Reply #128: they violated the rules of engagement

[TorchTheWitch]

in both the initial shooting incident and even more so in the incident with the van.

Rules of engagement require that minimal force be used with the goal being to capture for the purpose of interrogation. They used maximum force for no reason in the first shooting incident and disregarded the goal to capture the "enemy" when they were in no immediate danger, were in communication with a large ground force nearby and had plenty of time to objectively assess the situation and come up with a plan that DID follow the rules of engagement.

They further violated the rules of engagement in the second shooting incident with the van as you are not allowed to shoot someone who is sick or injured and out of action which the wounded man clearly was and the people attempting to assist them, and worse, they KNEW it. This is why they LIED when requesting permission to shoot by claiming the individuals from the van who stopped to help Saeed (the wounded man) by claiming they were picking up weapons they very clearly did not and when no weapons were even visible anywhere around them or the van. It's immaterial whether or not the van was civilian, had a red cross on it, or was even present at all. To make matters worse, before requesting permission to shoot these people the person who lied when making that request by claiming they were picking up weapons already verbally confirmed Saeed was UNARMED so there is no falling back on him being confused and believing that he was - he confirmed himself that he already knew Saeed was unarmed and saw for himself the people trying to help Saeed were also unarmed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094593&mesg_id=8094638
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on MSNBC Today on Rules Of Engagement:

RATIGAN: "Let me make it really clear, though. From your perspective, were the rules of engagement followed from what you see in this piece of videotape?"

SHAFFER: "Let me be clear... based on what I've seen only, and I'm making it on what I've seen: No, they were not. First rule is 'You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary.' Minimum force is the key here. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer: 'How can we take these guys and capture them?' We don't want to kill people arbitrarily. We want the intell take.

Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded: 'Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.' So the wound part of that, I find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down, clearly down; you have people on the way here..."


Incidentally, just because the "enemy" isn't following OUR rules of engagement is no excuse for us to do the same as you certainly seem to be claiming by complaining the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't. That's like saying "so what if we torture prisoners, they do it!" The reason we HAVE rules of engagement is because we're supposed to be civilized enough not to behave in the way we claim the people we fight against do - and we even condemn them as savages for not doing so. And it's ridiculous in the first place to complain the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't following rules of engagement because they DON'T HAVE TO. They're CIVILIANS acting outside any official military with rules of engagement - they're more properly resistance fighters who shouldn't be expected to HAVE any rules of engagement much less follow any, and they most certainly shouldn't be expected to follow OUR rules of engagement.

This attitude from you is so disturbing especially considering that you're a police officer. Do you believe that police officers should be able to ignore their rules of engagement concerning suspected criminals just because actual criminals don't follow them??? That is a REALLY frightening attitude and one that any police officer anywhere that believes it has no damn business being a police officer anywhere.

And furthermore, why are these "insurgents" considered the enemy when we have no damn business even BEING in their country to begin with??? You complain about how they conduct themselves on their own streets and in their own neighborhoods within their own country when WE were the ones to invade them for no fucking reason and have been blasting away at them for years on their own streets and in their own neighborhoods, and even right in their own homes in their own country!

Maybe you should take a closer look at not only this incident in the context of rules of engagement (as WE as an invading and occupying military force are required to do while the civilian resistance fighters are NOT either required nor should be expected to be) but also in the wider context that we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS BEING THERE TO SHOOT AT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!