Subject: Re: US Military Facing Fresh Questions Over Targeting of Children in Afghanistan
This brings back not so fond memories of Viet Nam, when our troops were ordered to gun down entire villages because any little child or old woman could be a walking bomb.
What a wonderful gift we are giving the world, and our own service men and women. "Look Out!!!" That stray dog or cat could be a bomb. The old man in the wheel chair might be ready to detonate.
What are the three tried and true methods of keeping the people in line?
Fragmentation.
Fear.
Falsification.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----From: Miriam VieniSent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 7:44 PMSubject: US Military Facing Fresh Questions Over Targeting of Children in AfghanistanSo America now says that if someone tells a five year old to carry a bottle
of sulphuric acid, it is OK to target and kill that five year old because he
may be a threat to the U.S. or Afghan military?
McVeigh reports: "Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that
children had been identified as a potential threat because some were being
used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition
forces."
Afghan boys attend their Quran study sessions at the Islami Noor religious
school on May 12, 2011 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Some children have been
targeted by US Marines as a threat. (photo: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
US Military Facing Fresh Questions Over Targeting of Children in Afghanistan
By Karen McVeigh, Guardian UK
08 December 12
Outrage grows after senior officer claimed troops in Afghanistan were on the
lookout for 'children with potential hostile intent' The US military is
facing fresh questions over its targeting policy in Afghanistan after a
senior army officer suggested that troops were on the lookout for "children
with potential hostile intent".
In comments which legal experts and campaigners described as "deeply
troubling", army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that
children, as well as "military-age males", had been identified as a
potential threat because some were being used by the Taliban to assist in
attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.
"It kind of opens our aperture," said Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion,
508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. "In
addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with
potential hostile intent."
In the article, headlined "Some Afghan kids aren't bystanders", Carrington
referred to a case this year in which the Afghan national police in Kandahar
province said they found children helping insurgents by carrying soda
bottles full of potassium chlorate.
The piece also quoted an unnamed marine corps official who questioned the
"innocence" of Afghan children, particularly three who were killed in a US
rocket strike in October. Last month, the New York Times quoted local
officials who said Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, eight, from
Helmand's Nawa district had been killed while gathering dung for fuel.
However, the US official claimed that, before they called for the strike on
suspected insurgents planting improvised explosive devices, marines had seen
the children digging a hole in a dirt road and that "the Taliban may have
recruited the children to carry out the mission".
Last year, Human Rights Watch reported a sharp increase in the Taliban's
deployment of children in suicide bombings, some as young as seven.
But the apparent widening of the US military's already controversial
targeting policy has alarmed human rights lawyers and campaigners.
Amos Guiora, a law professor at the University of Utah specialising in
counter-terrorism, said Carrington's remarks reflected the shifting
definitions of legitimate military targets within the Obama administration.
Guiora, who spent years in the Israel Defence Forces, including time as a
legal adviser in the Gaza Strip, said: "I have great respect for people who
put themselves in harm's way. Carrington is probably a great guy, but he is
articulating a deeply troubling policy adopted by the Obama administration.
"The decision about who you consider a legitimate target is less defined by
your conduct than the conduct of the people or category of people which you
are assigned to belong to . That is beyond troubling. It is also illegal and
immoral."
Guiora added: "If you are looking to create a paradigm where you increase
the 'aperture' - that scares me. It doesn't work, operationally, morally or
practically."
Guiora cited comments made by John Brennan, the White House
counter-terrorism chief, in April, in which he "talked about flexible
definitions of imminent threat."
Pardiss Kebriaei, senior attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights
and a specialist in targeted killings, said she was concerned over what
seemed to be an attempt to justify the killing of children.
Kebriaei said: "This is one official quoted. I don't know if that standard
is what they are using but the standard itself is troubling."
The US is already facing criticism for using the term term "military-aged
male" to justify targeted killings where the identities of individuals are
not known. Under the US definition, all fighting-age males killed in drone
strikes are regarded as combatants and not civilians, unless there is
explicit evidence to the contrary. This has the effect of significantly
reducing the official tally of civilian deaths.
Kebriael said the definition was reportedly being used in Pakistan, Somalia
and Yemen. "Under the rules of law you can only target civilians if they are
directly participating in hostilities. So, here, this standard of presuming
any military aged males in the vicinity of a war zone are militants, already
goes beyond what the law allows.
"When you get to the suggestion that children with potentially hostile
intent may be perceived to be legitimate targets is deeply troubling and
unlawful."
Children in conflict zones have additional protections under the law.
Kebriael, who is counsel for CCR in a lawsuit which seeks accountability for
the killing of three American citizens - including a 16 year old boy - in US
drone strikes in Yemen last year, said that the piece also raised questions
over how those killed in that incident were counted. "Were they counted as
military-aged males or were they counted as children with potentially
hostile intent or were they counted as the innocent bystanders they were?"
In a speech in April setting out the context for the US programme of
targeted killings, White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan spoke
about a threshold of "significant threat', which was widely seen as
introducing a lower criteria than "imminent threat".
Brennan said: "Even if it is lawful to pursue a specific member of al-Qaida,
we ask ourselves whether that individual's activities rise to a certain
threshold for action, and whether taking action will, in fact, enhance our
security. For example, when considering lethal force we ask ourselves
whether the individual poses a significant threat to US interests. This is
absolutely critical, and it goes to the very essence of why we take this
kind of exceptional action."
