[Americanexpat]

I was taught in basic training back in 1965 that once a person surrendered he had to be treated in accordance with the geneva Gonvetiontions (even though the enemy we were fighting did not sign those conventions).

I knew I could not abuse prisoners under my control.

I could not take their personal property including awards and decorations. I could take any weapons, ammo (common sense) and documents that could contain intelligence information.

I also knew that no one could give me an order to commit a war crime, like shooting or torturing a prisoner of war.

Only had one incident in three combat tours where a superior tried to tell me to shoot someone (heat of battle)and I told him he could shove it.

If I had that training in 1965, and periodically afterwards, you can bet the troops are getting it today.

[Americanexpat]

Oh yeah, just remembered we were not allowed to ridicule them, take photos etc..

And it was our responsibility to protect them from vengeful civilians.

There is probably more that is what I remember from almost 40 years ago.

[gondramB]

I also knew that no one could give me an order to commit a war crime, like shooting or torturing a prisoner of war. Only had one incident in three combat tours where a superior tried to tell me to shoot someone (heat of battle)and I told him he could shove it. If I had that training in 1965, and periodically afterwards, you can bet the troops are getting it today.

I really appreciate you sharing that perspective.

Do you think the environment could have changed after 9/11? It seems like a number of the soldiers accused of abuse have said they were following orders but not from somebody in their chain of command.