I agree with you. It is just talking with beloved as he faced situations of a similar nature in Iraq. Sometimes you just act and hope that you are doing the right thing, ensuring your troops are safe and alive. Then you worry about the others.
I am sure they will appeal. I would certainly say a second review might be a good idea.
They did show mercy. Why, well we may never know.
>>Sometimes you just act and hope that you are doing the right thing, ensuring your troops are safe and alive. Then you worry about the others.<<
Yeah, that's the ironic part of it. The captain probably chose to do the deed himself so that he would not expose any of his subordinates to blame if something came of it. I wonder how this would have gone down if he had ordered a junior troop to shoot the wounded insurgent or if some soldier of lesser grade dispatched the suffering man on his own initiative?
I think there is another factor to consider in the decision to prosecute. I suspect that adherence to the rules of engagement (ROE) is getting alot of emphasis because of the frustrating nature of the combat occurring in Iraq:IEDs, suicide bombers, car bombs, drive-by shootings, ambushes, snipers, etc. A war of sudden danger and little opportunity for a satisfying reply. Requiring strict obedience and punishing swiftly anyone who violates the ROE is probably one of the tools being used to keep the conduct of soldiers and Marines professional and keep a lid on alot of anger and desire for revenge on their part. It is an important consideration because once the lid is blown off and the troops feel loosely constrained or free of constraints you are on the slippery slope to a disaster built on your own troops misconduct. That is the root cause of the prisoner treatment scandal.