Posted by JackMcThorn
(here)
The united states does not target civilians. Modern era conflicts have enemies hiding among civilians which makes ROE more difficult to administer. What Israel does is another matter. This message is to indicate what the united states does contrary to the propaganda that so permeates our discussions.
Rules of engagement (ROE) are the standing orders that define when, where, and how U.S. military force may be used — governing everything from individual trigger decisions on a patrol to large-scale joint operations. They sit at the intersection of international law, domestic statute, operational command authority, and tactical necessity. This page covers the definition and legal basis of ROE, how they are developed and applied, the contexts in which they most often govern conduct, and the
boundaries where ROE authorize or withhold the use of deadly force.
https://armedservicesauthority.com/r...ment-explained
ROE derive authority from multiple sources simultaneously:
International humanitarian law (IHL), including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols,
which govern the protection of civilians and combatants
The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which codifies principles such as distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and humanity
U.S. domestic law, including Title 10 U.S.C. and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), explored further in the page on Military Justice (UCMJ)
Presidential and Secretary of Defense directives, which translate policy into operational constraints
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), where applicable, which defines the legal basis for specific conflicts — see Authorization for Use of Military Force
At the tactical level, ROE are communicated to service members through:
ROE cards — wallet-sized laminated cards summarizing mission-specific permissions and prohibitions in plain language
Pre-mission briefs — unit-level explanations connecting card language to operational context
Judge Advocate General (JAG) review — legal officers embedded with commands verify ROE compliance before operations commence
After-action review — incidents involving use of force are assessed against ROE to determine whether actions were lawful
Decision boundaries
The most consequential ROE boundaries govern the individual service member's use of deadly force. Four principles drawn from LOAC frame those boundaries:
Military necessity: Force is limited to what is actually necessary to accomplish the legitimate military objective
Distinction: Forces must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians;
civilians may not be directly targeted
Proportionality: Expected civilian casualties or collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage
Precaution:
Commanders and individual members must take feasible steps to minimize civilian harm before and during attacks
A frequent point of confusion involves the difference between unit self-defense and national self-defense. Unit self-defense allows a commander to protect assigned forces under immediate threat without prior authorization. National self-defense — for example, responding to an attack on U.S. territory or forces at a strategic level — requires Presidential authority. These two authorities operate in parallel, not in conflict, and understanding the boundary matters for commanders at every echelon covered in the branches of the armed services structure.
Violations of ROE do not automatically constitute a criminal offense under the UCMJ, but they may form the factual basis for charges such as assault, unlawful killing, or dereliction of duty if the violation involved culpable conduct. Conversely, good-faith compliance with lawfully issued ROE is a recognized defense in military judicial proceedings, underscoring the importance of ROE training documented across resources available through the broader armed services reference framework.
If you make a claim, that the united states deliberately attacked civilians, then it is up to you to prove it. Which I do not think you will be able to do outside the theater of war. I for one am tired of the united states of being accused of something that is purely propaganda based narrative and story telling.
Your click bait sources are suspect and are not evidence of wrong doing.
Re: Day 1 of Trump's Presidency... and all the days that follow
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks