[tobyhill]

It's from the Geneva Convention and the USSC ruled that enemy combatants are protected under those rules. The person who would have authorized the strike would have been court marshaled and convicted because it is clearly noted in the rules of engagement about targeting ceremonial events including funerals.

[liberty_lvr]

The upside is that, once fully backed into a corner and survival is at stake, we will finally fore go such niceties we now have the luxury of observing. When annihilation is the end game, we will finally fight to win.

The downside is that, until we reach that point, we will continue to send our finest young Americans into the shredder for little or no gain.

I believe that is what drives most folk's frustration over episodes like these.

[coloradan]

They don't follow the Geneva convention, why should they be protected by the same document that they don't respect?

[coloradan]

The person who would have authorized the strike would have been court marshaled and convicted because it is clearly noted in the rules of engagement about targeting ceremonial events including funerals.

Come to think of it, soldiers are willing to face enemy bullets with grave consequences to their lives. Are there any who are willing to face court martial? I would honor someone who killed 190 senior Taliban, and no innocents, and spent life in prison for the effort. If I were president, I would pardon him.