PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - The US Army At Its Worst!
View Single Post
Old 26th Sep 2013, 08:15
  #8 (permalink)  
dallas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My Lai officer got Life and did 3.5 years. I expect something similar will happen to Lt Lorance, although as usual our 'advanced' civilisation demands men like Lorance go do their duty in situations that are not black and white, using its judicial arm and the luxury of time and hindsight to decide their actions did not meet the complex criteria imposed on them. That's not to say there shouldn't be rules, but clearly today's soldier needs to be decisive and legally astute, which is not an easy balancing act in situations that are normally less than textbook.

Where I think Lorance did go wrong - and I write this based on the account in the link that seems generally sympathetic, but also as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat - is with the original 2 guys he ordered fire on. He seems to have balanced all probability that they were bad guys, based on descriptions and circumstance. Was that enough to get his sniper to take them out? My understanding of the rules is no. If they were aiming at someone; if they were planting a device; maybe even if they were just moving into position with weapons - but I gather all they were doing was sitting on a motorbike. Our rules say that's allowed, and we have to wait for them to choose to end their lives by taking up arms or endangering someone elses' life. 'Looking at us funny', irrespective of circumstance, can't be used as a defence for taking someone's life.

That said, I'm sure on one of these 'Ross goes to Afghan' type programmes, one episode shows the Brits engaging a 'dicker' - perhaps they had EW Int to confirm he was, without doubt, in the enemies kill chain?

This is only my opinion based on the narrative and I don't envy Lorance or any of the brave guys who don't have the luxury of the time I have to sit and decide what to do. I'm also sure that the guys they took out were undoubtedly Taliban and up to no good, but in which case we need to either change the rules to allow 'reasonable doubt' (which I don't actually think would be a good idea), or ensure that when they do get caught they're put out of action for a long time by jail, including de-radicalisation. All perfect world, of course!
dallas is offline