News Should US Military Snipers Use Baiting Tactics in Iraq?

[turbo]

It appears there is a great way to tell who is a "bad guy" so you can kill him. Just bait an area with wire, ammunition, etc, and if an Iraqi picks it up, shoot him.

A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301431.html?hpid=topnews

This is a pretty loose way of weeding out the "bad guys", IMO. If I found a roll of wire in the road, I'd be tempted to pick it up and take it home with me. That can get you killed in Iraq.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'll have to read this later.

This seems like ridiculous logic to me. Anyone might pick up this stuff laying on the ground. It could be a child, or a person trying to keep it out of the hands of children, or even someone concerned that an insurgent would take it if they left it there. Maybe they were just curious and thought it was neat or they wanted to defend their families. I don't see how the military can justify that anyone who tries to leave with stuff they scatter on the ground is an insurgent. It's very distasteful to me. I sincerely hope this is false information.

 

[turbo]

I hope it's false, too, especially since if this baiting is incorporated into the snipers' rules of engagement, any killing can be justified by planting "drop" items on or near the body of the victim. "Gee, Lieutenant, he had a coil of wire! I had to kill him."

 

[kach22i]

This is almost as good as making the little explosive charges in Cluster Bombs bright colors. Almost 50% of the ordinance does not go off. Children are attracted to the colorful objects and often lose their hand or hands when they go to play with them. The intent is that the bright colors are easy to see by our troops when they sweep the area after an attack. So much for good intentions.

 

[Xori]

This is almost as good as making the little explosive charges in Cluster Bombs bright colors. Almost 50% of the ordinance does not go off. Children are attracted to the colorful objects and often lose their hand or hands when they go to play with them. The intent is that the bright colors are easy to see by our troops when they sweep the area after an attack. So much for good intentions.

I would say this is nothing like the OP case. When these bombs were designed, they weren't thinking "Oh what if children come around later and play with these things because they were colorful?" Children can play w/ whatever they want, colorful or not. The color is meant as a safety device for the troops.

The case that the OP is referring to is blatant killing of people for doing something which may or may not indicate that they are an insurgent, even though the troops' safety is not immidiately threatened either way. They could have some guys waiting behind a corner and point guns at the guy when he picks up the wire and arrest him and crap, or maybe follow him and see where he goes, or maybe put a wiretap inside the expolosive charge. These are all more moral and ethical alternatives.

 

[kach22i]

I would say this is nothing like the OP case.

I see your point.

Maybe they should put up an American flag and see who tries to light it on fire.

We should not be there, no good can come of this.

 

[russ_watters]

Nor is this anything like baiting:

...any killing can be justified by planting "drop" items on or near the body of the victim. "Gee, Lieutenant, he had a coil of wire! I had to kill him."

That's framing someone who did absolutely nothing wrong in order to cover up a murder. That's worse than baiting them. Baiting is bad enough. There is no need to throw in additional charges that aren't related and aren't mentioned in the article.

 

[turbo]

Russ, look at paragraph 3 of page 2. The fact that a civilian can be shot for picking up what might have been a cast-off coil of electrical wire or maybe an AK magazine that might have been dropped during a firefight (even to keep it out of the hands of kids or hostiles in the neighborhood) is shameful. The fact that you have a US serviceman charged with perverting this "bait" policy by planting "bait" items on victims to justify murder is horrible. I hope it is not true, yet fear that it may be.

Edited to focus on charge of planting evidence in the article.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's framing someone who did absolutely nothing wrong in order to cover up a murder. That's worse than baiting them. Baiting is bad enough. There is no need to throw in additional charges that aren't related and aren't mentioned in the article.

I think I did read that planting evidence after the event was one of the charges.

 

[Burnsys]

This is nothing more that rumsfeld's Proactive Preemptive Operating Group in action.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=950242&postcount=23

One way to invigorate U.S. intelligence would be to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," according to the DSB. Such an approach would "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target [5] (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/10/102802.html) ... which is to say, provoke the terrorists into action. See Counterpunch article (http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html ).

The study called for the Pentagon and CIA to develop a new capability to "evoke responses" from terrorist groups so they can be attacked pre-emptively. Covert action, psychological operations, computer attacks, special operations forces and "deception operations" would be combined in that role. (CNN, November 13, 2002).

Page 20: Aggressive Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)
CLASSIFIED
Page 26: Recommendation: Proactive Operations
* Recommendation
* Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups

One way to invigorate U.S. intelligence would be to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," according to the DSB. Such an approach would "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target [5] ... which is to say, provoke the terrorists into action.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Proactive_Preemptive_Operations_Group

I am really afraid of what is under page 20

 

[russ_watters]

I stand corrected - page 2 (didn't read past page 1...) talks about frame-ups/planting evidence.

 

[turbo]

I stand corrected - page 2 (didn't read past page 1...) talks about frame-ups/planting evidence.

Thanks, Russ. I appreciate it and wish that folks on both side of the aisle would take the time to get beyond jingoism and patriotic flim-flam, to evaluate what is happening to those poor people whose country we have ruined.

 

[baywax]

THE UNITED STATES: PREDATOR OR PROTECTOR(?)
by
Gina M. Grosso, Colonel, United States Air Force
A Research Report Submitted to Air Force Fellows, CADRE/AR
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements

Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
April 2004

Lots about US National Security Strategy and Preemption and International Law. As well as "Just War Theory" and other related topics. This document is "unclassified".

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers/2003-04/grosso.pdf