ROE: 'Kill All Military Age Males'

[Nordic Fire]

This (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2222133") is just screwed up:



EL PASO, Texas Jul 21, 2006 (AP)— Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to "kill all military age males," according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

"The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

[praetorian6]

You’ve requested an abcnews.com (http://www.abcnews.com/) page that does not exist.

If you’ve reached this page by selecting a bookmark that worked previously, it’s likely the file moved to a new location because of our recent redesign. Please update your bookmarks.

[Nordic Fire]

You’ve requested an abcnews.com (http://www.abcnews.com/)[B] page that does not exist.
The same article can be found on news.google.com. Here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-iside22.html) is a copy.

[praetorian6]

Gotcha, I was googling it when you posted.

What the hell is up with the 101st?

[Avary]

The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.
"If your directives can be misunderstood, they have been."

[Con-man]

I know they should've just arrested those guys, but after using two women and a toddler as human shields? I can't say I miss them.

[Kampfbaer]

Truly winning hearts and minds!

If, of course the story is true.

[kosse]

I know they should've just arrested those guys, but after using two women and a toddler as human shields? I can't say I miss them.
For us it's impossible to know what they made up to save their asses and what is true.

[Herrmannek]

This story is impossible to be truth...its so against any conventions that no USA officer would give that order in offcial chain of command... Isn't that truth that US soldiers have right to deny executing orders when it is against war law?

[Maverick77]

This story is impossible to be truth...its so against any conventions that no USA officer would give that order in offcial chain of command... Isn't that truth that US soldiers have right to deny executing orders when it is against war law?


After getting hit by IEDs everyday for the last month in that area orders like that would probley sound pretty good to some people.

[Herrmannek]

After getting hit by IEDs everyday for the last month in that area orders like that would probley sound pretty good to some people.
I bet, but I doubt it was formal order and soldiers had to be eager to follow it anyway... So if they did it they can't blame anyone else but themselves...

[Pete031]

It's up to the Soldier. If it's an unlawful command the soldiers don't have to obey it. Ever since Nuremberg, the soldier has the right to disobey a command that he/she feels is unlawful, of course the soldier then has to prove it to be true after the fact.
Of course it is always different in Battle... But I cannot see that as a standing order, maybe if it was a DA on a select target...

[Kampfbaer]

Rembering Abu Ghoreib and other incidents of prisoner abuse by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, i´m inclined to believe, that US command authorities would give such orders. I don´t think, that the current US Leadership cares more for human rights than russia or china if its suits them.

Of course I hope, that they simply made up the story to cover their asses.

It would be bad for the US if it turned out otherwise...

[oldsoak]

I very much doubt whether that order or ROE was given. I suspect that it was taken out of context, misheard or never given. Certainly, as a Staff Sgt, he would have been better placed than any squaddie to recognise an unlawful order, so he should have questioned it straight away. With that much at stake in the eyes of the press, you'd be pretty stupid not to.
I wonder if the order he was really given was "kill any male of military age who refuses to surrender " or suchlike.

[ibstolidude]

Isn't that truth that US soldiers have right to deny executing orders when it is against war law?
Not a right, an OBLIGATION. And it is made clear on a regular basis, even addressed in training scenarios.

[ibstolidude]

I don´t think, that the current US Leadership cares more for human rights than russia or china if its suits them.
...
Well then you are a complete idiot.

You didn't citique training, mil. culture, or any number of other factors - instead you posted as if the SAME military commanders that served under Pres. Clinton suddenly changed their entire values when Bush came to office. As if the military tranisitions based upon the political parties in office - simply nonsense.

[Kampfbaer]

Actually I meant the political leadership (Pres. Bush and his NeoCon Friends).

[ibstolidude]

Actually I meant the political leadership (Pres. Bush and his NeoCon Friends).
I didn't realize I fought different under Clinton than I did under Bush...?..

How would this translate to the guy on the ground violating the Laws of Land Warfare? How does this translate to the tactical commander giving unlawful orders?

Some of the events that have happened in Iraq have been tragic, but they are not unique to military conflict or the Bush administration - acts have happened under past leadership in other theaters (even as recent as the Balkans under President Clinton.) Even other nations are not immune - in North Africa alone one could name atleast 5 western nations who have had troops conduct "illegal" acts.

While this doesn't justify the acts which have taken place, to act as if such actions are unique to "Pres. Bush and his NeoCon Friends" is just plain fallacy.

[Herrmannek]

MY solution Hang guilty compensate for victims and stop that BS in the news. Considering that there is more than thousands of newspapers in Iraq, few television stations and many radio stations its hard to believe that any wrong doing of the USA would not come out to light in 2 weeks. USA is doing very well when it comes to crimes by it soldiers...

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Rembering Abu Ghoreib and other incidents of prisoner abuse by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, i´m inclined to believe, that US command authorities would give such orders. I don´t think, that the current US Leadership cares more for human rights than russia or china if its suits them.

Of course I hope, that they simply made up the story to cover their asses.

It would be bad for the US if it turned out otherwise...


The sweeping generalisations in your post indicate that you are simply another leftist, liberal, european, US hater.

