Reply #53: Wrong [View All]

[atreides1]

He only has that right if the individual was actually firing on him and his troops.

The Geneva Conventions are clear, until such time as the status of an individual captured in a combat zone is determined, said individual will be accorded all of the rights of a PRISONER OF WAR.

This means that the Iraqi police officer was only required to give his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth, nothing more.

Col West did not have the authority to question the prisoner through the use of intimidation.

By the way there wwas no such designation as enemy combatant used until this adminstration invented it. As for your brother, I hope you would be just as understanding if the situation was reversed, and he was the enemy combatant.

I think it would be great for you to publicly acknowledge that as an enemy combatant, your brother's death at the hands of an Iraqi officer would have been justified. And that it helped to save the lives of others.

But I think that you would be calling for the head of the Iraqi officer who did this same thing to your brother, wouldn't you?

By the way the standard rules of engagement allow the use of deadly force if no other option is available, and that is only if you are fired upon first.

I guess if your brother killed someone in cold blood over there, you would overlook it, but would you be so forgiving if your brother was
the one who was tortured or killed, I think not.