JohnH wrote:

You miss the point, I think.

Not at all. Why so quick to jump to that conclusion? Did you read all of my post?


If the Uniform Code of Military Justice is applied
to a Colonel who fires a pistol to scare someone, then I would expect the UCMJ
to be applied to a Marine who shoots a wounded, unarmed (if that be the case)
Iraqi.

I would expect so too, but it doesn't always happen that way. All it would take is for
the people who were there at the scene to be unwilling to step forward and put up
charges.


That would not be collateral damage. It would, if it occurred as
depicted, be murder.

Agreed. And it has happened many many times.


Collateral damage is, by definition, unintended. The
shooting of the Iraqi, as depicted, was intended. I see no comparison.

My mention of collateral damage was referring to a different case entirely.

DSK