We could get into a debate about how every military unit around the world is going to have its fair share of criminals but with you that would be ultimately pointless.

Suffice to say the War crimes trials at Nuremberg addressed the legalities of following unlawful orders.

[usa320]

personally, i dont see such an order being given, but if it was, im guessing there was probably a reason for it to have been given...

[Firetxmi]

The sweeping generalisations in your post indicate that you are simply another leftist, liberal, european, US hater.


Oh God, its like a broken record sometimes. Could you add in a few more cliches...please. :roll:

[Firetxmi]

How would this translate to the guy on the ground violating the Laws of Land Warfare?

Some of the events that have happened in Iraq have been tragic, but they are not unique to military conflict or the Bush administration - acts have happened under past leadership in other theaters (even as recent as the Balkans under President Clinton.) Even other nations are not immune - in North Africa alone one could name atleast 5 western nations who have had troops conduct "illegal" acts.


In regards to the first paragraph: I had never looked into the Laws of Land Warfare until you mentioned it. Here is an interesting excerpt from the FM 27-10:



31. Assassination and Outlawry
HR provides:

It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. (HR, art. 23, par. (b).)

This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy "dead or alive". It does not, however, preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere.
Link:http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch2.htm#s2

Who does the above apply to, the POTUS? Who has to follow these rules? I am asking this in all seriousness as I am unfamiliar with this.

As for the second paragraph, I agree that unfortuantly these actions are not isolated to only this war or admin. Regardless, these negative activities need to be stopped and punished swiftly.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Oh God, its like a broken record sometimes. Could you add in a few more cliches...please. :roll:

Commie, pinko, fag.

[sir-chimp]

Commie, pinko, fag.


rofl .

[ibstolidude]

In regards to the first paragraph: I had never looked into the Laws of Land Warfare until you mentioned it. Here is an interesting excerpt from the FM 27-10:

Who does the above apply to, the POTUS? Who has to follow these rules? I am asking this in all seriousness as I am unfamiliar with this.

very limited time tonight:
FM 27-10 is an interpretted document, as it has been since its creation. It was the US Army's interpretation of the LOLW, creating a guideline for soldiers and officers in the US Army.
The bounties are not offered by the US Army (or even the DOD) but rather the DOS; likewise, they are not payable to those inside the US Army, or even DOD (i.e. if US Army Beo catches UBL - no $$.) That said, criminals & war criminals, are not considered enemy combatants (especially without a declaration of war).

I will revisit later no more time.

[Beowulf]

very limited time tonight:
FM 27-10 is an interpretted document, as it has been since its creation. It was the US Army's interpretation of the LOLW, creating a guideline for soldiers and officers in the US Army.
The bounties are not offered by the US Army (or even the DOD) but rather the DOS; likewise, they are not payable to those inside the US Army, or even DOD (i.e. if US Army Beo catches UBL - no $$.) That said, criminals & war criminals, are not considered enemy combatants (especially without a declaration of war).

I will revisit later no more time.


WHAT???

[goes to basement.....*POW!*...]

Well thats taken care of....

[Firetxmi]

very limited time tonight:
FM 27-10 is an interpretted document, as it has been since its creation. It was the US Army's interpretation of the LOLW, creating a guideline for soldiers and officers in the US Army.
The bounties are not offered by the US Army (or even the DOD) but rather the DOS; likewise, they are not payable to those inside the US Army, or even DOD (i.e. if US Army Beo catches UBL - no $$.) That said, criminals & war criminals, are not considered enemy combatants (especially without a declaration of war).

I will revisit later no more time.


Ok, thanks for the info.

[LaoSexMachine]

People will say anything to save their ass from the gallows. If you actually think someone actually gave out this order then I got nice time shares in Somalia to sell you.

[762rk95]

War crimes are never done by winners, or by usa anyway.

I think it's normal (i don't mean that it's acceptable) that in war situations soldiers performs actions that aren't legal or (hopefully) encouraged by their superiors. Thing like this happen in US army and nearly all militaries in combat. It's fact that these overtly brutal events happen repeatedly in us military. It migth indicate that us military doesn't try to investigate their causes properly, atleast it doesn't look like that commanders are investigated properly. Correct me if i'm wrong that commanders are usualy responsible for actions of their unit, atleast to certain extent. There is US legal term, medina standard, for it, in short guy's that do the dirty work are only one's who are prosecuted and used as scape goats, their superiors have in most of times escaped their responsibility whitout being prosecuted. When cover up doesn't work, usa prosecutes someone who is on low level in chain of command, gives prison sentense and pardons in couple of years. It happened in case of My Lai, i hope it doesn't go same way this time.


The sweeping generalisations in your post indicate that you are simply another leftist, liberal, european, US hater.


Commie, pinko, fag.
Yep i'm just another european, leftist and liberal (in us standards), but i don't hate americans (i still see americans as far better than terrorists) and i'm not homo****** or communist. Doesn't american conservatives ever make generalisations? I have to admit that i make generalisations some times. :)

[Con-man]

We all make generalisations, its just part of fitting into one group in society.