Fairness

[jemhouston]

[Poohbah]

My favorite bit in that picture is the beer cooler on the turret bustle.

[jemhouston]

My favorite bit in that picture is the beer cooler on the turret bustle.

Priorities

[Johnnie Lyle]

Fair to who?

If my people have to put themselves in danger, it’s absolutely fair to them to mass as much supporting fire as I can.

[Craiglxviii]

My favorite bit in that picture is the beer cooler on the turret bustle.

Tanking in style, my good sir. Tanking in style.

[Zen9]

"Son do we really need a tank for this job, it's just a house clearance?"

"Sir it comes with a beer cooler!"

"In that case we need the tank"

[OSCSSW]

"Son do we really need a tank for this job, it's just a house clearance?"

"Sir it comes with a beer cooler!"

"In that case we need the tank"

..........................BK........BK

This reminds me of a lecture on "Principles of the laws of war" I had to attend aboard our converted oil drill barge during my favorite Op of all times "Prime Chance".

One of the "Principles" covered by a very young female JO Navy Jag was THE PRINCIPLE of Humanity.

This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes.This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering

It seems we in the PB MKIIIs and our helo gunship friends were using "Too Much Gun" on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews. We just called these terrorist sea pirates Ragheads. If she really knew just what we were doing and what we were using I think she would have shit her panties. As it was one of our really handsome and charming Seal Officers fed her such a a bucket of shit she wrote up a report expressing her opinion we were scrupulously following the principle of Humanity .

As some of you folks know I have always considered the formal ROE's and "Principles of the laws of war" as loose general guidelines, to be followed only:
1. When we were being observed by the brass or mother humping press and a few other worthless groups like the UN and humanitarian NGOs.
2. They did not interfere with the successful accomplishment of my mission
3. and/Or the safety of my crew, my boat and especially myself.

That boys and girls is how you get to play SPEC Warrior (NOT SEAL) for about half your 26 years of more or less loyal service to Uncle Sugar and live to retire on a totally inadequate pension. But I so loved the work I probably would have paid the Nav to do it.

[kdahm]

Fair to who?

If my people have to put themselves in danger, it’s absolutely fair to them to mass as much supporting fire as I can.

Which is why one of the best and most useful improvements to the M4 Sherman was the field telephone on the back so that PBI could talk to the tank crew.

[Pdf27]

This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering

It seems we in the PB MKIIIs and our helo gunship friends were using "Too Much Gun" on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews. We just called these terrorist sea pirates Ragheads. If she really knew just what we were doing and what we were using I think she would have shit her panties. As it was one of our really handsome and charming Seal Officers fed her such a a bucket of shit she wrote up a report expressing her opinion we were scrupulously following the principle of Humanity .[/color]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but my understanding is that using a ton of firepower to kill or neutralise someone that's fine. If you are using a weapon or technique calculated to leave your opponent in unbearable pain for the rest of their life, that isn't. There's a whole bunch of historical reasons for it, but basically it boils down to banning hollow-point bullets and saying that if you know an enemy is out of action you need to stop shooting at them.

[OSCSSW]

This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering

It seems we in the PB MKIIIs and our helo gunship friends were using "Too Much Gun" on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews. We just called these terrorist sea pirates Ragheads. If she really knew just what we were doing and what we were using I think she would have shit her panties. As it was one of our really handsome and charming Seal Officers fed her such a a bucket of shit she wrote up a report expressing her opinion we were scrupulously following the principle of Humanity .[/color]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but my understanding is that using a ton of firepower to kill or neutralise someone that's fine. If you are using a weapon or technique calculated to leave your opponent in unbearable pain for the rest of their life, that isn't. There's a whole bunch of historical reasons for it, but basically it boils down to banning hollow-point bullets and saying that if you know an enemy is out of action you need to stop shooting at them.

Pdf27, well you have the right to express your opinion here.
I'll take your word your not an ambulance chaser. If you were, maybe you would KNOW the Hague/Geneva conventions provides no protection to terrorists pirates and that, my boy, is what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews were.

