Re: Cover ups

[Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>]

At 10:02 PM 8/9/01 EDT, Jhk789@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/9/2001 5:13:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net writes: 
> 
> 
>There is absolutely nothing contrary to either US or International law in 
>machine-gunning Japanese soldiers after their boat was sunk, 
> 
> 
>Marc, 
> 
>I wonder where you learned that law. 
>Must be in the Army! 
> 
>One of the key principles of the humanitarian law 
>is that it prohibits unnecessary suffering to combatants. 
>Shooting at soldiers who are being drowned anyway is  
>clearly unnecessary. In fact, the humane thing under 
>such circumstances would be to rescue them and  
>turn them over to prison camps. 
> 
>John2 
> 
> 

I am a practicing attorney, John.  

Until an enemy military personnel actually surrenders, US military law
requires that he be targeted.  Bear in mind that the incident involving
Morton was with Japanese soldiers -- who would not have surrendered in any
event -- whose ship had been sunk in shallow water close to land.  These
guys were swimming for the shore, where they would have been put to
military duties immediately -- such as shooting at WAHOO!

War can be brutal but there is a clear logic in continuing to attempt to
kill unsurrendered enemy soldiers!

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!