Re: Cover ups

["Patricia Winston (Trish)" <winstonp001@hawaii.rr.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Cover ups


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!

I would have to disagree. It seems to me that drowing seamen are in the same
category as pilots who are shot down.  If they are drowning they are no
longer combatants and there is a duty to rescue them.  Once they reach shore
they and rejoin the combat they are legitimate targets.

Trish