Were soldiers told to kill "all military-age males"?

[rodeodance]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003146000_iraqabuse23.html

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM


Were soldiers told to kill "all military-age males"?

By Robert F. Worth

The New York Times

On the morning of May 9, a group of soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division arrived in a remote desert area of western Iraq for a dangerous mission: destroying an insurgent training camp.

What happened then is the subject of intense dispute.

Military prosecutors last month accused four soldiers in the unit of releasing three Iraqi men they captured that day only to kill them. The soldiers have been charged with premeditated murder, a capital offense.

Lawyers for the soldiers deny they released the detainees. They say the soldiers fired only after the Iraqis tried to break free and attack them.

But the lawyers are also making a more startling claim: that the soldiers were given explicit orders before the raid to "kill all military-age males" they encountered.........

[Monkeyman]

1. If that order was given the personal that gave it should be hung

[benburch]

2. I think firing squad is how this is done in the modern military... nt

[TomInTib]

3. I will second that

ROE is one thing. They will tell you to not fire unless you are fired upon.

And we all know how long that lasts.

But an order along those lines?

I will volunteer to kick the boxes out from under the bastards.

[neweurope]

4. Only a dead Indian is a good Indian!

Why stop at "military age"? Hell, the baby will grow up and grab a gun!

But then again maybe not considering all the depleted Uranium you've been peppering that country with.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!