Personally, I don't give a rat's Ass how I killed those bastards as long as they were dead and unable to continue their terrorist atrocities. Making them die screaming in agony was just icing on the cake. Besides, it felt good to administer a little justice on the same type of Iranian fanatics that invaded the US embassy under that POS DemOrat A hole Carter. We, the USA, still owe them a whole lot of pain, suffering and a truly epic butcher's bill for that and the decades of international terrorism they have inflicted on the Western world.

So you can cry me an ocean for those goat screwing Raghead mother humpers and it would be a waste of tears.

ISA, YOU have no idea of what you write on this subject.

You take care now he'ah?

[Pdf27]

I'll take your word your not an ambulance chaser. If you were, maybe you would KNOW the Hague/Geneva conventions provides no protection to terrorists pirates and that, my boy, is what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews were.

Uh... never having met them, I wouldn't care to venture an opinion and in any case it's utterly irrelevant to my point.

Personally, I don't give a rat's Ass how I killed those bastards as long as they were dead and unable to continue their terrorist atrocities. Making them die screaming in agony was just icing on the cake. Besides, it felt good to administer a little justice on the same type of Iranian fanatics that invaded the US embassy under that POS DemOrat A hole Carter. We, the USA, still owe them a whole lot of pain, suffering and a truly epic butcher's bill for that and the decades of international terrorism they have inflicted on the Western world.

And if you'd actually read what I wrote rather than what you expected me to write, you'd have seen that I explicitly said that doing so was legal. The legal issues related to the Hague Convention and St Petersburg Declaration explicitly relate to weapons which cause "superfluous" injury, i.e. an injury which is greater than necessary to render your opponent unable to fight but less than that necessary to kill them.

[MikeKozlowski]

This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering

It seems we in the PB MKIIIs and our helo gunship friends were using "Too Much Gun" on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews. We just called these terrorist sea pirates Ragheads. If she really knew just what we were doing and what we were using I think she would have shit her panties. As it was one of our really handsome and charming Seal Officers fed her such a a bucket of shit she wrote up a report expressing her opinion we were scrupulously following the principle of Humanity .[/color]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but my understanding is that using a ton of firepower to kill or neutralise someone that's fine. If you are using a weapon or technique calculated to leave your opponent in unbearable pain for the rest of their life, that isn't. There's a whole bunch of historical reasons for it, but basically it boils down to banning hollow-point bullets and saying that if you know an enemy is out of action you need to stop shooting at them.

...FWIW, when I went to Korea we got a Laws of War briefing my second or third day there - it ran a couple hours and was quite detailed and well explained by a couple of very eager and earnest young JAGs and Ops/Intel types. One of the things they told us was that they fully expected an airborne attack by Nork Special Forces on the base in the opening moments of any war. It was illegal under the laws of war, they pointed out, to shoot at the poor lads while they were on the way down. Rather, we must wait until they were on the deck, and then light 'em up to your heart's content.

Not one of us - not one - was going to wait that long, and we made no effort to hide it from one another.

I suspect that the JAGs and Ops people knew that too. But we were going to be armed, and defending our posts, and had no intention of letting those people get one more step than we absolutely had to.

Mike

[Poohbah]

This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering

It seems we in the PB MKIIIs and our helo gunship friends were using "Too Much Gun" on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews. We just called these terrorist sea pirates Ragheads. If she really knew just what we were doing and what we were using I think she would have shit her panties. As it was one of our really handsome and charming Seal Officers fed her such a a bucket of shit she wrote up a report expressing her opinion we were scrupulously following the principle of Humanity .[/color]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but my understanding is that using a ton of firepower to kill or neutralise someone that's fine. If you are using a weapon or technique calculated to leave your opponent in unbearable pain for the rest of their life, that isn't. There's a whole bunch of historical reasons for it, but basically it boils down to banning hollow-point bullets and saying that if you know an enemy is out of action you need to stop shooting at them.

