Originally Posted by
charliegolf
Here's the simple question that needs answering...
Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?
What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?
And so on?
Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?
I can't.
CG
Didn’t that happen 8n the Falklands where they were worried about having an armed enemy to their backs so took no prisoners.