Re: Cover ups: Erratum

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Winston (Trish) <winstonp001@hawaii.rr.com>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Cover ups


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patricia Winston (Trish) <winstonp001@hawaii.rr.com>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Cover ups
>
>
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
> >
> As an addendum to this post, I refer to
>
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/1a20274e65b7a9e
> 6c12563cd00423527?OpenDocument  Convention (II) for the Amelioration of
the
> Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
> Geneva, 12 August 1949.
>
> Clearly drowning seamen are hor de combat and therefore protected persons.
> I contacted two active AF officers who concur.
>
> Trish
>
>
make that "hors" de combat.   A soldier in open ocean who has survived a
sinking is not targeted.  An aviator in a parachute who survived an aircraft
shootdown may not be targeted, but a paratrooper descending in a parachute
may be targeted.

It may make a difference whether the drowning soldiers were carrying
weapons, but whether they may or may not have surrendered is completely
irrelevant.

Slightly more confident about her position Trish