...FWIW, when I went to Korea we got a Laws of War briefing my second or third day there - it ran a couple hours and was quite detailed and well explained by a couple of very eager and earnest young JAGs and Ops/Intel types. One of the things they told us was that they fully expected an airborne attack by Nork Special Forces on the base in the opening moments of any war. It was illegal under the laws of war, they pointed out, to shoot at the poor lads while they were on the way down. Rather, we must wait until they were on the deck, and then light 'em up to your heart's content.

Not one of us - not one - was going to wait that long, and we made no effort to hide it from one another.

I suspect that the JAGs and Ops people knew that too. But we were going to be armed, and defending our posts, and had no intention of letting those people get one more step than we absolutely had to.

Mike

Which, by the way, is completely false.

That only applies to aircrew who have abandoned their aircraft.

Paratroopers (i.e., ground combatants descending via parachute) are legally considered skeet.

[OSCSSW]

I'll take your word your not an ambulance chaser. If you were, maybe you would KNOW the Hague/Geneva conventions provides no protection to terrorists pirates and that, my boy, is what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews were.

Uh... never having met them, I wouldn't care to venture an opinion and in any case it's utterly irrelevant to my point.

Personally, I don't give a rat's Ass how I killed those bastards as long as they were dead and unable to continue their terrorist atrocities. Making them die screaming in agony was just icing on the cake. Besides, it felt good to administer a little justice on the same type of Iranian fanatics that invaded the US embassy under that POS DemOrat A hole Carter. We, the USA, still owe them a whole lot of pain, suffering and a truly epic butcher's bill for that and the decades of international terrorism they have inflicted on the Western world.

And if you'd actually read what I wrote rather than what you expected me to write, you'd have seen that I explicitly said that doing so was legal. The legal issues related to the Hague Convention and St Petersburg Declaration explicitly relate to weapons which cause "superfluous" injury, i.e. an injury which is greater than necessary to render your opponent unable to fight but less than that necessary to kill them.

I did read your post. So you got that wrong also.
I do not agree with the "Fairness" label of this thread when applied to terrorist pirates.
I did not read your post with any preconceived notions of your position. In fact your first response to my quote, agreeing what i did was legal made me disposed to give you the benefit of the doubt.
It was your attempt to in some way justify leniency to those terrorists that set me off.

You fell better now? I'm happy for you. Enough said!

[M.Becker]

The Hague Convention's ban on certain types of bullets was IMO a political panic and has long been overtaken by technology. FMJ bullets with a pointed tip start to tumble after impact. And even if they didn't, ~150 grains hitting you with 2500fps will translate into plenty hydraulic shock.

PS: And it only applies to military conflicts, thus soft and hollow points and so on being perfectly fine for law enforcement use and the Revolutionary Guard just so happens to be designated a terrorist organization by the USA.

[MikeKozlowski]

Poohbah,

Which, by the way, is completely false.

That only applies to aircrew who have abandoned their aircraft.

Paratroopers (i.e., ground combatants descending via parachute) are legally considered skeet.

...Well, unless the MiG driver was trailing a 20 foot long Old Glory and tapdancing to "I'm A Yankee Doodle Dandy" all the way down, he wasn't going to make it either.

We were told, very quietly and carefully when we got there by the Old Man His Own Self that getting out wasn't an option - the only people in the bomb dump who had guaranteed rides out were the nuke troops and their goodies, IF the transport was available and we hadn't already blown the bombs. The best chance we would have was getting across the causeway with the SP/LE survivors to Kunsan city proper and then hopefully to the offbase ammo dump about ten miles south of there - where maybe we would have a chance to regroup and head for the backup field at Kwang-Ju.

And if we didn't have that, then we were going to wire the bomb dump for sound and take as many as we could with us.

Mike

[M.Becker]

...Well, unless the MiG driver was trailing a 20 foot long Old Glory and tapdancing to "I'm A Yankee Doodle Dandy" all the way down, he wasn't going to make it either.

Bad policy! That's a valuable prisoner to interrogate.

[Poohbah]

Poohbah,

Which, by the way, is completely false.

That only applies to aircrew who have abandoned their aircraft.

Paratroopers (i.e., ground combatants descending via parachute) are legally considered skeet.

