"To err is human; to forgive, divine"

Thus sayeth the late Alexander Pope and as he was something of a deep thinker and I am not, I will not argue the point.  The phrase came to mind after I read a report on the recent military trial of a young Israeli soldier who shot dead an already wounded Palestinian terrorist who had been subdued fifteen minutes earlier.  The military court convicted the soldier of "voluntary manslaughter" and sentenced him to 18 months in prison, although the prosecution asked for 3-5 years.  The soldier's defence was that he thought the prisoner still posed a threat because a knife he had used was nearby and also he thought the prisoner might have a bomb-belt.

Needless to say, the result has caused a furore and divided the Israeli nation.  It rather reminded me of the case 'over here' involving a Marine NCO who 'offed' a wounded Afghanistan fighter after he had been taken prisoner and who was convicted and imprisoned and is now fighting to have his sentence reduced.

What can you say about such cases?  Not much, unless you were there and had detailed knowledge of the background and the particular incident.  So I will not say much except that, in general, executing PoWs is wrong and anyone who does it should be forced to face the consequences in a court of law.

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

I agree that unless we have been there, we ought to be a bit reticent about attributing blame and demanding punishments. It's a situation which most people have virtually no insight into. It seems obvious, though, that we ought to make the risks clear to young people who are prepared to step into combat situations. Just as there is a risk of losing life, limb, mental health, and comrades, there is a risk of being judged and ending up on the wrong side of the law. That's the way things are.

And let's hope that other prisoners are understanding.

[TheBigHenry]

I agree with what David and W have said. Such issues are usually very complicated on moral, ethical, and even coffee grounds, whether or not one was even present to witness what had occurred.

What seems particularly unclear to me, and all I have to go on is what David related above, is why was the knife he had used nearby, 15 minutes after he had been subdued?

[David Duff]

As far as I can gather from news reports, Henry, the 'perp' had attacked with a knife and was brought down, presumably dropping the knife. Thus, it was a crime scene and nothing was disturbed. Then the young soldier intervened with the results I described briefly above.

[TheBigHenry]

So, nothing was disturbed at the crime scene, including not the perp himself? What was going on at the crime scene (for the 15 minutes after the perp was subdued) while the perp and the knife were just lying there? And what were the subduers doing during those 15 minutes?

The whole thing seems very confusing to me. But I suppose the questions that come to my mind had all been clarified during the trial.

I am not questioning the findings of the jury, and I am certainly not in any position to do so. Don't bother trying to answer, David. Consider my questions to be rhetorical.

[JK]

Here Henry:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.763038

[TheBigHenry]

Thanx, JK. As I said, I agree with David and W and I also assume that my initial puzzlement about the circumstances of the crime was likely due to the brevity of its description in David's post. It's all good.

[rapscallion]

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if the Taliban and Palestinian terrorists adhered to the Geneva Convention. They don't though do they, and captured soldiers are mutilated then killed without so much as a moment's thought. So working on that basis I have to disagree. It's bugger all use having the moral high ground if they're left to fight you again - and even possibly kill you.

[missred]

I agree with rapscallion, who put it so eloquently. Terrorists do not adhere to any standards of a civilized society, therefore are exempt from any civilized consideration. Does this thinking lower me to their level? I do not think so, for my survival depends on their demise.

[Michael Adams]

Pretty much anyone who knows me knows that I'll talk to anybody, and that they'll tell me their life's story, sooner or later, whether I want to hear it or not. So, a good many young men returning from the sandboxes relate to me that, things being the way that they are, there are fewer prisoners being taken these days. Make of that what you will. The wounded man with a grenade in hand, pin pulled, waiting to sail off to Paradise when any infidel gets close, he is getting fewer and fewer chances to pull that sort of stunt. I do not know all of what these poor misguided Hajis are being told, but I do remember that a great many regular Iraqi Army soldiers eventually asked the interpreters when they were going to be executed. They had surely been told that they would be. Do the ISIS types get a similar indoctrination?They clearly know what they do to their own prisoners.

The drugs we use in OR(theater) to paralyze patients for surgery would be dandy, if they did not have to be given IV. Then the prisoners could be stripped, thoroughly searched and cuffed for safe handling. I don't see a great deal of good space between "No Prisoners" and "paralyze them."

[TheBigHenry]

I now agree with rapscallion, missred, and Michael Adams.