DescentBB

<washington post article>

\"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy,\" Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. \"Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces.\"

So what do you think? Is it ok for U.S. forces to shoot people on the streets because they picked up a piece of primer cord or even a spool of wire?

As an American, I'm supposed to think that's AWESOME!

And this item would be...?

Just saying that the item could be 'a spool of wire' is being downright ignorant.

TIGERassault wrote:And this item would be...?
Just saying that the item could be 'a spool of wire' is being downright ignorant.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean here. Are you saing that the military planting spools of wire on the street and shooting people who pick them up is ignorant? Or that I'm ignorant for suggesting the planted items could be a spool of wire?

page 2 of the article:

Spec. Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley are accused by the military of placing a spool of wire into the pocket of an Iraqi man Sandoval had shot on April 27 on Hensley's order. The man had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle when he was shot, according to court documents.

Since the article was specifically discussing the use of the "bait" items, it sounds like "spool of wire" was one of the items included.

If the item was a gun, wire, detonators, ect, who wouldn't pick it up? If you've got no money and you see a sh1t load of wire on the ground....you get the picture.

So what's next? Put a few bricks of cash out and shoot the people that pick that up too? I'm surprised they used bullets, really, it's much more American to use a Hellfire. Costs more.

People are so eager to kill. The smart thing to do is plant a tracker on the items, and see where they're taken. No, not America. KILL KILL KILL.

This is what bored snipers do in Iraq since they can't go fishing for walleye or pike.

Kilarin wrote:page 2 of the article:

Spec. Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley are accused by the military of placing a spool of wire into the pocket of an Iraqi man Sandoval had shot on April 27 on Hensley's order. The man had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle when he was shot, according to court documents.

Aaah! Okay then. Sorry, the link wasn't working for me earlier on.

Well then yeah. That's an outrage, they shouldn't be doing that, bla bla bla, we're all going to do absolutely nothing about it now...

...and you trust the Washington Post to publish accurate unbiased information?

Duper wrote:...and you trust the Washington Post to publish accurate unbiased information?

That IS a valid point.
Have you seen any sources indicating the wp faked or distorted the quote from Capt. Matthew P. Didier?

Because unless they did, this is pretty bad.

ESPECIALLY, since the point seems to be that they are prosecuting soldiers for planting the evidence on the victims AFTER they were dead. There doesn't appear to be any official condemnation of the original bait and kill concept (wait until they pick it up and THEN shoot them), just an objection to it being "misused".

So, if you can find any source that contradicts this story, I'd be anxious to see it. And happy, I might add. I would prefer to think the best of our troops possible.

of course, it is inevitable in a long occupation that horrible things will happen. But we can try to keep them to a minimum and prosecute when they do.

I think I'm going to ask a friend of mine (who was a Marine deployed in Iraq for 4+ years).

It's all over the internet... just google 'bait and kill'.

If you don't trust the Post how about the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm

Ford Prefect wrote:If you don't trust the Post how about the BBC?

Thanks for the link.
---
The US army has declined to confirm whether the "baiting" policy exists.

"To prevent the enemy from learning about our tactics, techniques and training procedures, we don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants," a spokesman, Paul Boyce, said on Monday.

Mr Boyce did say, however, that no programme authorised the use of "drop weapons" to make a killing appear legally justified, as the three snipers are accused of doing.
---
This is exactly the response that is worrying me. I'm glad they don't approve of planting weapons on folks after you kill them. But it makes me very nervous that they won't condemn the idea of shooting people for picking something up off the ground.

If this were just a few people who got out of line, you would expect the military leadership to admit outrage at the idea and quickly proclaim that it was not official policy, the same way they did with the concept of "drop weapons".

The response doesn't sound like that at all. <sigh>

On the other hand.

If there was an area within a war zone that was devoid of non-combatants 'cause it was so dangerous, and the army was trying to save soldiers lives by flushing the bad guys out, who could blame them.

Is it better to rely on intel', and have a sniper pick off a known enemy through using the method of baiting, or send in a troop of men knowing that a percentatge of them will end up in bodybags?

Regardless of what's thought of the decisions why the soldiers are there, the fact is that they are, and they have no options.

It's easy for us to criticise (including myself) the methods whilst in our armchairs...i just thank Atmos i don't have to make those kinds of decisions.

Flabby Chick wrote:On the other hand.

If there was an area within a war zone that was devoid of non-combatants 'cause it was so dangerous, and the army was trying to save soldiers lives by flushing the bad guys out, who could blame them.

Is it better to rely on intel', and have a sniper pick off a known enemy through using the method of baiting, or send in a troop of men knowing that a percentatge of them will end up in bodybags?

Regardless of what's thought of the decisions why the soldiers are there, the fact is that they are, and they have no options.

It's easy for us to criticise (including myself) the methods whilst in our armchairs...i just thank Atmos i don't have to make those kinds of decisions.

No. You're thinking of leading known enemies out of an area that can't be reached by sniping. What we're talking about is shooting already-exposed people just because they picked up the item, regardless of if they appear to be enemies.

Posession of bomb-making materials: Prohibited for Civilians. This is common sense in a war zone. Make sure that the populace is aware of this policy. And shoot anyone in posession of bomb making materials. If they look at something suspicious and then pick it up...

I'd think of it as evolution in action.

Kilarin wrote:I would prefer to think the best of our troops possible.

You're forgetting they are Americans. Look at the average person here..and then realize that is who is over there too.

Chris, I'm guessing the educational level of Iraq is pretty abysmal outside of the better cities, do you think the majority would know what bomb-making materials were? I know I don't know half of what would go in one if I saw the parts separately. Seems like anyone could see a spool of wire and think they can recycle it for money so they can buy food.

