In The Zone

Cyrus · #1 03-12-2006, 08:32 AM

Harpers online

Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006. From the transcript of radio communication among Israeli soldiers near Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. The recording was submitted in January 2005 in the trial of the company commander, whose name has been withheld due to a military court order. He faces a maximum of three years in prison. Translated from the Hebrew by Nomi Friedman. Originally from Harper's Magazine, May 2005.

SENTRY: We spotted an Arab female about 100 meters below our emplacement, near the light armored vehicle gate.

HEADQUARTERS: Observation post “Spain,” do you see it?

OBSERVATION POST: Affirmative, it’s a young girl. She’s now running east.

HQ: What is her position?

OP: She’s currently north of the authorized zone.

SENTRY: Very inappropriate location.

[Gunfire]

OP: She’s now behind an embankment, 250 meters from the barracks. She keeps running east. The hits are right on her.

HQ: Are you talking about a girl under ten?

OP: Approximately a ten-year-old girl.

HQ: Roger.

OP: OP to HQ.

HQ: Receiving, over.

OP: She’s behind the embankment, dying of fear, the hits are right on her, a centimeter from her.

SENTRY: Our troops are storming toward her now. They are around 70 meters from her.

HQ: I understand that the company commander and his squad are out?

SENTRY: Affirmative, with a few more soldiers.

OP: Receive. Looks like one of the positions dropped her.

HQ: What, did you see the hit? Is she down?

OP: She’s down. Right now she isn’t moving.

COMPANY COMMANDER [to HQ]: Me and another soldier are going in. [To the squad] Forward, to confirm the kill.

CC [to HQ]: We fired and killed her. She has . . . wearing pants . . . jeans and a vest, shirt. Also she had a kaffiyeh on her head. I also confirmed the kill. Over.

HQ: Roger.

CC [on general communications band]: Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, should be killed. Over.

whiskeytown · #2 03-12-2006, 08:35 AM

defending one's borders from a group of people who think it's God's will to exterminate you must be one hell of a moral quandry.

Given how close they came in the 1940's, I'd be watching the border pretty good too -

RB

SheetWise · #3 03-12-2006, 02:07 PM

Is there a point? If the rules are that anyone who enters the zone will be shot -- why would it surprise anyone that someone who entered the zone was shot?

Riddick · #4 03-12-2006, 02:14 PM

A moral quandry indeed...

Child Suicide Bombers

Autocratic · #5 03-12-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a point? If the rules are that anyone who enters the zone will be shot -- why would it surprise anyone that someone who entered the zone was shot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rules are created for a reason. If they can confirm her age and the fact that she's unarmed, why not just escort her out? I'm not a murderous [censored], so I can't relate to someone who would support killing the girl in this situation.

madnak · #6 03-12-2006, 06:03 PM

That's extremely disturbing.

SheetWise · #7 03-12-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... so I can't relate to someone who would support killing the girl in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to "relate to" in a military situation -- and whether the shooter "supported" his own action or not should not influence his action.

View the perimiter of a "Do Not Enter" zone as being similar to the edge of the Grand Canyon -- once you cross it, gravity takes over. There is no discrimination -- all trespassers are treated equally.

Autocratic · #8 03-12-2006, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... so I can't relate to someone who would support killing the girl in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to "relate to" in a military situation -- and whether the shooter "supported" his own action or not should not influence his action.

View the perimiter of a "Do Not Enter" zone as being similar to the edge of the Grand Canyon -- once you cross it, gravity takes over. There is no discrimination -- all trespassers are treated equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I view it as anything other than what it is? Throwing around stupid analogies that dodge the actual question of why anyone would even waste the bullets on a 10 year old who is clearly not a threat isn't really reasonable. There's no reason to kill someone when it's not needed just because it's a rule - that's a mockery of the seriousness of death. The girl probably had no idea what she was doing, but we'll never know because those assholes killed her.

HLMencken · #9 03-12-2006, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... so I can't relate to someone who would support killing the girl in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to "relate to" in a military situation -- and whether the shooter "supported" his own action or not should not influence his action.

View the perimiter of a "Do Not Enter" zone as being similar to the edge of the Grand Canyon -- once you cross it, gravity takes over. There is no discrimination -- all trespassers are treated equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I view it as anything other than what it is? Throwing around stupid analogies that dodge the actual question of why anyone would even waste the bullets on a 10 year old who is clearly not a threat isn't really reasonable. There's no reason to kill someone when it's not needed just because it's a rule - that's a mockery of the seriousness of death. The girl probably had no idea what she was doing, but we'll never know because those assholes killed her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only a mockery of the seriousness of death, but a violation of the Law of Armed Conflict, which every US armed forces member is trained in yearly, and which specifically states that unlawful orders should not be obeyed. Proportionality is an element of a lawful order--you don't kill kids just because they trespass and are not threats. (I don't know the details of the case, so not sure if it was justified based on other factors, but it is NOT justified based on Sheetwises' "its a rule" rationale.)

SheetWise · #10 03-12-2006, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
(I don't know the details of the case, so not sure if it was justified based on other factors, but it is NOT justified based on Sheetwises' "its a rule" rationale.)

[/ QUOTE ]
It is. The enemy is known to use children. If the border patrol let dogs pass, the enemy would use dogs.

I'm arguing a very liberal and enlightened attitude here. People entring the zone will be killed without regard to age, sex, sexual preference, religion, nation of origin, ...