When are Civilian deaths permissable?

[Rhah]

As you may have heard, today in Afghanistan US aircraft killed 60 Taliban fighters in an Airstrike, as part of a coalition operation near Kandahar.

(if not, here's the link)
Dozens die in Afghan airstrike (BBC)

Also killed in the airstrike (reportedly) were about 16 civilians. The targets hit included a Madrassa and nearby homes in which Taliban fighters were reported to be hiding out.

Now, obviously from a kill count point of view, 60 Taliban dead for no coalition casualties is a pretty good statistic. But, was it worth the lives of 16 civilians??

Really think about this, and dont just dismiss it.

Its most likely that the planners of the op knew that Civilians would be killed, yet they went ahead anyway. That shows a total disregard for innocent life. Its not collateral damage as much as murder IMO.

So, what i'd like to ask people here, is under what circumstances do you think it is acceptable to kill civilians (knowingly, not accidentally)

[The White Knight]

Purely hypothetical: if those fighters were ready to fire a bomb of xxx megaton to a city nearby than it would be somewhat justified. Somewhat.

Most likely they were not.

Its most likely that the planners of the op knew that Civilians would be killed, yet they went ahead anyway. That shows a total disregard for innocent life. Its not collateral damage as much as murder IMO.

I agree. Was there no way of informing the citizens, so they could at least evacuate?

[Last Roman]

I agree. Was there no way of informing the citizens, so they could at least evacuate?

had they told the civilians, the taliban rebels would have figured out about the strike.

anyway, that is an intresting (and very hard) question. And to be honest, I'm not sure...

[Carach]

Purely hypothetical: if those fighters were ready to fire a bomb of xxx megaton to a city nearby than it would be somewhat justified. Somewhat.

Most likely they were not.


I agree. Was there no way of informing the citizens, so they could at least evacuate?

oh dear ?

so they are hostiles, at least 60 of them.. but because they didnt have a nuke with them they arent worth hitting?

tell the locals to evacuate? with the 60+ hostiles amongst them? thats cool, just let the enemy know what exact minute ur planning to bomb them...great idea.

they will merge back in with the population, until they feel its safe to get out and start killing people again and burning places down.
Thats the way it goes in geurilla warfare.

Civilian deaths will always be present in conflict, just accept that..because some die doesnt make america/britain/coalition forces war criminals.

[Goscinio]

oh dear ?

so they are hostiles, at least 60 of them.. but because they didnt have a nuke with them they arent worth hitting?

Not when there are several [possible] civilians among them.

[Carach]

Not when there are several [possible] civilians among them.

several [possible] - at least 60 hostiles..

that alone should end the argument.

They didn't pose an immidiate danger, as far as I know.

have you heard of helicopters being shot down in afghanistan and iraq ?

hostiles burning down buildings, laying mines/bombs.. etc etc.

thats part of war WK..those that run live to fight another day, and allowing them to fight another day isnt what we want.

[The White Knight]

several [possible] - at least 60 hostiles..

that alone should end the argument.

See the geneva convention mate.

[Goscinio]

several [possible] - at least 60 hostiles..

that alone should end the argument.

Not according to TWK's quote: when it is uncertain that someone is in fact a civilian, he should be considered a civilian. So you think those lives should be sacrificed, just to kill 60 hostiles?

Edit: TWK beat me to it.

[The White Knight]

tell the locals to evacuate? with the 60+ hostiles amongst them? thats cool, just let the enemy know what exact minute ur planning to bomb them...great idea.

No it isn't, it was very naive of me.

so they are hostiles, at least 60 of them.. but because they didnt have a nuke with them they arent worth hitting?

They didn't pose an immidiate danger, as far as I know.

[Rhah]

I agree. Was there no way of informing the citizens, so they could at least evacuate?

I'd assume not, as that would probably have warned the Taliban as well.
Better to scrub the airstrike altogether. It may mean that the Taliban guys got away, but at least 15 innocent people wouldnt have been murdered.
Couldnt they have sent in ground forces?


*edit*

Your quite right, 16 reported dead. I've amended the original post.

[The White Knight]

I'd assume not, as that would probably have warned the Taliban as well.
Better to scrub the airstrike altogether. It may mean that the Taliban guys got away, but at least 15 innocent people wouldnt have been murdered.
Couldnt they have sent in ground forces?

I'm no expert in American modern warfare. Perhaps they should have?

[Rhah]

I'm no expert in American modern warfare. Perhaps they should have?

