[Mo1]

"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."

They fail to mention that firing on a cemetery is against the military rule book of engagement

I'm wondering how old that rule is or if it's part of the news rules that McCain wanted

[geopyg]

"They fail to mention that firing on a cemetery is against the military rule book of engagement"

I find it interesting that this story is coming out after the "Path to 9/11" movie - and using it as a counter-attack against our current administration and warriers (or at least the desk-bound officers).

I read a book about our Revolutionary War and one story (actually letters from the troops) told of how we shelled a group of British officers that were standing on a hill. We only wounded one I think. It was later found out that the officers were attending a funeral for one of their own. We sent the British a note apologizing for the firing as we didn't know that it was a funeral.

Of course later in the war Washington went into the enemy camp returning the British general's hunting dog that had got lost during the day's battle (and that Washington had recognized). After drinks and talking about their dogs the two parted company.

I understand that rules for warfare exist. I guess I sort of recognize that they need to be followed. But it would seem to me that when we KNOW the enemy will not follow the "rules" - then we need to make our standards a bit less lofty.