U.S. snipers accused of 'baiting' Iraqis

[Achilles]

Link

WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items, according to the defense attorney for a soldier accused of planting evidence on an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, said Monday his client had acted "pursuant to orders."

Oh geez...

 

Only 16 months until the next president takes office.

[Corinthian]

I object. There is no proof.

[Totenkopf]

So, who's accusing the guy of actually planting evidence? The "enemy"? Tim Mcgirk? The big problem here appears to be that the military is operating under orders that put the men at risk, b/c as soon as things like this "hit the papers", the immediate political impulse appears to be to throw soldiers under the bus.

[Corinthian]

He CLAIMS that the military ordered him to set bait. He could be lying.

[Jae Onasi]

At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

[Rogue Warrior]

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?

[mur'phon]

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?

 

Mohamed is walking home from work and sees something strange lying the street. Mohamed is curious and pics it up, and end up as "collateral damage".

 

Yes, I'm exagarating, but that is the problem with it

[Totenkopf]

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).

[mur'phon]

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).

 

So it's okay to kill an innocent person as long as he is not a child?

[mimartin]

First off Sergeant Evan Vela credibility isn’t the greatest since he charged with planting weapons on an Iraqi that he killed. Still with the information coming from more than one source (not just the three accused in this case) I believe it is feasible that such a program exist. I agree with Jae's line.

However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this.

Since we don’t know all the facts relevant to this case such as location and exact wording of orders, I cannot personally make a informed decision to either condemn or applauded this tactic.

 

This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement. I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population. If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.

[Caius Fett]

Personally I doubt very much this is going on at all. However if it is I would find such actions deplorable, it's no better IMO than booby traping dead bodies.

 

@ Corinthian you have a good point there is no proof beside one Captain's unsubstantiated word that this is a tactic used by the army.

[Gargoyle King]

There is no proof of this really. As immoral as it seems, we are not there and do not know what our soldiers have to face on a day to day basis. Therefore as inhuman as this tactic may seem it may actually be a very effective means on drawing out the enemy without a risk to too many of our soldiers lives. With all the bull**** in Iraq and Afganistan going on at the minute with blue on blue attacks, sudden enemy strikes and an uncertainty of life or death would mean that commanders would be willing to try anything to complete an objective or more importantly, to stay alive. My point being here people is that we shouldn't judge our forces too harshly with morals that basically will not exist in a warzone, it's war and casualties on both sides will occur.

[Achilles]

This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement.

We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?

 

guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

 

Examples:

American Revolutionary War

American Civil War

Vietnam War

Iraq

 

I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population.

Me too, but I suspect that we both know better. This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?

 

We have women in burkas suicide bombing shopping bazaars. How many of those do you live through before all women and burkas start to register as enemies?

 

If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.

I'm not convinced we ever started. It seems our priorities center around the Iraqi oil ministry and the 14 permanent military bases that we're building there. At no point did we attempt to stop any of the looting that took place (even when what was being looted was weapon depots). Iraqis are still without electricity for 20+ hours per day (highs above 110 in the summer and lows around 40 in the winter). We go into cities that have insurgents and destroy homes and infrastructure. Unemployment is estimated between 18-40%.

 

$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?

[mimartin]

We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?

guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.[/Quote] Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people. I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me.

 

This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?[/Quote]That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea.

 

$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?

Revenge.

[Achilles]

Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people.

That sounds more like civil war.

 

I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me.

Unless of course we had deep-seeded animosity toward Canadians (who burnt down the first white house) or the Mexicans (who we were at war against about 150 years ago).

 

Remember that Iraq only exists because of British colonialism. The modern country known as Iraq didn't exist until the 1920s. The ethnic tensions which we are now seeing have roots that go back decades (if not centuries).

 

The point is that we don't just have one war going on over there.

 

That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea.

You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy

 

Revenge.

Or imperialism.

[Totenkopf]

You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy.

 

Same is true for SecDef, but that didn't make Robert Mcnamarra a good one. Book smarts is only part of the equation. Besides, there have always been a lot of "smart" people who get into government, then f-up monumentally. Look at John Deutsch, who even with his pedigree, was apparently more concerned w/downloading porn than much else. Guess his missing files were probably with HRC's Rose law firm files.

