when, it was pretty clear that snipers had a clear role in killing specific individuals on the battlefield, including leaders (i.e. those conspicuously leading opposing forces, as well as things like radio operators, heavy weapons crews, vehicle drivers or crew commanders, etc.   Detail's depended on the assigned target priorities).  This is clearly targeted killing; is it "assassination"?  I don't think so.  When a state of declared war exists, concepts like "murder" and "assassination" become generally subjegated by the need to conduct effective military operations (within limits expressed by things like the CF Code of Conduct, of course).

The fact that there's an unwillingness, to at least some extent, to treat captured combatants as PWs is what's blurring the matter, more than perceptions of Canadian soldiers as "peacekeepers".  Frankly, based on my (admittedly anecdotal) interactions with the public, the "peacekeeping myth" is just that...only a small number of (admittedly vocal) Canadians are really clinging to the idea because it suits their ideological view of how they would like the world to work.  Most Canadians actually seem to be reasonably smart people who realize that there's a time to be peacekeepers, and a time to be warfighters.


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

Paul Robinson said:
			
		

> The first problem with this tactic is that the people being killed have not been convicted of any crime. Justifying the killing requires accepting that one is operating not in a law-enforcement environment, but rather in a state of war. That, however, carries it with a whole series of legal ramifications, such as the granting of prisoner of war status to captured enemies, which, to date, no NATO members have been willing to accept.


I'd say this is more a legal question (as opposed to tactical).  Are we legally at war or not?  My take is that yes we are.



			
				Paul Robinson said:
			
		

> The second problem is an ethical one. Targeted killings fail the test of the categorical imperative: Is this an activity one would wish to be universally practised?


This purely rule-deontological approach to ethics has its limitations.  Consider: One could conclude that a categorical imperative would be to never kill.  Now imagine the driver of a bus loaded with 50 pers has brakes fail on a BC mountain road.  If the driver does nothing, the bus will launch of the cliff ahead and kill everyone inside, but the driver could turn the bus onto a run-away lane and come to a safe stop.  Unfortunately, there is a pedestrian blocking the run-away lane.  Playing purely to the rule of categorical imperative, the bus driver would allow the 50 people to be die before deliberately killing the one pedestrian.   

Most reasonable people do not subscribe to hard & pure deontological or utilitarian ethics.  Most people will see a logical middle ground between the two.



			
				Paul Robinson said:
			
		

> Let us imagine that during the 1980s the Indian government had decided that it wished to eliminate Sikh terrorists based in Canada, and had chosen to slit the throats of suspects living in Vancouver. Or let us imagine that the current Sri Lankan government were to launch missiles at Canadians in Toronto suspected of links to Tamil terrorists.


These analogies are extreme and fall short for a number of reasons.  Both suggest a foreign nation seeing to its own interests without Canadian consent and neither one suggests another nation in Canada at the request of the Canadian government to fight an overwhelming problem to our nation.  Yet, that is exactly how we find ourselves in Afghanistan.  We are there at the request of the democratically elected government's request and we are supporting the Afghans in the resolution of a problem.  In the case of the second example "launch missiles" seems intended to conjure images of blunt indescriminate force while our operations in Afghanistan both precise and targeted.


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2008)

I've always felt that "targeted killings" were the more ethical option in a time of war.

Back in the days when armies lined up in nice neat rows, traded volley fire, then fixed bayonets it was considred bad form to kill the officers. Then western armies realized that we'd be much more effective if we tried to avoid the fighting the sharp end whenever possile, instead going to cut off enemy supply lines and command and control. I've never been to war college, but this seems to be the jist of what manuever warfare is.

In a modern counter insurgency, the line between military command and control has been blurred with politics. The Strategic Corporal, the 3D approach, 4th Gen Warfare, Terrorism, and geurilla warfare are all concepts that recognize the need for a holistic approach to warfighting. Its no longer about just killing the bad guys, it's about doing it in a way that wins hearts and minds so that we can achieve long term goals.  Shifting public opinion to our side is just as important as taking out IED factories.  Preventing public opinion from leaning towards our enemies is just as important as force protection. This is why neutralizing enemy political leaders is important to our cause - whether this be through discrediting them, arresting them, or targeted killings. There is a big difference between neutralizing political leaders in a country at war and curbing democracy in a stable state. Targeted killings are no lesss moral then bombing a military command post.

Targeted killings are a way to cut off the insurgent's supply lines. An guerilla or terrorist leader doesn't look for strength in bullets and beans. He gets his strength by inciting the population against us. Propaghanda, misinformation, and undermining our will to fight is how he intends to win. But if we can cut off the source of that propaghanda, we enhance our own efforts to win hearts and minds.

