Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yazoo
Bottom line, when an enemy combatant is not longer a threat either because he is wounded and unarmed when the fighting is over, or he has surrendered, it is wrong to kill him.

It can be awfully tough to tell "when the fighting is over".

I think my biggest problem with this whole debate/exercise is that it is strictly a one-way street. Can you imagine a situation where insurgents get the upper hand on a squad, and a lone surviving soldier raises his hands and attempts to surrender? Dead.

53 posted on 02/22/2009 12:42:48 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: Lancey Howard

“Can you imagine a situation where insurgents get the upper hand on a squad, and a lone surviving soldier raises his hands and attempts to surrender? Dead.”

I don’t have to imagine it, it actually happened in Iraq. A marine sniper team was trapped and all were killed but one of them. The lone survivor was found days later having died from torture. The fact these animals do this sort of thing to us does not mean we have to do it to them. We have always had a tradition that says we don’t kill the enemy when he has surrendered and it is important for the morale of our troops we continue this rule.

I agree it is hard to tell sometimes when the fighting is over and if an enemy soldier who is trying to surrender gets killed in the confusion, then so be it, no one is at fault. I’m not suggesting standards that puts our troops in danger. I am simply saying that a bound enemy combatant is clearly no threat and should be treated humanely.


54 posted on 02/22/2009 4:54:41 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson