Bait and Switch

Nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong
--Thomas Jefferson

______

U.S. Army snipers have a proud tradition of serving in combat arenas that are harsh and deadly. They live by the motto, "One shot, one kill."

The tradition goes back to the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles employed in the American Revolution and later, the War of 1812. Rifle marksmanship in the Battle of New Orleans and the Mexican War assisted U.S. commanders execute their war plans, and in the Civil War, Berdan's Sharpshooters were the direct forefathers of today's snipers.

A proud tradition in a once-proud Army. But recent actions approved by the Army chain of command regarding the employment of snipers in Iraq are deplorable, and fall under the category of war crimes.

Specifically, the baiting program developed by the Department of Defense Assymetrical Warfare Group at Ft. Meade, which advocates enticing potential targets by leaving bits of explosives or detonation cord in open view. The presumption is that only -- terrorists (?), combatants (?), hooligans (?) --would be interested in picking up such ephemera.

In addition to the baiting program, the group devised the concept of kill teams -- groups from the Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division, who would "dig holes resembling those used by insurgents to hide roadside bombs, and to shoot Iraqis who tried to place things in the holes." The kill teams ostensibly were more benevolent than their name implied as they "used the tactic not to kill people, but to wound them with gunshots and then capture and interrogate them" (Snipers Baited and Killed Iraqis, Soldiers Testify.)

Somehow, kill teams do not sound like democracy in action. "Death and democracy" lacks the ring of "hearts and minds," but I guess it suits the new action Army.

So hundreds of years of rifle work have brought us to the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry, 25th Infantry Division. In conjunction with commander's guidance, these jack-offs shoot and kill and then place "drop" items to designate their kill a legal score.

This makes a mockery of America's claim to be spreading freedom and dignity.

Questions remained unanswered regarding the case of Spec. 4 Jorge Sandoval, who was recently acquitted for shooting and killing an unarmed man upon orders of his team leader:

Assuming the victim was in fact an insurgent without a weapon, did the team attempt to capture him before engaging? If intelligence is the key to defeating a counterinsurgency, wouldn't that be the smartest, most military course of action to take?

A live prisoner is the most valuable combat intelligence asset available to the battlefield commander. It is incredibly stupid to shoot possible sources of combat intelligence, especially if the suspect can be detained via another method.

In addition to Sandoval, two other soldiers, Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley, the sniper team squad leader, and Sgt. Evan Vela, face premeditated murder charges. Sgt. Vela shot an unarmed man who stumbled upon their position, and had thrust his arms in the air in surrender.

"None of the soldiers deny that they killed the three Iraqis they are charged with murdering. . . . the soldiers say the killings were legal and authorized by their superiors." (Snipers Baited and Killed Iraqis.)

"A military panel acquitted U.S. Army Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval of two counts of murder Friday, apparently swayed by testimony from fellow Army snipers that two Iraqi men were killed on orders from a higher ranking soldier" (Army Sniper acquitted of murder in Iraq.)

"After the killing, Flores said Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley told him (Flores) to place the detonation wire on the body and in the man's pocket, which he said he did."

"In the May shooting, Sgt. Evan Vela said Hensley told him to shoot a man who had stumbled upon their snipers' hideout, although he was not armed and had his hands in the air when he approached the soldiers."

It seems that the old Nuremberg axiom -- "I was only following orders" -- is back in vogue, and legal justification for shooting unarmed and surrendered personnel.

In WW II, that wasn't good enough to extricate yourself from culpability in a war crime. Apparently in the Phony War on Terror, the "following orders" defense is a legal excuse for violating the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law. What happened to duty, honor, country?

What a crock.