Quote:
Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Oooh, was that a burn? Nice burn!
|
Well, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Geneva Conventions do not ban assassination (i.e. targeted killing of specific individuals).
Moreover, if you believe that Mr. Zarqawi was the leader of an opposing military force subject to the protection of the appropriate Geneva Conventions, you have a damn hard time saying it was wrong to target him for killing. In a war, or pseudo-war, each side frequently targets the other side's generals.
As I understand it, we killed Zarqawi and 6-7 aides, and Hank mentioned two innocent noncombatants. The last two deaths are very bad--but you put that sort of risk in the balance all the time. And, to make a facile justification, it is Zarqawi's fault for hiding with them.
I can only presume you think we should have tried to swoop in with a couple hundred troops to try to arrest him. Bull. First, fraught with peril and risk of compromise and risk of failure. Second, those soldiers are undfer no more obligation to risk their lives to try to capture Zarqawi alive than a police officer is to hold his fire because the man threatening his life only has a knife, and thecop he is wearing a mesh vest, and he and his partner could maybe wrestle him down.
It was a quick and easy death for Zarqawil he was almost certainly killed instntly by the concussion. They bombed him from so high up he may never have even heard the planes. Perfectly lawful. The right thing to do. Better than he deserved.
Threaded Mode