The alternative to this is a war of attrition. By restricting ourselves to driving around and getting IEDed, lighting up the countryside as we push through ambushes, and causing mayhem in the name of self defence we'll never get the populace onto our side. We can dig wells, build schools, and take on all the humanitarian projects in the world, but as long as the insurgent is twisting words as he speaks into the people's ear we'll never accomplish lasting peace. Well, maybe we will, but it will draw the war out much longer then it needs to.

So in a time of war, what is the more ethical option? A long drawn out war of attrition causing widespread death and chaos among the population, or a bullet in the head of an insurgent leader? In my mind, it's pretty clear. "Targeted killings" trade the lives of a handfull of insurgent leaders in order to save the lives of the grunts on the front and innocents that are caught in the crossfire.


----------



## MedTechStudent (27 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Back in the days when armies lined up in nice neat rows, traded volley fire, then fixed bayonets it was considred bad form to kill the officers.



Mhmm back in the days when warfare was a "gentleman's pursuit."   ;D
And the officers were the sons of rich land owners off to "win" battles for the good of the family name.  Oh Red Coats.   :

Can you imagine if war was still fought volley style?

"Pte BLoggins, we won the coin toss and get to shoot first, bring up that AA-12"

Be over a lot faster thats for sure.  :

Haven't target killings been going on for decades?  From the American Revolution, to the Civil War, to WW1 and 11.  Why is it such a taboo in todays warfare.  If you are the leader politically influential member of a country at war, keep your head down.  You can't continue to plan and strategize ways to kill the enemy or win a war, and then complain when you get shot at.   :


----------



## ArmyRick (27 May 2008)

The way I see it is rather simple. An enemy leader/commander/general is the same target as any strategic or tactical asset. That same targetted leader has the opition at any time to surrender. 

People who sit in comfortable clasrooms and debate this stuff are not realizing the ugly results that ALWAYS come from war. War requires the brutal and effective application of force to impose the will of one side over the other. 

I would pay attention to more practical ETHICAL issues like treatment of PWs, avoiding civilian casualties when possible, etc.

If you go overboard with ethics, you could basically argue that any military action is not ethical or that even having an army is unethical.

There is the classroom and the real world.


----------



## MedTechStudent (27 May 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The way I see it is rather simple. An enemy leader/commander/general is the same target as any strategic or tactical asset. That same targetted leader has the opition at any time to surrender.



Agreed, if it becomes to much of a worry for you, step down from your position or raise the white flag high.


----------



## HItorMiss (27 May 2008)

Targeted Killing...Absolutely!

The key word is "Targeted" I have never met any soldier that Indiscriminately killed anyone. The people who may or may not be "targeted" are watched for weeks sometimes months and years. There are people who's job it is to track and monitor the activities of these BAD people 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 

There is a vast amount of work and data used to make it on to any list where people could come at night and take you away to be prosecuted for your crimes. There is another thing to best of my admitted limited knowledge most of the forces I know of who do this sort of thing come to arrest not kill the individuals...


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The way I see it is rather simple. An enemy leader/commander/general is the same target as any strategic or tactical asset. That same targetted leader has the opition at any time to surrender.
> 
> People who sit in comfortable clasrooms and debate this stuff are not realizing the ugly results that ALWAYS come from war. War requires the brutal and effective application of force to impose the will of one side over the other.
> 
> ...



I'd say that pretty well sums it up.


----------



## Armymedic (27 May 2008)

> According to the United Nations, death squads acting on orders from, and with the direct support of, NATO forces are carrying out "gratuitous civilian killings" in Afghanistan today.



How do they know it is NATO (US) forces? Are they sure it is not US trained Afghan forces? Are they certain it is NATO (US) forces who are telling them what to do? 

BTW, I find "death squads" quite sensationalized, targeting the left leaning sheep. You could get by with calling lawful organizations like the Toronto ERT a "death squad" as they are ready to kill if the threat required it.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> See here is the peace keeping stereotype again causing misguided assumptions and opinions of the Canadian Military.



Now!  After reading this I really have to wonder where the heck I am?  On what planet/dimension am I living?


----------



## MedTechStudent (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now!  After reading this I really have to wonder where the heck I am?  On what planet/dimension am I living?



Ya I feel the sick sense of irony too.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 May 2008)

Targeted killings of Taliban unethical? WTF?????

What is so unethical about that? The senior Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership target women and children. They use women, children and mentally deficient people as suicide bombers. We should be targeting them and killing them without mercy.
So what's with the "lace panties" attitude? 
As an example, Admiral Yamamoto was targetted by the USN in WW2. They got him, and one of the operational & strategical brains was put out of the picture. His death was a major blow to the Japanese.
I don't understand the attitude of these people who want to see a "hands off" policy. It's unrealistic and very naive.


----------



## Teeps74 (27 May 2008)

We are fighting a war against fanatic insurgents. They will not change their minds. Their only mission is the death of us, and the establishment of a Caliphate, which would expand world wide.

Does this guy beleive that we could negotiate with, and arrest a rabid dog? The same level of reasoning exists...


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2008)

dglad said:
			
		

> The fact that there's an unwillingness, to at least some extent, to treat captured combatants as PWs is what's blurring the matter, more than perceptions of Canadian soldiers as "peacekeepers".



They are not treated as "PW's" because they are not "PW's". They do not fit the definitions of lawful combatants as defined in the various Geneva Conventions, and as noted above, they operate in a manner which is vile and criminal in every regard. 

Targeted Killing is much more "ethical" compared to indiscriminate bombing or shelling. In the old days we would need to level entire cities to "get" the enemy leadership (and even then it would be more of a chance occurance); today we have a much better chance of eliminating leaders and other high value targets without material or colateral damage to the surrounding population or countryside.


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The way I see it is rather simple. An enemy leader/commander/general is the same target as any strategic or tactical asset. That same targetted leader has the opition at any time to surrender.
> 
> People who sit in comfortable clasrooms and debate this stuff are not realizing the ugly results that ALWAYS come from war. War requires the brutal and effective application of force to impose the will of one side over the other.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, there's always an 'expert' out there sticking their nose into the issue...


----------



## dglad (27 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'd say this is more a legal question (as opposed to tactical).  Are we legally at war or not?  My take is that yes we are.



Well, I agree.  But the trouble here is that there's currently a reluctance to, as the article points out, treat captured combatants as PWs.  As others in this thread (including me) have quite amply pointed out, targeted killings in themselves, during wartime, aren't an issue.  Snipers target enemy officers and other leaders, headquarters are high-value targets, an opportunity to kill a senior enemy leader is aggressively pursued (e.g. the killing of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto by American P-38's in 1943, following intercept and decryption of his flight itinerary by US naval intelligence).

However, as soon as you begin to "cherry-pick" things that are considered legitimate in armed conflict and apply them, but choose not to apply others (like treating captured combatants as PWs), you risk placing yourself into a legal and ethical grey zone.  If you're at war and can, therefore, legitimately undertake targeted killings of specific targets, then why wouldn't you treat the opponents you capture as PWs?


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Targeted Killing...Absolutely!



I concur, there aint nothing wrong with doing this PERIOD, IMHO of course.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 May 2008)

O the experts are always right  :

I think he should go back to teaching, or at least research what he is commenting on  :


Well I think this guy is good at one thing: and that is bringing back the "Soldiers are Baby Killers" statements  :, and I bet he is one of those who wants us to invade Sudan  :


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> This is why neutralizing enemy political leaders is important to our cause - whether this be through discrediting them, arresting them, or targeted killings.


I would seriously question the notion that politicians are legitimate targets … unless of course they were part of the military personnel (such as in a junta).



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The senior Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership target women and children. They use women, children and mentally deficient people as suicide bombers. We should be targeting them and killing them without mercy.


The TB have not used the mentally handicapped as bombers (that was Iraq) and gone are the chivalrous days where a woman’s sex ensured she could be niether a legitimate target nor combatant.  



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> We should be targeting them and killing them without mercy.


Reprisals (or vengeance killings) are not legal & not permitted within CF policy.  We kill for military necessity (ie. must be done to achieve the mission with minimum consumption of manpower & resources).  Destroying the bomb-making network is necessary.  Sometimes that may require members of the enemy get killed.  

Seven dead bombers, responsible for the deaths of 27 soldiers, will not be killing any more soldiers.  That's a pretty impressive tactical effect.


----------



## TrexLink (27 May 2008)

Legally, we are not at war. No declaration, no war.  Technically, we are involved in a stabilization operation.  (Like Korea was a 'police action'.)

Targeting politicians - it depends if the politician is in the chain of command.  The GG, despite her titular status as Commander-In-Chief, has no control over the CF and can hardly be considered a legitimate target.  POTUS on the other hand is a CIC who actually influences the conduct of operations and, as far as I am concerned, is therefore a legitimate target.  Taliban leaders?  Fair as fair can be.

Sir Thomas More wrote Utopia in the 1500s about a fictional, idealized nation.  More noted that in time of war, the Utopians offered a huge reward for anybody who would off the other side's leaders. They also send hit squads after them in battle.  More justified their conduct as follows:  _They think it likewise an act of mercy and love to mankind to prevent the great slaughter of those that must otherwise be killed in the progress of the war, both on their own side and on that of their enemies, by the death of a few that are most guilty; and that in so doing they are kind even to their enemies, and pity them no less than their own people, as knowing that the greater part of them do not engage in the war of their own accord, but are driven into it by the passions of their prince._

Works for me.


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> Taliban leaders?  Fair as fair can be.


Absolutely.  The CO is as much a combatant as the rifleman (at least legally).


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2008)

> I would seriously question the notion that politicians are legitimate targets



What I was trying to get at is that politicians are a vital part of the enemy war machine and therefore are moral targets. When so much of a counter-insurgency is dependant on the views of the population, neglecting to actively undermine the authority of enemy politicans is neglecting to deal with an insurgency at it's source. A bullet in the head of one important enemy politican could potentially save the lives of many working below him, not to mention the lives of our own soldiers.

The more important argument is whether or not targeted killings make tactical sense - whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In this, each particular situation will dictate.


----------



## Greymatters (28 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> What I was trying to get at is that politicians are a vital part of the enemy war machine and therefore are moral targets. When so much of a counter-insurgency is dependant on the views of the population, neglecting to actively undermine the authority of enemy politicans is neglecting to deal with an insurgency at it's source. A bullet in the head of one important enemy politican could potentially save the lives of many working below him, not to mention the lives of our own soldiers.
> 
> The more important argument is whether or not targeted killings make tactical sense - whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In this, each particular situation will dictate.



You forget who it is who wrote and approved the rules of warfare, Geneva conventions and other significant guidelines - the politicians.  And they do not approve of targeting other politicians, as it sets a bad precedent.  In their minds, its difficult to negotiate with your opponent if they keep getting killed.  Unfortunately, their rules rarely work well when dealing with an opponent who does negotiate, or who uses political talks as a delaying tactic prior to further attacks.  

From the military viewpoint, killing the head (regardless of political or military status) is important but must be balanced against other considerations - namely avoiding making the leader into a martyr whose death would further inspire the population.  Its also hard to get someone with actual recognized authority to sign the surrender papers if you keep shooting them.


----------



## Yrys (28 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> From the military viewpoint, killing the head (regardless of political or military status) is important but must be balanced against other considerations - namely avoiding making the leader into a martyr whose death would further inspire the population.  Its also hard to get someone with actual recognized authority to sign the surrender papers if you keep shooting them.



I'm no SME, just a civilian. But even if some Talibans leaders would surrender, since they're not government of a country, but
leaders of an ideological movement, wouldn't someone else just take their places ? 

Just wondering...


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2008)

Unfortunately, COIN ops is frequently more about taking the moral than the geographical high ground. A targeted assassination program, with no effort made to effect arrest as per the various rules of engagement and the principles of minimum force, sometimes is (unfortunately) not the way to gain brownie points in the long term with the population you are hoping will reject the insurgents. 

The British Army's experience in NI showed that this was always a fine line to walk, and court cases are ongoing where very bad men and women were shot and killed while clearly being engaged in terrorist activity e.g., 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/20/northernireland.northernireland

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/700831.stm

It is absurd to think that the families of the Loughall bombers, all of whom were (thank God) ruthlessly exterminated by the SAS and RUC, even have a case is astonishing. I'm convinced that more of my troops are alive today because these scumbags were ambushed and removed from the gene pool. 

Regardless, as this case shows, we need to make sure we get it right on the moral, legal and PR fronts before we pull the trigger, or we risk losing the PR battle to the dirtbags.


----------



## Greymatters (28 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> I'm no SME, just a civilian. But even if some Talibans leaders would surrender, since they're not government of a country, but
> leaders of an ideological movement, wouldn't someone else just take their places ?
> Just wondering...



They can be replaced, but there's no guarantee that the new leaders will by followed by everyone or that everyone will listen to them...


----------



## TrexLink (28 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> They can be replaced, but there's no guarantee that the new leaders will by followed by everyone or that everyone will listen to them...


 There may also be some reluctance on the part of potential replacements to take the job if the last six retired as members of the Pink Mist Society...

Even more important - command abilities and staff abilities are hard to come by and take time to develop.  A good, solid, very competent spear-carrier does not automatically make a competent centurion.  The Confederates had a similar problem. They started the war with the best generals and kept losing them; replacements could be found, but they did not have the experience, the flair or the temperment to handle larger formations.  The gradual degredation of the leadership cadre may be the most important factor in the conflict.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 May 2008)

MCG: I didn't say anything about reprisals. What I'm talking about is a policy that targets senior Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. You are telling me there is something wrong with that?

As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same. What Al Qaeda does in Iraq is eventually mirrored in Afghanistan.

Take em out....all the way.


----------



## McG (28 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> MCG: I didn't say anything about reprisals. What I'm talking about is a policy that targets senior Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. You are telling me there is something wrong with that?


You said we should be "killing them without mercy" because they "use women, children and mentally deficient people as suicide bombers."  If that is not a statement for reprisal/vengeance killings, then you must have misstated your position.  There is nothing wrong with killing the TB leadership, but not for the reasons that you have provided.  Go back & see my comment on military necessity.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same. What Al Qaeda does in Iraq is eventually mirrored in Afghanistan.


