The action of firing on the car in Tal Afar near Mosul does not seem justified by the known facts, writes Tom Clonan.
The shooting dead of an Iraqi couple in front of their six children by US soldiers raises serious questions about the conduct of American forces in Iraq.
It is universally accepted according to the "rules of engagement" - the conditions under which troops may open fire - that soldiers' lives must be in immediate danger before firing on non-military targets. When operating in a clearly demarcated civilian environment - such as the town of Tal Afar - the military commander has an even greater responsibility to control the fire of soldiers under his or her command.
This responsibility is drilled into each and every soldier during training. It is especially emphasised during officer training that the bearing of arms does not confer extra powers or privileges upon the military.
Rather it is stressed that being armed in public puts a great burden of responsibility upon commanders - enshrined in military, civil and international law - to direct and control their troops so they act lawfully.
This has traditionally been the legal, ethical and psychological contract that is presumed to exist between soldiers and their commanders, particularly when operating in a civilian environment. It is this contract which purports to set the military aside from those paramilitaries or terrorists who would use force indiscriminately or unlawfully.
According to the photographer, Chris Hondros, the members of the 25th Infantry Division's Brigade Combat Team involved in Tuesday night's killings, were on foot patrol in the town. According to his account, the soldiers were alert and professional. In my experience this would mean they were advancing on foot, in staggered file and well spaced, with approximately 10 to 15 metres between each member of the patrol.
The photographs show the patrol in an open boulevard-type street, which appeared quite wide with many walls, buildings and alleyways providing ample cover for the soldiers on the ground.
According to his account, the soldiers became alarmed when a single saloon car entered the street and attempted to accelerate towards and through the US soldiers' axis of advance.
The US military authorities will probably cite the perceived risk of a suicide car bombing in this instance as the "imminent threat" which justified the soldiers' decision to open fire. According to Hondros their initial fire was a deliberate staccato followed by a cacophony of automatic gunfire. To me, this free-for-all seems an inappropriate response to the risk presented.
To begin with, the soldiers were confronted with a typical family-sized vehicle full of passengers - eight people in a relatively small saloon car. The modus operandi of suicide car bombers in Iraq to date suggests that such bombers typically travel alone and are inclined to use heavier vehicles - lorries, vans or pick-up trucks - to transport their payload of high explosives.
Previously in such attacks, suicide bombers have typically targeted soldiers manning checkpoints where vehicles are funnelled into a central, often confined point. This provides an optimum site for the detonation of high explosives. Alternatively, they have driven cars packed with explosives into convoys or individual military vehicles.
Tuesday night's situation did not resemble any of these scenarios. Even if the saloon car had contained explosives, the risk posed to the soldiers by the detonation of such a vehicle, in such an open space and with such an amount of easily availed of cover, would have been minimal.
The logical and legal response to Tuesday night's situation would have been to allow the vehicle to pass and to then halt its progress away from the soldiers using appropriate force. This would have involved firing at its tyres, chassis and suspension.
To open fire at point blank range into a car full of occupants approaching the centre of the patrol's formation on the basis of a real or imagined risk of suicide car bombing appears illogical to say the least.
* Tom Clonan is a retired army officer. He lectures in the School of Media, DIT