Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 68skylark

I seem to remember something from my military days about the geneva conventions.

I seem to remember that they were pretty clear about the fact that you are not supposed to shoot the wounded.

It seems to me that if a tape like that surfaced where some Republican Guards shot a US GI and then said, "he's wounded, get him," and killed the wounded American, there might be just a bit of outrage circulating on this board about the "savagery of the terrorists."

If one wants to claim one has the moral highground, then I think one has to be pretty meticulous about following the "Rules" of war--even if that is an oxymoron.

If one reads Ambrose, one finds all sorts of incidents discussed where German and American GIs didn't shoot wounded, didn't shoot medics, etc.







56 posted on 09/22/2004 11:43:22 AM PDT by steveeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: steveeboy
Good points. Here are my thoughts -- let me know if you have a reaction.

First, our rules of engagement are carefully scrubbed by military lawyers -- guys who do this for a living. I have no desire to second-guess them.

Second, as a soldier who is a non-lawyer, my understanding of the law of land warfare is a little different than yours.

(A) I think you're statement that it's not okay to shoot the wounded is not right at all. For example, if a wounded soldier has a weapon and is engaged in hostilities, the mere fact that he's wounded does not give him any special protections. He can (and should) be shot again.

(B) A wounded enemy soldier (or any enemy soldier) may attempt to surrender by throwing down his weapon or otherwise ceasing hostile acts, and making a signal (like raising his hands). I believe we'd then be obligated to respect his surrender attempt, but ONLY if the surrender could be put into effect. Since it's not practical for an enemy terrorist to surrender to an aircraft (because there's no way to put the surrender into effect) the aircraft is not required to accept the surrender. They can continue to engage in hostilities.

These terrorists took their chances by engaging in hostile actions. As you can see, they have to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions.

Let me know if you don't agree.

58 posted on 09/22/2004 11:56:36 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson