Originally posted by bigross86
View Post
Sir,
Z,
I understand what you are trying to do ... and if it was done your way, it would have save a lot of people, especially two pilots, a hell of a lot of heartaches.
That being said, hors de combat is NOT a legal prevention to stop the enemy from regrouping.
I am not saying that your read of the GC is incorrect but by the same token, the counter-read is also not incorrect. Again, a LAV III with uniformed personnel trying to withdraw the wounded is still a legitimate military target. The Insurgents, through their actions that day, established legitimate military targets, ie unmarked combattants and vehicles.
As much as you don't like it, there is a grey area ... and one exploited by others more than ourselves.
Added to this, Z, I have to ask ... more of a challenge as food thought than to doubt. If we do not accuse the Russians of war crimes for firing on their own hospitals during Chechen hostage crises, then how can we accuse our people of war crimes in a combat zone with no clear identity of enemy non-combattants?
That being said, hors de combat is NOT a legal prevention to stop the enemy from regrouping.
I am not saying that your read of the GC is incorrect but by the same token, the counter-read is also not incorrect. Again, a LAV III with uniformed personnel trying to withdraw the wounded is still a legitimate military target. The Insurgents, through their actions that day, established legitimate military targets, ie unmarked combattants and vehicles.
As much as you don't like it, there is a grey area ... and one exploited by others more than ourselves.
Added to this, Z, I have to ask ... more of a challenge as food thought than to doubt. If we do not accuse the Russians of war crimes for firing on their own hospitals during Chechen hostage crises, then how can we accuse our people of war crimes in a combat zone with no clear identity of enemy non-combattants?
Comment