Rules of engagement

By Sean Pearson

Last week, Wikileaks (self-described as a “Sweden-based organization that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of its sources”) leaked what is reportedly a 2007 video of a U.S. Apache helicopter shooting what appears to be Iraqi civilians. Two victims turned out to be a Reuters news service photographer and his driver.
It’s a difficult video to watch; but even more difficult to listen to.
The pilots seem relatively cavalier — and even excited — about the possibility of “engaging” as they circle the group of men walking in the street.
After the shooting, which sends humans scattering and obliterates everything in its path, the pilots continue to circle. At one point, a voice on the radio encourages a victim who is crawling away to, “just pick up a weapon.”
He’s looking for a reason to shoot.
Later investigation of the video clearly shows that one member of the group was carrying an AK47, and the military clears the pilots’ action, determining that they followed “rules of engagement.”
I have no doubt that they did.
In fact, I can’t even begin to imagine what it’s like to have things to follow like rules of engagement. And I won’t speculate as to what kinds of things must go through a combat helicopter pilot’s mind as he or she flies around an ongoing war zone. Small groups of innocent-looking people can do a lot of damage if you don’t look closely enough. A strap on a camera can easily look like the strap on an AK47.
Things aren’t always what they seem.
Closer to home, the Alaska House passed House Bill 381 on Monday night. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mark Neuman (R-SuValley), recognizes that Alaska residents “have right to use deadly force to protect their families, persons and property whether they are at home, work, or in any place they have a right to be present.”
Neuman says it does this by expanding your right to stand your ground when threatened, and by making statutes clearly state that deadly force is justified in the case of burglary, kidnapping of household members and carjacking of occupied vehicles.
Alaska already has “castle” rights for persons to protect themselves in their homes or businesses. Neuman hopes to extend that law to “defend your ground” in all places you have a “right to be.”
Of course, that right to defend yourself with lethal force only applies to situations where someone is threatening you with “robbery, serious assault, rape, murder or kidnapping.”
Apparently you have to decide which one you’re facing.
And, what if you’re really not facing a threat at all? What if you only perceive it as a threat? Ask any combat helicopter pilot if it really makes a difference whether a threat is real — or just perceived.
I can’t imagine how differently the recent situation involving two young people on the run in Anchor Point could have ended, had this proposed law been in place.
According to Neuman, expanding the rights of Alaskans to stand their ground tells residents that their decision to use deadly force to defend themselves and their families will not be “second-judged,” and makes it clear that it is criminals who have a duty to retreat.
I sure hope the criminals are listening.

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe via email