BANG

Posession of bomb-making materials: Prohibited for Civilians. This is common sense in a war zone. Make sure that the populace is aware of this policy. And shoot anyone in posession of bomb making materials. If they look at something suspicious and then pick it up...

I'd think of it as evolution in action.

I cant believe you said that!! What if perhaps they pick it up outta curiosity? Like \"What the hell is this?\" This is too much of an indiscriminate policy to be able to justify it. I'm all for unleashing hell on the enemy, but not without good judgement. Also I think it's worth saying that this was probably an isolated case perpetrated by a handful of soldiers. These tactics IMO bare resemblance to the same tactics terrorists themselves use. Not a good kill that can't be argued against.

TIGERassault wrote:

....is shooting already-exposed people just because they picked up the item, regardless of if they appear to be enemies.[/quote]

No, i'm donning someone else's combat boots... or shoes (just for the sake of it)

If you were in an area of highly.....Tigger, do i need to go on?

Are we all going to watch a friggin' hollywood film in ten years to realise how ★■◆● it was to be in Iraq...wake up arseholes and criticise the decisions, not the poor guys who are out there.

Shame on you. In all directions, most of you guys are as ignorant and naive as my four year old.

Enough said.

Posession of bomb-making materials: Prohibited for Civilians. This is common sense in a war zone.

But it's not a war zone is it. There is no civil war there is just an insurgency against the U.S. presence assisting the Iraqi forces. That's what the administration tells us.

Shame on you. In all directions, most of you guys are as ignorant and naive as my four year old.

Enough said.

Heh ,true enough.
Yet, there is a huge difference in what is and what should be.

Is it better to rely on intel', and have a sniper pick off a known enemy through using the method of baiting, or send in a troop of men knowing that a percentatge of them will end up in bodybags?

This is my opinion, is an entirely legitimate use of \"baiting\". Otherwise, if the policy is to shoot to kill ANYONE that picks up one of these items, then there is no way I could see justifying that mindset. I don't know about everywhere else, but here in GA, you can't even shoot deer over bait.

Ford Prefect wrote:Shame on you. In all directions, most of you guys are as ignorant and naive as my four year old.

Yes and no. Certainly yes to the ignorant part.
HOWEVER, turning a blind eye to atrocities, just because you aren't "On The Spot", is just another way of helping to perpetuate the atrocities.

You'll get no argument from me on the point that these guys are under a lot of stress, that I can't even IMAGINE what it's like to be there. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't object when I hear about them doing something wrong.

Perhaps I'm projecting. I can tell you one thing - Personally, I'd be extremely suspicious of ANYTHING left laying around in Iraq. Snipers would be the least of my worries. Booby-traps come to mind. Going with the train of thought though - I can see the objection if you did that in small town America, or in famine-ravaged Africa. It is a tad indiscriminate for general use.

But if the object is indisputably something only useful for making bombs - I'm not talking a spool of wire, I'm talking a block of clay marked \"C-4 EXPLOSIVE\" or some such...and it's in what AMOUNTS to a WAR ZONE...I say make them dead if they pick it up.

Although it might be more useful to follow them to see where they take it...

Testiculese wrote:The smart thing to do is plant a tracker on the items, and see where they're taken.

Exactly!

WarAdvocat wrote:But if the object is indisputably something only useful for making bombs - I'm not talking a spool of wire, I'm talking a block of clay marked "C-4 EXPLOSIVE" or some such...and it's in what AMOUNTS to a WAR ZONE...I say make them dead if they pick it up.

If someone goes to pick up a thing with a label of "C-4 EXPLOSIVE" on it, then they're not a terrorist, they're just really, really stupid!

I thought this was going to be a thread about camping spew or the mega.

Shooting civilians for picking up a spool of wire is wrong. The tactic is an excuse to indiscriminately kill first and ask questions later.

TIGERassault wrote:If someone goes to pick up a thing with a label of "C-4 EXPLOSIVE" on it, then they're not a terrorist, they're just really, really stupid!

Some truth to that. BUT, also: perhaps they really, really don't want the neighborhood kids picking it up. Or perhaps they are just trying to see what it is. Or even, perhaps they don't want the insurgents to pick it up, strap it to their belts, and blow away a dozen citizens later that afternoon.

WarAdvocate wrote:I can see the objection if you did that in small town America, or in famine-ravaged Africa. It is a tad indiscriminate for general use.

It's OK to blow away Iraqi citizens for things it would not be OK to blow away American citizens for?
Yes, I KNOW that what you mean is that a war zone has different rules, but these people LIVE in the war zone, they don't have any other choice but to live there, with their families and children. And when you find that your son has been shot by a sniper because he picked up something interesting he found on the sidewalk, you will be left with a feeling of profound injustice and hatred for the people who did this to you. You will be convinced, and with a lot of justice behind your feelings, that they consider the lives of your people to be worthless.

Bush, and all of those who supported him, claimed that attacking Iraq would make us safer. What it has done (and is doing) is building a huge group of people who, instead of having imaginary reasons to hate us, have really really good ones.

sorry, darn debug error

frustrating stupid darn debug error

...yet there is public outrage over Michael Vick killing some dogs. Is this the greatest country or what?

ABC news article with some details on the court martial going on.

These people are in a war zone. If I was a non-combatant in war zone and I saw a weapon or something that can be used to make me feel safer I would most likely pick it up. It really depends on the tactic used.
If it was a semi secure looking ammo depot, then yes I would shoot anyone trying to access it, if it was a hand gun or rifle laying out in the open, then no way. It just depends on the setup used.

These are also guys that taser themselves for fun ... go figure.

Stressed, yes, but not unaccountable.