Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Can any of you remember a Argentine POW was burning alive on the Falkland Islands and either a Para of a RM shot him dead as a mercy killing, he was then charged with murder by civi plod. Can anyone remember what happened in the end, was he arrested and charged?
|
On 2 June 1982 approximately 1,200 Argentine POWs were being detained in a sheep shed at Goose Green on East Falkland Island. Concerned about piles of artillery ammunition near the shed, the prisoners asked for and obtained permission to move it a safe distance away from them. Unfortunately, as several of them did so, some of the ammunition exploded, possibly due to booby traps set earlier by Argentine soldiers to kill British troops. A British medic at the scene, Sergeant Fowler, assessed one of the stillburning men to be fatally injured and possibly suffering horribly, and shot him to end his misery. A subsequent military inquiry concluded that no war crime had been committed. The other Argentines wounded in the explosion and fire were treated and evacuated; one of them had to have both legs amputated, and died on the operating table.
But there is no such thing as "mercy killing." Mission requirements may keep you from rendering immediate aid to a fallen enemy but in no way are we allowed to make a decision to end the life of an enemy that is no longer able to defend himself due to wounds. If you come across an enemy that is almost dead and mission requirements do not allow you to help him you move on and complete the mission. After completion of the mission if you can return to him and render aid do so. At that point he is a POW and has all the rights as one. Soldiers who violate such rules by killing wounded enemy combatants can be prosecuted for murder or other forms of homicide.
The law is clear: simply stated, no soldier or physician today is legally authorized intentionally to kill any wounded enemies who no longer pose an immediate threat to them (or their own gravely wounded comrades)
The Geneva Conventions strictly prohibit killing enemy combatants who are rendered hors de combat by their wounds: for example, the first Geneva Convention of 1949 stipulates in chapter 2, article 12:
Members of the armed forces … who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be…. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited…; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered…. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.
However, situations still arise occasionally today — and could occur with greater frequency in some future wars— in which the wonders of modern military medicine are unable to reach all seriously wounded combatants in time to save them or sufficiently palliate their suffering. Such situations engender difficult ethical dilemmas for soldiers witnessing their miserable condition.
October 15th, 2012
--
