Everyone is assuming that shooting an unarmed and wounded combatant is a crime. I don’t think so. If he isn’t already a prisoner, or attempting to surrender, he is fair game.
I missed that part of the clip, I guess.
1.) The Geneva Convention is US law.
2.) There’s also a little thing called the UCMJ which is applicible here.
3.) Shooting a woundedm, unarmed prisoner is just plain old wrong. regardless of any written law.
He was already a prisoner. Have you read anything at all about this story.
Is the military code of justice an oxymoron?
I read the story. It doesn’t say that he was a prisoner. He was a wounded combatant on the battlefield.
Being wounded, dropping your rifle, or running away, does not give you immunity from enemy action.
The guy had been captured and disarmed two days before.
He should (and will) be tried by the UCMJ and if found guilty court martial and sent to prison most likely.
He certainly crossed the line and as I said, if he’s found guilty he will be punished.
This simply isn’t true. Read the article.
No idea what was going through this marines head at the time. I find it…instructional…that the majority of the board automatically jump to the worst possible conclusion and immediately call for blood and vengence though, even before all the facts are in on this. Its…interesting.
-
Well, we subscribe to the Geneva Convention, so I suppose its ‘US Law’.
-
Horseshit. Even if this was an issue under the Geneva Convention (which I’m unsure of for insurgents with no uniform…and also non-subscribers to said Convention), the UCMJ IS certainly applicable…and its what will be used to try and convict this marine if he’s found guilty.
-
Certainly true…its definitely forbidden in the UCMJ. As I’ve said, if this soldier is found guilty he will be punished. Why isn’t that good enough for you?
This is untrue, unless the person in question is a clear threat…or the soldier THINKS he’s a threat. Its pretty clear by the tape that (unless Sams speculation that the soldier thought he might be booby trapped) this guy was unarmed and no threat to anyone. If so, there is little to excuse such behavior.
-XT
I did read the article. I find no excuse there. It just confirms that the victim was an already disarmed prisoner.
Fascinating. I find it revealling that Bush lovers immediately try to find any possible justification, no matter how asinine, to excuse absolutely anything a US soldier does.
It’s US law because it’s a ratified treaty.
That’s what I said, The UCMJ is applicable regardless of the GC. . Hello?
It is good enough for me.
Let’s say that I’m a member of a sniper team that has infiltrated an enemy position. Are you saying that I can’t shoot unarmed soldiers, say cooks and mechanics who are doing their jobs, or resting?
No, not at all. But that shouldn’t and (thank god) won’t be decided in a court of public opinion, or with a CNN (or Fox) viewer poll, or by Kofi Anin at the UN, or by a bunch of us lazy nerds sitting on our asses wasting time in an internet forum. It will be decided by the US military.
Are we seriously discussing this as a matter of law? Law? “Well, the insurgent in question wasn’t wearing any uniform or readily identifiable markings, nor was he enlisted in any armed force of a signatory party…”
I sincerely doubt anyone here is so devoid of moral compass that one must check into the legality of shooting an unarmed, wounded man. If I am wrong about that, I’m not at all sure I want to know.
Based on the facts as we know them right now I tentitively agree with you. I was commenting on your assertion that “They were the ones who captured him and disarmed him (and wounded him).”…this was simply untrue (at least according to the article I linked too).
I can’t stand Bush…as you well know. Or were you talking about someone else. Sorry that I’m not willing to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. Bad of me I’m sure. :rolleyes:
Doh! My appologies DtC…I misunderheard you (basically read what you wrote wrong). Sorry.
Ok…me too.
No…you are building a strawman here. The two situations are compatable. The soldier was obviously wounded…he was obviously disarmed (as far as the data we know now). Going on those two tentitive assumptions, this marine was in the wrong to shoot this prisoner. Plain and simple. If more data comes out that says the man was a threat or some other circumstance then that might change things…at THIS time though such a scenerio is pure speculation based on what we know right now.
Please. My POINT was that such a fighter falls in a grey area as far as the Geneva Convention goes. However, our OWN code (the UCMJ) there is no grey area as far as this guy goes (and as far as the facts we presently know about goes)…what the marine did was simply wrong, and if convicted he will be punished. You can try to twist my words all you like to show I have no ‘moral compass’, but thats simply NOT what I said.
-XT
Er…that should have been The two situations AREN’T compatable. :smack:
-XT
I don’t doubt it. My comments were not directed towards you.
Yeah, we don’t need anything more than to see the 10 sec film clip to **know **the guy is guilty. :rolleyes:
I’ll wait for all the evidence to come in before passing judgement.
No, I wasn’t talking about you. There are others.
I always find it dreadfully fascinating to read threads like these and see who shows up to defend the atrocities in question.
That’s correct.
Oh. I’ll just slink off now, shall I? Sorry.
-XT