Compare and contrast

On the one hand we have a Marine who shot a wounded terrorist in a mosque. Things to note:

• A day or so earlier, this Marine's friend was killed when the bomb used to booby-trap a supposedly dead terrorist's body exploded.


• This terrorist was previously engaged in combat from within the mosque in an attempt, albiet unsuccessful, to use it's status as a religious building to protect him.


• Another nearby wounded terrorist was not shot right after this because he made very clear by his actions that he was surrendering.

On the other hand we have Margaret Hassan, who headed a humanitarian organization called CARE International. Things to note:

• She was brutally murdered in cold blood by more of these terrorists, people just like the guy shot in the first incident.


• She was blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit when she was shot in the head at point-blank range.


• She had lived in Iraq for 30 years and her only goal was to help as many people as possible.

Questions:

• Which of these two incidents is getting the most coverage by the mainstream media?


• Of the two people who pulled the trigger in these incidents, who had the greatest justification in doing so?


• Which of them is being vilified in the press and by the Left?

Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations cuts through the crap and lays out the reality of the situation:

Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.

As so many have asked, what about the Geneva Conventions?

What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

As a bonus, here is an excerpt from Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949:

It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary and resort to perfidy. ...

The following acts are examples of perfidy... (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness...