Would any of you ever sign off on a target approval if you knew the target was a hospital?

2015-10-06T14:20:46-04:00

This isn't about him. It's about you - as a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/256052-general-us-officials-signed-off-on-airstrike-that-killed-22-civilians

General says US responsible for hospital bombing

“We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility," Campbell said.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-10-06T14:21:56-04:00

If it was abandoned and we had US eyes on target to verify.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 6 at 2015 2:25 PM

2015-10-06T14:25:30-04:00

Maj Mike Sciales - I think it totally depends on the circumstances. If the enemy was using the hospital as a safe-haven and/or firing on our troops from it, I think it becomes a target.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 6 at 2015 2:33 PM

2015-10-06T14:33:05-04:00

that would be immoral.

Response by LT Christopher Martin made Oct 6 at 2015 2:35 PM

2015-10-06T14:35:27-04:00

I have no knowledge of us targeting mosque with verifiable US eyes. Then we should no target hospitals.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:43 PM

2015-10-06T14:43:49-04:00

I would never question a decision made in the field unless I had real good reason. Hospital, school, Church can all be used to attack our troops. Not sure that was the case here but no havens and no quarter.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 6 at 2015 2:43 PM

2015-10-06T14:43:53-04:00

I would really hate to but I have to consider the options. If they hospital was being used to occupy troops, weapons, equipment, etc, then it automatically becomes a legal target under the Law of Armed Conflict. I would still need assess the situation of how detrimental that hospital will be if not bombed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:45 PM

2015-10-06T14:45:13-04:00

Depends. If there is clearly identified enemy combatants using it as a base/ammo storage/shooting platform.......anything other than what the actual use is........I would order a strike. Perhaps not an air strike, but a strike none the less.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:52 PM

2015-10-06T14:52:13-04:00

If I know that the building is currently housing a hospital, then no... absolutely not.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 6 at 2015 2:55 PM

2015-10-06T14:55:55-04:00

If it is used by the enemy as a place form which to fire/fight etc. It is a legitimate target. Hopefully we had Americans on the ground with eyes on the target.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 6 at 2015 3:30 PM

2015-10-06T15:30:45-04:00

Once occupied by "the bad guys" it is no longer a protected site....Of course, nobody would fire on a protected site knowingly.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:55 PM

2015-10-06T15:55:22-04:00

Only if it's 110% identified as being used for military purposes, thus removing it's protections, and it's housing something so drastic that the fact of bombing a hospital, while still distasteful, can be clearly communicated as the lesser of two evils than letting it go (i.e., they have confirmed parts of nuclear weapons standing by for assembly and usage in the basement or something).
But odds are, realistically speaking, no I can't see any reason currently for bombing a hospital aside from being given incorrect coordinates somewhere along the line.
Now ground assault is likely a different scenario. A unit under attack from someone in a hospital, send them in. Much lower chance for casualties and confirmable status/SITREPs.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 5:13 PM

2015-10-06T17:13:33-04:00

Hospitals aren't exempt simply by being hospitals. There are conditions that they have to meet.

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made Oct 6 at 2015 5:26 PM

2015-10-06T17:26:05-04:00

I voted no, but that's under the assumption there are Doctors and Patients inside (Non-Combatants) with the way that region is and how some of the Afghan Army and police target people (s) I agree with 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member we would need eye's on verification by our people. Hell we have enough resources at our disposal to verify the request is Valid or not. Drones, Satellite and our own people on the ground. and if there were enemy and civilians in that hospital there are other ways to purge the hospital of the enemy and Lessen the degree of Collateral Damage. just my thoughts anyway.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Oct 6 at 2015 5:44 PM

2015-10-06T17:44:55-04:00

If the hospital isn't any longer being used as a hospital and they still have the markings of an hospital but it is packed with armed combatants and they have weapons all over the roof! BOMB the crap out of it.
Wait hold on, before you get bent! IF IT IS A HOSPITAL, NO, by no means, not at all, no way form shape or fashion, or no possibility would I!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 11:29 PM

2015-10-06T23:29:31-04:00

I could be wrong, but I believe that if the enemy was firing from a hospital (or any protected facility), in the eyes of LOW, it stops being protected and becomes a legitimate military target. Therefore, the deaths that came from it should be properly classified as collateral damage because no war crime was committed. Like I said, I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that is the case.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-10-07T11:08:30-04:00

As it has been said already (late getting to this party), only if the law of war is being violated, then it becomes a legitimate target.....that being said....

Remember all those times insurgents were running into mosques in Iraq and we could not give chase?

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Nov 4 at 2015 12:07 AM

2015-11-04T00:07:14-05:00

If the enemy is using it for other than a hospital, it is no longer a protected site.