We'll never know i guess. It obviously depends on the situation, and its impossible to find out exactly what happened from news reports.

but, at some point along the line, the people that planned this airstrike would have looked at all their intelligence, at their satellite imagery etc and realised that civilians would be killed in the attack.
Yet they went ahead anyway. Would that be classed as a war crime under the geneva convention?

[Drunken]

They should have either done it in a different way so as not to cause civilian casualties , such as using ground troops, or just not done it at all.
In my opinion, going ahead with it was murder, as the taliban killed were not an immediate threat to anyone (as far as I know) and so they should have been left alone, rather than kill them and kill innocents at the same time.

The only way I could think of when it may be OK is if the taliban killed there were at that time treatening other innocent civilians. But then its a matter of is it worth killing one lot of civilians just to save another lot, and the only time I could see that being OK is if many times more civilians were saved than killed.

But as no civilian saving was done, I can only conclude it was a bad thing to do, though most probably nothing will come of it.


And as for killing civilians because they were aiding the enemy, surely they should just be punished and arrested, not just killed for hiding and protecting someone from their country. They were still unarmed civilians (I assume they were unarmed)

[Goscinio]

I'd assume not, as that would probably have warned the Taliban as well.
Better to scrub the airstrike altogether. It may mean that the Taliban guys got away, but at least 15 innocent people wouldnt have been murdered.
Couldnt they have sent in ground forces?

They could have done a lot of things, sending in grounds troops being one of them. But perhaps the officers thought an airstrike was easier ( and quicker ) than sending in ground troops. We cannot possibly know what the circumstances were, so for all we know an airstrike could have been the best solution.

[Red Harvest]

I'd assume not, as that would probably have warned the Taliban as well.
Better to scrub the airstrike altogether. It may mean that the Taliban guys got away, but at least 15 innocent people wouldnt have been murdered.
Couldnt they have sent in ground forces?

And who is to say the civilians (and perhaps many more) would not have been killed during the ensuing fight? 60 folks is a rather large force.

I'll question the characterization of "innocent." Being civilian does not make one innocent. Considering this was a Taliban madrassa?

There is a paradox to making civilian deaths completely unacceptable: when you do so, then the Taliban (or any irregulars) can simply bring along portions of their family as shields.

As unfortunate as it is, it really depends on who the 15 civilians are. If they are sheltering Taliban or part of their family? Then proceed with the strike. Considering this was a madrassa with 60 Taliban? Proceed with the strike.

[Hmmm]

Wait wait, was the Talibans hidden by the civilians? I didnt get it right. Anyways, even thought i didnt get it, ill try to answer. If the civilians is helping your enemy, they are doing something that aint really "civilian". You have to kill them, as they clearly aint innocent. If the civilians havent done anything like that, you have no right at all to kill them. No kill of a civilian can be justified if they REALLY are civilians, who aint making resistance and who aint helping the enemy. Not even a kill that you made by mistake...

Neither have you the rights to damage a civilian, nor to steal something they own ect. Basically not harm them. In a war, however, this is impossible. Even if you achieve (sp?) to kill 0 civilians, you will harm them by the damage done to the country.

[The White Knight]

Wait wait, was the Talibans hidden by the civilians? I didnt get it right. Anyways, even thought i didnt get it, ill try to answer. If the civilians is helping your enemy, they are doing something that aint really "civilian". You have to kill them, as they clearly aint innocent.

Wohow... Punish perhaps, but kill?

[Hmmm]

Wohow... Punish perhaps, but kill?

What i meant was if they are helping by trying to hit you or attack you. By hiding, you punish them. Sry if i wasnt clear.

Also, it aint fair to save someones life by ending someone elses. And they should by all means have chosen something that might have given them losses, but not killed civilians. It THEIR war. The civilians never asked them to come to their homes and kill them just to get some talibans.

[The White Knight]

Yet they went ahead anyway. Would that be classed as a war crime under the geneva convention?

Interesting site: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Indiscriminate attacks

Indiscriminate attacks are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)

This also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

Uh-oh ...

[Drunken]

Reading that it sounds like the attack counts as indiscriminate.

This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)


Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)


If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

So they either went against the rules, or they just didnt know that there were civilians there. Either that or the people counted as part of a resistance force or "spontaneously" took up arms, therefor cancelling their civilian status.



Oh and reading that article , it says

Eyewitnesses and local doctors have spoken of at least 30 deaths among civilians, including children.

Has it gone up since you read it , or am I looking in the wrong place ?