Zraver Reply
Have you read the AR 15-6 report?
I can't download it but here's a link that'll get you there-
AR 15-6 July 12, 2007
Conclusions indicate the investigating officer believed the pilots to see a van assisting the escape of combatants. I don't know the ROI but B Co. 2-16 Inf. had been in continuous contact all morning and remained so at the scene of the incident. I know that the video indicates a description of what the pilots saw when the van arrived and their request to engage. BUSHMASTER 7gave them that permission.
Zraver, you offer Article 24 UN Convention (I)for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field in defense of your position. In point of fact, so too bigross86 offers articles 39-42 from the same document. I saw plenty to mitigate against article 24 and see little that affirms that articles 39-42 were followed.
UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
Article 40 makes clear the conditions underwhich article 24 is applicable-
"Article 40. The personnel designated in Article 24 and in Articles 26 and 27 shall wear, affixed to the left arm, a water-resistant armlet bearing the distinctive emblem, issued and stamped by the military authority."
None of that was present but that's not the only mitigation.
Please review the documents that you've heretofore not read and ask yourself if you've given due process and proper context to the circumstance.
Have you read the AR 15-6 report?
I can't download it but here's a link that'll get you there-
AR 15-6 July 12, 2007
Conclusions indicate the investigating officer believed the pilots to see a van assisting the escape of combatants. I don't know the ROI but B Co. 2-16 Inf. had been in continuous contact all morning and remained so at the scene of the incident. I know that the video indicates a description of what the pilots saw when the van arrived and their request to engage. BUSHMASTER 7gave them that permission.
Zraver, you offer Article 24 UN Convention (I)for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field in defense of your position. In point of fact, so too bigross86 offers articles 39-42 from the same document. I saw plenty to mitigate against article 24 and see little that affirms that articles 39-42 were followed.
UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
Article 40 makes clear the conditions underwhich article 24 is applicable-
"Article 40. The personnel designated in Article 24 and in Articles 26 and 27 shall wear, affixed to the left arm, a water-resistant armlet bearing the distinctive emblem, issued and stamped by the military authority."
None of that was present but that's not the only mitigation.
Please review the documents that you've heretofore not read and ask yourself if you've given due process and proper context to the circumstance.
Comment