We can't stop the mission to care for our own wounded, certainly not his. Also it isn't really a good idea to leave wounded and armed enemy behind our troops as we move through an area.
With all due respect sir, we care for the wounded DURING the Op, and in some cases afterwards. This man was wounded and un-armed, (no we dont leave armed enemy on the battle field) and missing a rathter large portion of his skull at that. He wasnt going any where or gonna cause anyone harm. I bet you think Lt Pantano should get a pass too?
I did not know that the man was unarmed and harmless. Also I am not sure how much time you spend to assess their condition. A second is too long if it gets you killed. A soldier is in a situation where he often has to make split-second live or die decisions. Training and experience reduce errors, but they still occur.
I don't think a soldier should be punished for what he judged to be an act of mercy.
I'm nor sure about the circumstances in the Pantano case, but again I don't think a wartime soldier should be prosecuted for killing the enemy.
There are too many rules of engagement which end up putting our troops at unnecessary risk. We send soldiers to kill the enemy. At the end of the day it's how you tell who won and who lost.Yes there are war crimes, but I don't see either Maynulet or Pantano as war criminals.