Separatist Peoples wrote:Drystar wrote:I’m still trying to figure out non-civilian. Either you have non combatants and combatants, or civilian and military. And even those lines get blurred when non uniformed people engage in military actions against uniformed military personnel. Also, a wounded combatant is still lethal unless totally incapacitated by wounds and any military would be criminally negligent for not removing them by either capture or fatality.
"Ambassador, your assessment of wounded combatants is shortsighted and obtuse. A wounded combatant can be lethal, but is nonetheless afforded rights. However, they waive those rights when they act in contravention to their status as hors de combat. The average soldier in combat is not only required to pay attention to the difference, but is often able to do so at a glance. Your suggestion of executing the wounded just in case is overtly in violation of GAR#306.
Many nations have a litany of military heroes that have functioned in combat situations with life threatening wounds, being in such a condition does not automatically remove a soldier from combat. Also, is not the purpose of medical treatment to return said combatants back to their roles as soon as possible?
Now I have never suggested “executing” wounded soldiers as you so ignorantly suggest. If you read my statement again, I said captured or killed. A soldier with a wound can still fight, in fact is expected to resist if at all possible. I would no way expect soldiers of any nation to absorb casualties trying to capture any enemy combatants who resist to not resort to lethal force. That being said, if an enemy combatant does abide by accords and does not resist then said person should be treated within the framework of the rules of war.
I’m also not disagreeing with the draft, I’m merely seeking clarification of the terms used.