It is my understanding that the Sharpshooter was under orders to take the target out. Did anyone else hear that? What do the Geneva rules have to do with people who do not have a clue as to what those rules are?
What on earth is happening at the Pentagon? Congressional and Senatorial rules of engagement?…..a body crippled by Political Correctness………we’re gonna run out of good Marines if this doesn’t stop. These men are fighting a WAR for the lord’s sake….get off their backs.
What apparently happened.
(1) The unit was informed that a specific person was a legitimate target who could be shot on sight.
(2) The unit found out where this target was hiding.
(3) They tracked him down to his hideout and verbally confronted him, asking him to identify himself. He came outside and complied with their directions and answered their questions.
(4) Once he identified himself verbally, the warrior who verbally confronted him made a prearranged hand signal to a concealed sniper.
(5) The sniper then killed the target.
The question here is whether or not the unit violated the laws of war by killing a target that they could have captured.
There are many possible reasons why they may have needed to kill him - it may not have been safe to transport him, there may have been nearby terrorists waiting for the target's signal, etc.
I'm sure it was completely justified. But the circumstances aren't as simple as you suggest.
What do the Geneva rules have to do with people who do not have a clue as to what those rules are?
The fact that the US honors the Convention is one of the moral identifiers separating us from the lawless savages we are fighting.