COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Again, my screwed up browser here won't let me do a hyperlink. Take my word for it.

A Marine Corps investigation found that a marine who shot a wounded muj in the head - and who's shooting was captured on camera - acted in self defense, consistent with the rules of engagement and the Law of Land Warfare.

The board found that since mujies in the area had made a practice of booby-trapping their dead and wounded, the marine was justified in firing his weapon.

Works for me. I called for an investigation, originally (and some of you guys gave me a bunch of grief for it, but I'm not here to be a popular guy), because I think the killing of any wounded and unarmed man, especially one who was previously in Marine custody, deserves a look. Our military is a brutal machine, but it is an extention of the will of a democracy with values that include the respect for and regard for human life, and one which rejects the mistreatment of prisoners. If our military is to retain its character, it must be a disciplined force, subject to the rule of law.

Good soldiers and marines understand that, and expect that.

If the marine in question genuinely had reason to fear that the wounded were booby-trapped, and fired in self-defense, then that's cause for mitigation, at the very least.

Now, let's think for a bit on the precedent that sets for other soldiers in the War on Terror. How localized is the insurgent tactic of booby-trapping their wounded? Was it unique to Fallujah? The Al Anbar Province? Since the great diaspora of insurgents fleeing Fallujah, can we now regard that tactic as a nationwide threat?

It's still illegal, absent self defense, to shoot a warrior who is hors de combat . Well, what does that mean, now? Does it mean anything, in Iraq, anymore? Can we hold the guy who murdered the Hungarian helicopter pilot accountable in this context?

Well, clearly, we can. There is no precedent for civilian contractors to booby-trap their dead and wounded. The Hungarian was asking for help. He was clearly not threatening the mujies.

But what do we tell soldiers and marines, now?

Well, I've got a suggestion:

Let the word go forth to all who oppose us that insurgent movements who booby-trap their wounded and dead in order to kill or maim our own troops and medical personnel rendering aid will recieve no protection under hors de combat rules. If an insurgent or terrorist movement does not respect its own wounded, then all mujies still breathing will be considered a threat. Soldiers and marines will double tap anyone on their way through the objective. If combatants in such movements are taken alive, it is out of the goodness and mercy of the heart of the local U.S. commander.

GIve them an incentive to be civilized. Right now they don't have one. But this encourages the enemy to behaved in a civilized fashion for once in their sorry lives, while preserving the rationale for trying and possibly executing those responsible for the shooting of the Hungarian, as well as others.

It also gives commanders something they can explain to their troops, that troops can understand and apply in combat. I know military lawyers hate the idea, and try to avoid it as much as possible, until commanders press them for a solution. But some of us have work to do, y'know?

Splash, out

Jason