...Well, unless the MiG driver was trailing a 20 foot long Old Glory and tapdancing to "I'm A Yankee Doodle Dandy" all the way down, he wasn't going to make it either.

We were told, very quietly and carefully when we got there by the Old Man His Own Self that getting out wasn't an option - the only people in the bomb dump who had guaranteed rides out were the nuke troops and their goodies, IF the transport was available and we hadn't already blown the bombs. The best chance we would have was getting across the causeway with the SP/LE survivors to Kunsan city proper and then hopefully to the offbase ammo dump about ten miles south of there - where maybe we would have a chance to regroup and head for the backup field at Kwang-Ju.

And if we didn't have that, then we were going to wire the bomb dump for sound and take as many as we could with us.

Mike

I used the skeet line during a a Laws of Armed Conflict briefing.

The female JAG giving the course got a real good case of anime eyes, and she pointedly avoided calling on me for the rest of the class.

[Johnnie Lyle]

I'll take your word your not an ambulance chaser. If you were, maybe you would KNOW the Hague/Geneva conventions provides no protection to terrorists pirates and that, my boy, is what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, IRGCN, Boghammer crews were.

Uh... never having met them, I wouldn't care to venture an opinion and in any case it's utterly irrelevant to my point.

Personally, I don't give a rat's Ass how I killed those bastards as long as they were dead and unable to continue their terrorist atrocities. Making them die screaming in agony was just icing on the cake. Besides, it felt good to administer a little justice on the same type of Iranian fanatics that invaded the US embassy under that POS DemOrat A hole Carter. We, the USA, still owe them a whole lot of pain, suffering and a truly epic butcher's bill for that and the decades of international terrorism they have inflicted on the Western world.

And if you'd actually read what I wrote rather than what you expected me to write, you'd have seen that I explicitly said that doing so was legal. The legal issues related to the Hague Convention and St Petersburg Declaration explicitly relate to weapons which cause "superfluous" injury, i.e. an injury which is greater than necessary to render your opponent unable to fight but less than that necessary to kill them.

I did read your post. So you got that wrong also.
I do not agree with the "Fairness" label of this thread when applied to terrorist pirates.
I did not read your post with any preconceived notions of your position. In fact your first response to my quote, agreeing what i did was legal made me disposed to give you the benefit of the doubt.
It was your attempt to in some way justify leniency to those terrorists that set me off.

You fell better now? I'm happy for you. Enough said!

I wouldn’t say it’s leniency as much as practicality, especially when dealing with enemies that use suicide bombers. A gutshot terrorist, for example, while deserving a slow trip to hell, has ample opportunity to kill himself and take you with him. Far better to just kill them outright so they are just dead and unable to further injure.

We saw that a lot in the Pacific, where wounded Japanese often would still try to kill their rescuers. Lots of nastiness like machine-gunning soldiers in the water was often required. Though it’s a serious moral question whether it is more merciful to machine gun them than leave them for the sea to kill.

[jemhouston]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/custo ... /v2/rule48

Practice relating to Rule 48.
Attacks against Persons Parachuting from an Aircraft in Distress


From quick read, if you leave an aircraft that's in distress, you're not to be shot at. Various groups tried getting changes, but non stuck.

United States of America

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
When an aircraft is disabled and the occupants escape by parachutes, they should not be attacked in their descent … However, persons descending from an aircraft for hostile purposes, such as paratroops or those who appear to be bound upon hostile missions, are not protected. Any person descending from a disabled aircraft who continues to resist may be attacked. Downed enemy airmen from aircraft in distress are subject to immediate capture and can be attacked if they continue to resist or escape or are behind their own lines. Otherwise they should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to surrender.
…
If downed in their own territory, they remain lawful targets, as combatants, unless rendered hors de combat by sickness, wounds or other causes … If downed in the attacker’s territory and subject to capture, the advantages of capture outweigh any minimal advantage secured by attack.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 4-2(e), including footnote 14.
United States of America

The US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991) instruct: “Do not engage anyone who … is an aircrew member descending by parachute from a disabled aircraft.”
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § A.