 

@mur'phon--that of course assumes that the adults picking it up ARE "innocent".

 

*wonders if these are the innocents worried about....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/armed-children-.html

 

 

@Achilles--interesting oversight on the guerilla front. You forgot to add WW2, probably WW1, the campaigns in the Phillipines and central America too (early 20th century). No doubt there are loads more. Intersting thing is that there is no full blown civil war in Iraq along the lines of the one in America. More like if the US govt tried to start suppressing/eradicating gangs in the US (LA has 4x as many gang bangers as police). There'd be a lot of "blue on blue" (ie "Americans" killing Americans) w/o the entire country lapsing into "civil war".

[PoiuyWired]

At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

 

Plus, we don't know how exactly the said victim is acting, and the situation of nearby events, like combat actually going on in these blocks and such. Picking up a weird item in the middle of a starbucks is quite different from picking the aid item up on a street filled with ammo shells and burnt vehicles.

 

I mean, yes the event is sad, but it might just be an unfortunate case of the unfortunate tides of war.

[Rogue Warrior]

This is a move straight out of the FBI handbook, so given the loose rules of engagement in the armed forces I do not consider this as bad as, say, Abu Ghraib, if of course there is any truth at all to this.

[Jae Onasi]

Could you please tell me where I might find this in our FBI handbook? I'd be very interested in what they're teaching in the academy.

[Rogue Warrior]

Penthouse magazine did an article back in 1995 on Hogan's Alley, the FBI's training grounds. Yes, I know, but you get that living with a bunch of boys. Unfortunately it was destroyed when the plumbing blew but I can tell you about it and try and hunt down the article in question. It tells of it evolving from a shoot\don't shoot gallery to a proper, functional town where FBI agents not only train but run the businesses including the cafe, hotel, fuel depot, ect. One of the cases trainee agents go through is a kidnapping and they leave the ransom money for the kidnapper, then pounce when he goes for it. This actually happened to a jogger who took interest in the money and the trap was reset. When the real deal happened a device was found in the car, a bomb, with the kidnapper's history saying he was an explosives expert. In the real world they would have all died, this and other mistakes are covered later at a debriefing.

[RobQel-Droma]

First of all, as people have said, there is no proof.

 

Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies. And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez. Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes.

[Achilles]

First of all, as people have said, there is no proof.

Correct.

 

Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies.

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

 

And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez.

So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

 

Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes.

No, we drop bombs on them. Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

[RobQel-Droma]

No, we drop bombs on them.

 

Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

 

Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either.

 

Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that. In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis.

 

Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

 

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail.

 

So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

 

You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention. They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill.

 

You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there.

 

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

 

Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights.

[Corinthian]

To be fair, I see Achilles points. We're Americans, not Barbarians. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. Be that as it may, as I have stated before, THERE IS NO PROOF.

[Achilles]

Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

 

Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either.

The innocent iraqi civilians suffering at american hands or the alleged 19 hijackers that died when their planes crashed? Last time I checked, the official story was the attacks that took place on September 11th were carried out by al qaeda terrorists, not Iraqi women and children. By the way most of the hijackers are believed to have been Saudi Arabians. Odd that we're not at war there, huh?

 

Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that.

Because it's not true or...?

 

In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, I could. Go check your local movie listings for the documentary No End in Sight, buy a ticket, and go watch it. If you aren't persuaded, let me know and I'll refund the cost of your ticket (you're on your own for popcorn).

 

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail.

Oh good. You've heard of it.

 

You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention.

I'm not sure how what they do or do not "give a rats ass" about is relevant. How does what they care about condone our conduct? How do we maintain credibility if we cast aside Geneva Conventions (which we've already done, btw)?

 

They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill.

So kill them all without regard for whose a civilian and whose actually an insurgent? And what do you think that will do for our troops psychologically when they come home to face their own wives and children? Or do you not care?

 

You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there.

Relevance? According to the blurb on Amazon.com, the author was stationed in Afghanistan.

 

Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question.

 

And for the record, how I feel about the deaths in September 11th have nothing to do with it.