Well, if you as a soldier cannot distinguish between the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation when it suits your argument, then it is no wonder that some in the civilian community have the same problem.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 May 2008)

I stand by what I said. If killing senior Taliban leadership for using women and kids as suicide bombers isn't "necessity" what is?
 I can differentiate between theaters of ops. I ahve spoken to Afghan vets and waht happens in Iraq will eventually make its way to Afghanistan.

That crack was uncalled for. Go back and see my comments.


----------



## McG (28 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I stand by what I said. If killing senior Taliban leadership for using women and kids as suicide bombers isn't "necessity" what is?


Reprisal killings for violations of the laws of armed conflict are not necessity (in fact, you will find that such acts are themselves in violation of LOAC).  Destruction of the enemy command chain, elimination of technical network (ie. bomb-makers), cutting lines of sustainment (funding or kit) are all of military necessity.

... and again on the women part, they can be combatants.  We have women in our military.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I can differentiate between theaters of ops. I ahve spoken to Afghan vets and waht happens in Iraq will eventually make its way to Afghanistan.


Tactics have a way of migrating.  Recognize that the TB in Afghanistan are not Sunni insurgents in Iraq (despite the fact that AQ has its fingers in both fights).   If you want to kill TB in Afghanistan for things that happened in Iraq, you will find yourself on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 May 2008)

Did I mention the word reprisal? No, I didn't. 
You are twisting my words.


----------



## McG (28 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Did I mention the word reprisal?


No.  You did not use the word reprisal.  Instead, you have described a reprisal.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 May 2008)

Try thinking of the issue in this light. International law prohibits reprisals, but it allows preemptive action to prevent an impending attack. In the former case, ie reprisals, aplogists for the murder of captured members of your regiment after Putot in 1944 have attempted to claim it was in retaliation for the deaths of some German POWs at the hands of a British regiment, although reprisals are clearly a war crime. The latter principle was used by the Israelis in 1967 to preempt the preparations for war by Egypt and Syria.

Now, in the case of a Taliban commander who is responsible for organizing attacks by suicide bombers and/or IEDs, it is illegal to punish him for his past activities. However an attack to prevent him from carrying out future operations is both militarily prudent and allowable under international law. It seems to me that as long as there is intelligence that more of these acts are likely to be employed, then preemption is warranted. 

Is this verbal gymnastics? Not really. The laws exist and we must operate within them.


----------



## TrexLink (28 May 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... in the case of a Taliban commander who is responsible for organizing attacks by suicide bombers and/or IEDs, it is illegal to punish him for his past activities.



*?*

Might you care to rephrase that a bit, please?


----------



## McG (28 May 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... in the case of a Taliban commander who is responsible for organizing attacks by suicide bombers and/or IEDs, it is illegal to punish him for his past activities.





			
				TrexLink said:
			
		

> Might you care to rephrase that a bit, please?


It is illegal to launch an Op to kill someone as a punishment for his past activities against our forces (we could capture & put him on trial for past activities if they were in violation of LOAC).  It is perfectly legitimate to kill him so as to prevent a probable repeat of past activities against our forces.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 May 2008)

Now we have it!! I never meant reprisal.


----------



## dapaterson (28 May 2008)

> This is a political war, and it calls for the utmost discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing is a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The next best is a rifle. The worst is an airplane, and after that the worst is artillery. You have to know who you are killing.


     Lt Col Paul Vann, as told to David Halberstam


Intelligence and cultural awareness are keys to success.  Military intelligence is undergoing growing pains right now, as their past model of counting tanks and identifying which enemy formation is in contact does not meet the needs of the battlespaces where we currently operate.

There's also the overused expression "we must consider second and third order effects of our actions".  No man is an island; in some instances removing one leader may create more opposition to us; in some instances it is better to co-opt them.  We have in the past and will in the future make arrangements and make settlements with individuals or groups we find morally reprehensible.  Sometimes such agreements work out and succeed in creating peace; other times they fail.


----------



## Greymatters (28 May 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Intelligence and cultural awareness are keys to success.  Military intelligence is undergoing growing pains right now, as their past model of counting tanks and identifying which enemy formation is in contact does not meet the needs of the battlespaces where we currently operate.



A much needed sweeping out of ideas that dont work, and acceptance of new ones that some were reluctant to accept...


----------



## TrexLink (28 May 2008)

MCG - put that way, gotcha, completely correct.

I think it is _always_ better to co-opt than to simply kill in such cases. The benefits can be enormous. The British won in Malaya in large part because of this, ditto Kenya.


----------



## dglad (28 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> They are not treated as "PW's" because they are not "PW's". They do not fit the definitions of lawful combatants as defined in the various Geneva Conventions, and as noted above, they operate in a manner which is vile and criminal in every regard.



