Rules of Engagement

Rating:
Summary: True Meaning of the International Law
Review: The International Law of War on Land says about qualification of belligerents: "Article 1: The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: 1.To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2.To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance; 3.To carry arms openly; and 4.To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the demonstration `army'."
"Article 2: The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war."

In this film, the key issue is the lawfulness of the Yemeni "civilians" who were in the "peaceful demonstration" at the American Embassy in civilian clothes (1), and hiding deadly weapons (3), then attacked the U.S. Marine corps with armed forces killing a few marines before they started to fire back (4).
Colonel Childers' action was eventually justified by the Marshal Law, as his lawfulness was tested according to the Rules of Engagement, but, in my opinion as an amateur, International law also tells you that the Yemeni civilians' action was illegal as you can see in the abovementioned Article 1 because those Yemeni civilians were not legally categorised as belligerents and their action was not a "spontaneous" resistance, either.

I am well aware of that some people would want to make an argument against this view, but, I must be clear that I am not a sympathiser of the U.S. globalisation / dominance over the world with invincible armed forces, yet, at the same time, I strongly believe in the necessity of compromise through the truly objective International Law between Western Powers who have enormous military power and countries that are categorised as "the third world" where people can only rely on "terrorism" and guerrilla warfare to resist the dominance of the Western Powers over their own countries.
No one can ever emotionally justify the horrific mass-killing Childers' decision caused as the director Friedkin says. And the fact that the terrorists of Arab world have to use even their own women and children as human shield and, in this instance, attackers, is truly tragic. However, if you allow your sentiment to cloud your judgment on this Childers case and distort the truth (in this case, the fact that Childers' action is legal by the Marshal Law and the International Law) to call Childers "murderer", it would have an ultra-left/anarchist connotation. I do not believe such view would solve the problem of the power balance in the military world.

I know that the International Law is mostly being manipulated by the arbitrariness of the Western Powers, namely, the U.S.A. So, I am not saying at all that the current situation is perfectly alright and all terrorism deserves total elimination which would facilitate the U.S. dominance of the whole world. Still, I think both side of this conflict - globalisation and terrorism - should stick to the International Law as mutual compromise, although it definitely needs decent reconsideration in the light of fair treatment for the "non-powers".



Rating:
Summary: The film is hideous spitting at dead Arabs and Vietnamese...
Review: Americans really managed to make more racist movie than most nazi propaganda works. Glorification of a butchery Vietnamese POW , circus "trial" in which American butcher is fined for shooting but not punished for killing. If you support killing "well armed civilians" , you probably won' t be supprised by film in which SS troops are crushing resistance in Warsaw Ghetto with flamethrowers and after that Jewish rabin is supporting their act at Nuremberg trial.

Rating:
Summary: Tommy Lee Rules!
Review: I especially admire Tommy Lee Jones' work and he does not disappoint in this film. As a former alcoholic (he seems to be dissolute in many films), and by his own admission, inept lawyer, he is asked by a friend to represent him in an upcoming court martial. He replies "I'm a good enough lawyer to know that you need a better lawyer than me." But he takes the case.

The movie events are timely ... terrorism in Yemen, court martial. Samuel L. Jackson as the accused Col. Terry Childers, is excellent, as is the prosecuting attorney. The trial itself is my favorite part. Tommy Lee as Col. Hayes Hodges belies his claim to be a poor lawyer by turning in a quite credible performance.

There are some inconsistencies in the script (how come none of the Marines saw the crowd below firing at them when they fired back? .... their testimony would have cleared Childers immediately.) But the best part of the movie consists in the heart-felt and lasting friendship between Hayes and Terry. And the most touching is when, after the trial as Childers leaves the courtroom, he sees a North Vietnamese officer who testified against him. The officer, who he has not seen since the Vietnam War, salutes him, and he salutes back, acknowledging that the war is over and that they both respect each other as soldiers.

This is by no means a perfect film. but its strengths outnumber its weaknesses.

Rating:
Summary: Worth Your Contemplation
Review: This movie will make you think. What exactly are "rules of engagement" in battle? Can rules even apply to conflict?

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are both excellent as veteran Marine soldiers fighting the battle of their reputations. Incidents occur in Yemen that unfortunately result in civilian deaths. So who takes the blame? Soldiers. This film brings to light the willingness of civilian judgement against someone volunteering to fight for his country. I don't think a bunch of desk jockies should have that right considering they have never faced a loaded gun and a moment to make the decision of their lives. This film will make you think about your own judgement and about the information you receive.

William Friedkin directs this film with an easy hand, allowing the actors to carry the movie rather than a bunch of guts and glory. Although it was released in 2000 the events are very much related to today. Consider the court marshalls currently taking place against our soldiers in Iraq. Who is to say what rules exist for a young man or woman prepared to die. We know scapegoats exist if only politicians would take their share of the blame. Is it even possible to have rules when some people are immune to following them? Soldiers aren't playing a game that can be replayed for fairness, if they were none of them would ever die would they?

Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: The framework in which this story is centered around is quite compelling: an American embassy in a 3rd world country is being besieged by an angry and volatile anti-American mob. A security detail from a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) is called in to defuse the situation. From that point onward, utter chaos breaks out.

In this day & age the scene of the mob is sure to be quite gripping to any American viewer. This is especially the case given the fact that we've had several embassies overseas bombed in the past 10-20 years. Ever since 9/11 it has been exceedingly difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for anti-American mobs, regardless of where they are.

While the film examines nicely some of the ethical intricacies of combat, the major flaw is that there is a rather large hole in the plot that even the least clever moviegoers will be able to point out. As the rest of the movie is pretty good, the best thing to do is to try and overlook this unfortunate inconsistency.

Another facet that strikes close to home is the cover-up attempts of the State Department. Not only is this plausible, but it is downright realistic. Few people with morals work for the State Department and the history of the department is filled with cloak-and-daggar silliness.

In all, this is an entertaining movie that compels one to think. It would have been a great movie, if not for the hole in the plot. It is a story that reminds us that the rules that govern war according to the Geneva Convention were written by lawyers who sat in the comfort of debate tables and not battle-hardened soldiers on the front-lines who get shot at on a daily basis.