|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
October 10th, 2006 - Rules of
Engagement: What were they at Haditha? |
|
Rules of Engagement: What
were they at Haditha? If marines are charged with killing as many as 24 Iraqi civilians,
defense lawyers will argue the soldiers followed the rules. By Richard Whittle Christian Science Monitor October 10, 2006 Washington - On the morning
of Nov. 19, 2005, after a roadside bomb killed a young US marine driving a
Humvee through Haditha, Iraq, marines in his unit killed as many as 24
civilians. It's not clear why. The
marines say they were fired upon. Iraqi witnesses say the marines went on a
rampage. Now, as the marines await possible charges, a key question is: Were
they following their rules of combat? These "rules of engagement"
are under increasing scrutiny as American and civilian losses mount in Iraq. The Haditha incident and
other alleged atrocities by US troops in Iraq posed "some questions
about leadership, about whether the military has done all that it can do to
make it clear to troops on the ground what they're entitled to do," says
John Sifton, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch, based in New York. If charges are brought
against the marines, the key to their defense will be that they were
following the rules of engagement, defense lawyers say. "It's clear that
that is the direction one must take," says attorney Gary Myers, if it's
proved his client killed a civilian. He declined to identify which marine he
represents in the Haditha controversy to protect the young man's reputation. Whether such a defense can
prevail depends both on the facts of what happened in Haditha and on whether
those who did the killing acted "reasonably," even if they killed
civilians, military law experts say. "No soldier or marine
is going to be tried for an honest mistake," says Gary Solis, a former
Marine Corps lawyer who teaches the law of war at Georgetown University in
Washington. But if the marines knowingly
gunned down innocent civilians, no rules of engagement would condone such
behavior, experts say. Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif., is expected to decide in
coming weeks whether to bring charges against any of the marines. Vary from war zone to war
zone Rules of engagement tell
troops when they can apply force. They can vary from war zone to war zone,
operation to operation, and even mission to mission. They're usually set by
"combatant commanders" - those in charge of an entire region, such
as Gen. John Abizaid, head of US forces in the Middle East. But some rules
must be approved by the secretary of Defense or even the president. In conflicts like the one in
Iraq, applying the rules can be difficult, especially when troops must make
split-second decisions. Sometimes, the rules even allow troops to shoot at
civilians, if they can't be distinguished as such and appear to pose a
threat. The rules stem from the
Joint Chiefs' Standing Rules of Engagement, which are based on laws of war
that bar harming unarmed civilians who can be identified as such, says Lt.
Col. John "Jay" Mannle, a Marine Corps lawyer. But firing on a car
that contains civilians yet fails to slow or stop for a checkpoint -
something US troops have done often in Iraq - is justified if those firing
have a "reasonable" belief the car is a threat, he adds. During the November 2004
battle of Fallujah, marines - including some from the unit under suspicion in
Haditha - tossed hand grenades into houses or rooms where they believed
insurgents to be. That's the tactic that was used in Haditha, too, according
to Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who led the squad accused of the killing. In court papers filed last
summer, Sergeant Wuterich said the squad - made up of about 10 marines - went
into the houses after taking fire from them and accidentally killed the
civilians while clearing rooms with grenades and rifles. (The papers were
part of Wuterich's defamation lawsuit against Rep. John Murtha (D) of
Pennsylvania, who said in May that the marines killed those civilians in cold
blood.) Residents of Fallujah,
however, had been told to leave the city before US and allied forces went in,
according to Mr. Solis of Georgetown. Anyone who didn't was regarded as
hostile, and US forces were authorized to fire on them. No such warning had
been issued in Haditha. Iraqi witnesses in Haditha
claim the marines went on a rampage after a roadside bomb killed Lance Cpl.
Miguel Terrazas. The Iraqis say the marines killed four students when the
young men happened upon the scene in a taxi, then massacred civilians in
nearby houses, including women and children. Human Rights Watch has asked
the Pentagon for copies of the rules of engagement used in Iraq, and the
American Civil Liberties Union has filed Freedom of Information Act requests
seeking them, but rules of engagement are often classified. "We don't
want to tell the bad guys what we might do," says Lt. Col. Scott
Fazekas, a Marine Corps spokesman. Such rules are usually
general, Solis says, and, in any event, "are not tactical instructions
on how to proceed in a combat situation." Practice and reminders Troops are instructed on the
rules and practice using them during predeployment training. How such
training is conducted falls to unit commanders to decide. Before going into
combat, troops also are issued unclassified "ROE cards" as a
reminder of the key rules. The cards are next to
useless, says Lt. Col. David "Bo" Bolgiano, an Air Force Reserve
lawyer and former Baltimore police officer who teaches a course in rules of
engagement to members of the military. Troops in combat "are not going
to have time to consult them," he says. In any event, problems arise not
from the rules "but rather their application," he adds, which makes
training in how to respond to potential threats the key. Generally speaking,
"the rules are pretty simple," he says. Troops may respond "with
force - to include deadly force - to an imminent threat of death or serious
bodily harm." Although defense lawyers are
likely to use rules of engagement as a justification if Haditha charges are
brought, the outcome is more likely to turn on the facts surrounding the
killings, says retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey Corn, who teaches at South
Texas College of Law in Houston. If the civilians were killed
by mistake as the marines went after insurgents, he said, the legal question
is whether the mistake "was a reasonable one." "The discipline of a
military force in battle is built around the core principle that killing on
the battlefield is not just permitted, it's required," Colonel Corn
said. "But not all killings are justified." External link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1010/p04s01-woiq.html |