[an amused spectator]

The discovery of the bodies dealt a new setback to U.S. efforts to seize the momentum against al-Qaida in Iraq after killing its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in a June 7 airstrike.

Yeah, I imagine it's going to be like the setback dealt to American forces in the Ardennes in late 1944, when they discovered the massacre at Malmedy.

There's going to be fewer prisoners for a while...

[M1911A1]

The problem is that during WWII, when the need to retaliate for was felt by our soldiers, it was simply done, and the press didn't proceed to have a field day with the results.

Like it or not, WWII GIs shot a surrendered Germans who they believed deserved it, and that was that. The ones who surrendered and survived were treated well as POWs, and that encouraged those still fighting to surrender.

There was no policy that advocated this sort of rough combat justice, but there was not a press microscope focused on our fighting men, either. We could learn some lessons from the way that was dealt with.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"There's going to be fewer prisoners for a while..."

I sure hope so.

[Big Horn]

You nailed it. I think we should take less prisoner's and thin out the ones we have.

[Yorlik803]

Why do we take Prisoners anyways? The Conventions say that if the person is Out of uniform and shooting at you, they are Partisans, therefore they can be shot out of hand.
Time to wave the red flag. No quarter asked, no mercy given.