Just to be clear, I'm NOT advocating against taking out Taliban leaders.  However, if we're going to do so under the guise of conducting legitimate military operations, then it becomes problematic when you adopt the above attitude.  Some of the individuals currently in custody in places like Gitmo were captured while fully fitting the definition of combatants--they were armed, were engaging friendly forces with direct fire and were making no effort to conceal that fact (beyond normal battlefield tactics of concealment, etc.)  In 2004, the US Supreme Court disagreed with the US administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and further that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror.   Now, I don't profess to be an expert in interpreting high court rulings, especially when it's the high court of a foreign power...but at the very least, the matter of whether these are PWs or not is a legal grey area.  In such a case, I think it behooves one to err on the side of caution.  All that means, really, is that we consider ourselves at war, treat the detainees as PWs unless there is clear and compelling evidence on a case by case basis that they shouldn't be...and then targeting and killing leadership becomes a far less ambiguous legal issue in legal terms.


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2008)

Targetted killing and the treatment of captives are really two different issues. 

If killing an insurgent will disrupt their command and control networks, disable a technical or logistics network and otherwise reduce their ability to prosecute actions against us, then I say it is probably the most efficient method of "kinetic" action against insurgents.

Capturing people can have the same results, and of course captured people have value for our intelligence operations. What I was alluding to is that capturing a person who is operating in violation of the Geneva Conventions is to capture an illegal combatant, and such a person is not a "PW" by any accepted definition. *How* they are treated is important, but holding them in detention does not violate their "rights", and they have no claim to additional privilages as outlined by the various conventions.


----------



## TrexLink (28 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...capturing a person who is operating in violation of the Geneva Conventions is to capture an illegal combatant, and such a person is not a "PW" by any accepted definition. *How* they are treated is important, but holding them in detention does not violate their "rights", and they have no claim to additional privileges as outlined by the various conventions.



That's the most succinct summation of the Conventions I've read in far too long.  Ever thought of trying for the Supreme Court?  There seems to be a need.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 May 2008)

Tongue in cheek here...  ;D

Couldn't resist  :rofl:


----------



## TrexLink (28 May 2008)

dglad said:
			
		

> All that means, really, is that we consider ourselves at war, treat the detainees as PWs unless there is clear and compelling evidence on a case by case basis that they shouldn't be...and then targeting and killing leadership becomes a far less ambiguous legal issue in legal terms. In 2004, the US Supreme Court disagreed with the US administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and further that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror.


Sorry, but all that ruling proves is how out of touch with reality and the _intent_ of the Conventions those nine suits really are.  Those who abide by the Conventions (including those who rise spontaneously to resist a foreign invader) are legal combatants and are fully entitled to every protection and warm fuzzy the Conventions can offer.  Those who do not abide by the Conventions... well, in my simple universe, you can't suck and blow at the same time.  The Taliban, in my humble opinion, have as much right to protection under the Conventions as a crack-crazed pedophile - which is to say the square root of Diddly divided by the reciprocal of Squat.  Those wingnuts trying to get the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to Taliban prisoners should have the *%^#!!s  paroled into their own personal custody.


----------



## Yrys (30 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> They can be replaced, but there's no guarantee that the new leaders will by followed by everyone or that everyone will listen to them...



That had me wondering about how it went down for the IRA ... and what lessons learned could be usefulll.
Seems that I've got some clues and answers here :

Time to talk to al-Qaida, senior police chief urges



> Britain should negotiate with leaders of al-Qaida as part of a new strategy to end its violent campaign, one of the country's most senior police officers has said.
> 
> Speaking to the Guardian, Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, said the experiences of his force tackling the IRA had convinced him that
> policing alone - detecting plots and arresting people - would not defeat al-Qaida inspired terrorism. Orde, the frontrunner to be the next commissioner of the
> ...



Article continue on link.

My civilian mind presume that when you are targeting killing, negociations would be difficult to open. So could it  be "tough law enforcement" 
then negotiations like he suggests ?


----------



## dglad (30 May 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> Sorry, but all that ruling proves is how out of touch with reality and the _intent_ of the Conventions those nine suits really are.  Those who abide by the Conventions (including those who rise spontaneously to resist a foreign invader) are legal combatants and are fully entitled to every protection and warm fuzzy the Conventions can offer.  Those who do not abide by the Conventions... well, in my simple universe, you can't suck and blow at the same time.  The Taliban, in my humble opinion, have as much right to protection under the Conventions as a crack-crazed pedophile - which is to say the square root of Diddly divided by the reciprocal of Squat.  Those wingnuts trying to get the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to Taliban prisoners should have the *%^#!!s  paroled into their own personal custody.



First of all, whether you like the Supreme Court or not, they are the highest court in the US (or Canada, if you're talking about ours).  Since what fundamentally separates us from terrorists and their ilk is the rule of law, you can certinaly complain about the SC--but you also have to abide by their rulings.

Secondly, you can't simply say that a particular group should be denied protection under something like the Geneva Convention, because of who they are.  There are many Taliban who are cowardly terrorists who launch surprise attacks on innocents--fine, they clearly aren't combatants.  But there have also been Taliban who have engaged NATO forces in direct fire combat--fulfilling all the normal requirements of being considered a combatant--and have been subsequently captured.  Some of these are being held in Gitmo and are not being treated as PWs.  Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, which is essentially what the Supreme Court is saying.  Instead, the US (to single out the most obvious example) has chosen to uniformly not treat these individuals as combatants, which means they're not strictly adhering to the Laws of Armed Conflict, which means they've opened up a chink in the argument that targeted killings are strictly military operations.  As you say, you can't suck and blow.  Once you begin arguing points of law, you open the door to the WHOLE BODY of law...so you'd better make sure you're consistent.

I agree that HOW detainees are treated is an extremely important issue, regardless of their legal status.  But it's also an entirely separate issue.


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2008)

dglad said:
			
		

> First of all, whether you like the Supreme Court or not, they are the highest court in the US (or Canada, if you're talking about ours).  Since what fundamentally separates us from terrorists and their ilk is the rule of law, you can certinaly complain about the SC--but you also have to abide by their rulings.
> 
> Secondly, you can't simply say that a particular group should be denied protection under something like the Geneva Convention, because of who they are.  There are many Taliban who are cowardly terrorists who launch surprise attacks on innocents--fine, they clearly aren't combatants.  But there have also been Taliban who have engaged NATO forces in direct fire combat--fulfilling all the normal requirements of being considered a combatant--and have been subsequently captured.  Some of these are being held in Gitmo and are not being treated as PWs.  Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, which is essentially what the Supreme Court is saying.  Instead, the US (to single out the most obvious example) has chosen to uniformly not treat these individuals as combatants, which means they're not strictly adhering to the Laws of Armed Conflict, which means they've opened up a chink in the argument that targeted killings are strictly military operations.  As you say, you can't suck and blow.  Once you begin arguing points of law, you open the door to the WHOLE BODY of law...so you'd better make sure you're consistent.
> 
> I agree that HOW detainees are treated is an extremely important issue, regardless of their legal status.  But it's also an entirely separate issue.



Sorry dglad, but I strongly disagree with you.  You can not have your cake and eat it too.  You can not say that you will abide by the SC and throw the Geneva Conventions out the window.  Sorry, but the SC is a 'national' body, while the Geneva Conventions are 'international' and the Rules by which all NATO Members abide by.

Your comments about combatants are also RTFOTL.  Just because a Terrorist should be engaging NATO troops in what "appears" to be direct combat at the time of capture, but was acting as a cowardly terrorist for 99.99999999999999999999% of the rest of his 'history', does not make him a 'legitimate combatant' under the Geneva Conventions.  Where is his uniform?  Where is his 'formed military unit'?  Sorry, but I do not accept a Terrorist Cell as a formal military unit.  Nor do I accept not wearing a uniform, so that one can withdraw and fade into a civilian population to expedite their escape, a legitimate form of combat.  

Your concepts are sadly lacking the depth and experience.


----------



## TrexLink (30 May 2008)

dglad - I understand where you are coming from.  I will - of course! - obey the law. That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with the interpretations put on it by people in air-conditioned offices thousands of miles away.  

As to Taliban status, engaging in open combat is just one of the requirements under the Conventions.  Article 4.1.2 of the Third Geneva Convention includes POW status to irregular forces IF they meet the following conditions:

_Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

    * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;  *Probably, usually*
    * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;  *Almost never*
    * that of carrying arms openly;  *Rarely*
    * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.  *Don't joke!*_

The bottom line for this layman - my opinion - is that the Taliban and the other thugs running around that sad nation, having failed to meet their own responsibilities under the Conventions, have no more claim to POW status (or protection under the Conventions) than a member of a Winnpeg street gang.  They are criminals, not legitimate combatants. At least the street gangs normally wear colours...


----------



## McG (30 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry dglad, but I strongly disagree with you.  You can not have your cake and eat it too.  You can not say that you will abide by the SC and throw the Geneva Conventions out the window.  Sorry, but the SC is a 'national' body, while the Geneva Conventions are 'international' and the Rules by which all NATO Members abide by.


Actually, he is suggesting we need to adhere to both.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your comments about combatants are also RTFOTL.  Just because a Terrorist should be engaging NATO troops in what "appears" to be direct combat at the time of capture, but was acting as a cowardly terrorist for 99.99999999999999999999% of the rest of his 'history', does not make him a 'legitimate combatant' under the Geneva Conventions.  Where is his uniform?  Where is his 'formed military unit'?  Sorry, but I do not accept a Terrorist Cell as a formal military unit.


