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
I believe it was Winston who stated something along the lines that "there is nothing so silly as a man that has tried to kill, shot at you and missed, and now wants to surrender".Shades of Vietnam. Who is the civilian? When children carry guns and are strapped with explosives than what?. If atrocities have been committed than the
proven guilty should be held accountable. But who. You have witnessed bits and pieces of your brothers and sisters spread across the field and begin to treat the value of life as your enemies do. There is no straight forward answer.