“… the rules of engagement against suspected thieves were recently changed to allow the opening of fire.”
It’s interesting to note that this loss of life occurred due to permitting soldiers to open fire in cases of suspected theft. Basically enabling summary executions for suspected theft. Has anyone anywhere not objected to summary executions for suspected thieves? How does this policy square with the Israeli armies’ much vaunted code of ethics, it’s “purity of arms” of which Israel and the IDF constantly quote?
There has been discussion and criticism, its especially problematic in cases of those soldiers who are doing guard duty have little experience. But yes its a problem, but it has little to do with purity of arms.
The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.
I personally don’t see how firing at a suspected thief (suspected, not proven) does not contravene the “A soldier shall not employ his weaponry … in order to harm non-combatants…”
“… the rules of engagement against suspected thieves were recently changed to allow the opening of fire.”
It’s interesting to note that this loss of life occurred due to permitting soldiers to open fire in cases of suspected theft. Basically enabling summary executions for suspected theft. Has anyone anywhere not objected to summary executions for suspected thieves? How does this policy square with the Israeli armies’ much vaunted code of ethics, it’s “purity of arms” of which Israel and the IDF constantly quote?
There has been discussion and criticism, its especially problematic in cases of those soldiers who are doing guard duty have little experience. But yes its a problem, but it has little to do with purity of arms.
Purity of arms:
The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.
I personally don’t see how firing at a suspected thief (suspected, not proven) does not contravene the “A soldier shall not employ his weaponry … in order to harm non-combatants…”