The TB are insurgents and the label "terrorist" cannot be uniformly applied to their ranks (although it most certainly applies to those who target the civillian population for coercion and acts of violence.  As per the Article 5 of the 3 rd  Geneva Convention "Should any doubt arise whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

It may very well be that there is no doubt as to the status of combatants (in regards to PW status or not).  However, a counter insurgency force must also consider the risks associated with a public perception that there could/should be doubt.


----------



## TrexLink (30 May 2008)

One thing I will admit puzzles me.  At the Nuremberg trials, the International Military Tribunal (essentially the court) declared certain groups or organizations to be criminal organizations.  Examples of these included the Gestapo, the SD, etc.  This gave member states the right to try individuals for membership in that organization; it was assumed that the criminal nature of the body was proved without further evidence.  How much simpler it would seem for the Taliban to have been declared a criminal organization.  Any lawyers out there who could share some light on this?


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> How much simpler it would seem for the Taliban to have been declared a criminal organization.



It was a lot easier to do something like that back then.  There were few international legal associations, no truely international courts, and the military was pretty much calling the shots with the civilian organizations trailing along in the wake.  Completely different situation nowadays...


----------



## dglad (30 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry dglad, but I strongly disagree with you.  You can not have your cake and eat it too.  You can not say that you will abide by the SC and throw the Geneva Conventions out the window.  Sorry, but the SC is a 'national' body, while the Geneva Conventions are 'international' and the Rules by which all NATO Members abide by.
> 
> Your comments about combatants are also RTFOTL.  Just because a Terrorist should be engaging NATO troops in what "appears" to be direct combat at the time of capture, but was acting as a cowardly terrorist for 99.99999999999999999999% of the rest of his 'history', does not make him a 'legitimate combatant' under the Geneva Conventions.  Where is his uniform?  Where is his 'formed military unit'?  Sorry, but I do not accept a Terrorist Cell as a formal military unit.  Nor do I accept not wearing a uniform, so that one can withdraw and fade into a civilian population to expedite their escape, a legitimate form of combat.
> 
> Your concepts are sadly lacking the depth and experience.



Feel free to disagree with me, but your ad hominen attack is...odd, since you know nothing about me.

As for your points, I was, indeed, suggesting we adhere to both national and international law.  That only makes sense, no?  And if we're going to do so, then we need to do so wholly.  My point regarding the Taliban is that you cannot, as much as you might want to, presuppose that they are and always will function as terrorists.  If a member of the Taliban engages in a fire-fight with NATO troops, stands his ground, carries and uses his weapon openly, and is captured...would you not treat him as a PW?  Why not?  Because he isn't wearing a "readily identifiable uniform"?  Okay, THAT I can see as a potentially legitimate point.  However, the mere FACT of his being Taliban does not automatically preclude him being treated as a legitimate PW.  That's a narrow and shallow view, without merit.  On the other hand, if you evaluate each occurrence based on its circumstances, then you are fully in accordance with national and international law.  If you subsequently determine that the individual doesn't merit treatment as a PW based on rational consideration, fine.

Upholding the rule of law is a piece of key terrain for us.


----------



## dglad (30 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> The TB are insurgents and the label "terrorist" cannot be uniformly applied to their ranks (although it most certainly applies to those who target the civillian population for coercion and acts of violence.  As per the Article 5 of the 3 rd  Geneva Convention "Should any doubt arise whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
> 
> It may very well be that there is no doubt as to the status of combatants (in regards to PW status or not).  However, a counter insurgency force must also consider the risks associated with a public perception that there could/should be doubt.



Well put.  You've articulated it better than I did, obviously  :-\


----------



## TCBF (30 May 2008)

- The best route would have been - and still may be - to treat all of those captured as POWs.  If they have committed a crime, that does not stop you from prosecuting them as you would a POW who has committed a crime.  The BEST reason for doing this is you get to keep them in POW camps UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER.  None of this letting insurgents out of Gitmo because the court case fell apart, etc.  Cage'em, and let them out when The War Against The West ends, in about two hundred years or so.

- As for 'targetted killings', since we are dealing with an enemy, raids and snatch patrols are just another conventional tactic.  If you define your enemy as a conventional enemy, he does not have to be engaged in combat against you when you kill him.  A soldier doing his business in a WW1 trench latrine, killed by a grenade, would have been 'lawfully' engaged, even though indisposed.  Same-same legal combatants.

- Declare them lawful combatants, POW/kill as per combat, send to trial those who are criminals afterwards.

- Probably a few people in the Beltway wishing this had happenned a few years ago.


----------