An Isaf spokesman, Lt Col Jimmie Cummings, told the Marine Corp Times that
insurgents continue to use children as suicide bombers and IED emplacers,
even though Taliban leader Mullah Omar has ordered them to stop harming
civilians.
There have been more than 200 children killed in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen
by the CIA and Joint Special Operating Command, according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Afghan boys attend their Quran study sessions at the Islami Noor religious
school on May 12, 2011 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Some children have been
targeted by US Marines as a threat. (photo: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-targeting-strategy-a
fghanistanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/07/us-military-targeting-
strategy-afghanistan
US Military Facing Fresh Questions Over Targeting of Children in Afghanistan
By Karen McVeigh, Guardian UK
08 December 12
Outrage grows after senior officer claimed troops in Afghanistan were on the
lookout for 'children with potential hostile intent' The US military is
facing fresh questions over its targeting policy in Afghanistan after a
senior army officer suggested that troops were on the lookout for "children
with potential hostile intent".
n comments which legal experts and campaigners described as "deeply
troubling", army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that
children, as well as "military-age males", had been identified as a
potential threat because some were being used by the Taliban to assist in
attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.
"It kind of opens our aperture," said Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion,
508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. "In
addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with
potential hostile intent."
In the article, headlined "Some Afghan kids aren't bystanders", Carrington
referred to a case this year in which the Afghan national police in Kandahar
province said they found children helping insurgents by carrying soda
bottles full of potassium chlorate.
The piece also quoted an unnamed marine corps official who questioned the
"innocence" of Afghan children, particularly three who were killed in a US
rocket strike in October. Last month, the New York Times quoted local
officials who said Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, eight, from
Helmand's Nawa district had been killed while gathering dung for fuel.
However, the US official claimed that, before they called for the strike on
suspected insurgents planting improvised explosive devices, marines had seen
the children digging a hole in a dirt road and that "the Taliban may have
recruited the children to carry out the mission".
Last year, Human Rights Watch reported a sharp increase in the Taliban's
deployment of children in suicide bombings, some as young as seven.
But the apparent widening of the US military's already controversial
targeting policy has alarmed human rights lawyers and campaigners.
Amos Guiora, a law professor at the University of Utah specialising in
counter-terrorism, said Carrington's remarks reflected the shifting
definitions of legitimate military targets within the Obama administration.
Guiora, who spent years in the Israel Defence Forces, including time as a
legal adviser in the Gaza Strip, said: "I have great respect for people who
put themselves in harm's way. Carrington is probably a great guy, but he is
articulating a deeply troubling policy adopted by the Obama administration.
"The decision about who you consider a legitimate target is less defined by
your conduct than the conduct of the people or category of people which you
are assigned to belong to . That is beyond troubling. It is also illegal and
immoral."
Guiora added: "If you are looking to create a paradigm where you increase
the 'aperture' - that scares me. It doesn't work, operationally, morally or
practically."
Guiora cited comments made by John Brennan, the White House
counter-terrorism chief, in April, in which he "talked about flexible
definitions of imminent threat."
Pardiss Kebriaei, senior attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights
and a specialist in targeted killings, said she was concerned over what
seemed to be an attempt to justify the killing of children.
Kebriaei said: "This is one official quoted. I don't know if that standard
is what they are using but the standard itself is troubling."
The US is already facing criticism for using the term term "military-aged
male" to justify targeted killings where the identities of individuals are
not known. Under the US definition, all fighting-age males killed in drone
strikes are regarded as combatants and not civilians, unless there is
explicit evidence to the contrary. This has the effect of significantly
reducing the official tally of civilian deaths.
Kebriael said the definition was reportedly being used in Pakistan, Somalia
and Yemen. "Under the rules of law you can only target civilians if they are
directly participating in hostilities. So, here, this standard of presuming
any military aged males in the vicinity of a war zone are militants, already
goes beyond what the law allows.
"When you get to the suggestion that children with potentially hostile
intent may be perceived to be legitimate targets is deeply troubling and
unlawful."
Children in conflict zones have additional protections under the law.
Kebriael, who is counsel for CCR in a lawsuit which seeks accountability for
the killing of three American citizens - including a 16 year old boy - in US
drone strikes in Yemen last year, said that the piece also raised questions
over how those killed in that incident were counted. "Were they counted as
military-aged males or were they counted as children with potentially
hostile intent or were they counted as the innocent bystanders they were?"
In a speech in April setting out the context for the US programme of
targeted killings, White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan spoke
about a threshold of "significant threat', which was widely seen as
introducing a lower criteria than "imminent threat".
Brennan said: "Even if it is lawful to pursue a specific member of al-Qaida,
we ask ourselves whether that individual's activities rise to a certain
threshold for action, and whether taking action will, in fact, enhance our
security. For example, when considering lethal force we ask ourselves
whether the individual poses a significant threat to US interests. This is
absolutely critical, and it goes to the very essence of why we take this
kind of exceptional action."
An Isaf spokesman, Lt Col Jimmie Cummings, told the Marine Corp Times that
insurgents continue to use children as suicide bombers and IED emplacers,
even though Taliban leader Mullah Omar has ordered them to stop harming
civilians.
There have been more than 200 children killed in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen
by the CIA and Joint Special Operating Command, according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism.
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment