Soldier who shot Briton admits lying

[Englander]

Israeli on trial for manslaughter says peace activist was unarmed

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday December 16, 2004
The Guardian

The Israeli soldier on trial for killing the British peace activist Tom Hurndall in the Gaza Strip has admitted he was lying when he said his victim was carrying a gun, but said he was under orders to open fire even on unarmed people.

Sergeant Idier Wahid Taysir is charged with manslaughter for shooting Mr Hurndall, 22, as he tried to shelter children on the edge of Rafah from Israeli army gunfire in April last year. He died of his injuries in January.

The sergeant told the military court that after shooting Mr Hurndall he had reported it to his commander.

"I told him that I did what I'm supposed to; anyone who enters a firing zone must be taken out. always says this," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1374851,00.html

[bemildred]

1. "he was under orders to open fire even on unarmed people"

Ah yes, the "Purity of arms" once again proven to be horseshit.

[Lithos]

2. I suspect he might be lying again

The real question are what were the rules of engagement at the time. That should be easily determined.

L-

[bemildred]

3. You're saying that shooting unarmed people might not be

the rules of engagement? I suppose that's possible, but we have a
number of other stories, a steady trickle, along the same lines, and
not merely from "questionable" sources, and the "rationale" seems clear
enough with the suicide bombers and such. It's not unlike the situation
in Iraq where everybody fires off a clip as soon as an attack occurs and
innocent Iraqis get rubbed out because they got spooked at a checkpoint.

The root problem of course is the occupation. Expecting good things
to come from an essentially pernicious situation is folly.

[Lithos]

4. Rules of Engagement vary

And yes sometimes do include "if something moves in this zone, shoot it". However, I have my doubts that unless the IDF was under active fire that they would have enacted such ROE.

For instance the rules for areas immediately surrounding US nuclear weapons storage requires shooting those who do NOT follow identification protocol. Doesn't matter if you know them or not.

I remember a Navy friend of mine tell me a Marine guard was court-martialed because he subdued someone who entered the restricted area instead of killing him.


L-

[bemildred]

5. To reiterate:

"Expecting good things to come from an essentially pernicious situation is folly."

That is the essential point of my statement about "The Purity of Arms".
The same could be applied to nuclear weapons and the issues that surround them.

Glorifying war and it's instruments is propaganda for the cannon fodder.

[tinnypriv]

6. "Easily determined"

Actually not, because the rules of engagement are not written down and basically at the whim of the area commander.

[pelsar]

7. requires a inquiry

actually the soldier in the field has no idea whether a free fire zone comes from the "initiative of his commander" or from higher up. The briefing is from the local commander, he sets the rules. A soldier has no access to the discussions/papers of those above.

however Gaza is a small place and the free fire zones are limited to areas that are next to setttlements and bases. In that past it didnt exist but as the palestenians used "unarmed people" armed wth bomb laden bicycles, donkeys, "thin bombbelts, etc, it became impossible to determine who was unarmed and who wasnt- hence the description of the "unarmed palestenian" doesnt really have any meaning.

a soldier on post, simply cannot determine whether a palestenian is armed or not-hence the birth of the free fire zones.