Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Executing Wounded Combatants

Expand Messages
  • slippymississippi
    Time Magazine reported last month that Uday had actually been taken alive, but as part of Delta Force s standard operating procedure, the Delta Force
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Time Magazine reported last month that Uday had actually been taken
      alive, but as part of Delta Force's "standard operating procedure,"
      the Delta Force commando put a sidearm into Uday's mouth and squeezed
      the trigger twice. I'm not sure I can imagine how this would be
      considered a legal action, and it got me thinking about the ACW.

      What if Davis et al. had not been captured, and managed to escape
      into the trans-Mississippi with a sizeable force of combatants. If
      the United States Army captured them during reconstruction, could
      they have been summarily executed under GO 100?
    • tmix
      Could have been? Yes, but the question arising is would they have been. Based on the emotions prevalent at the time I think it is very possible that executions
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 23, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Could have been? Yes, but the question arising is would they have been.
        Based on the emotions prevalent at the time I think it is very possible
        that executions might have taken place. The Union was quite concerned as
        to what Forrest was going to do and Davis seemed to view him as his last
        valid hope to escape into Texas and Mexico to continue the fight. Once
        Forrest saw how foolish this was he surrendered. If he had gone on it is
        highly possible that he and others, along with Davis, may have been
        hanged. The emotions were high after Lincoln was killed and Stanton
        could only do so much. If the Southern government elected to continue a
        guerrilla fight as Davis proposed (and Lee opposed) Northern emotions
        would not have been as tolerant as they actually were. Forrest's
        "surrender" changed everything.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: slippymississippi [mailto:slippymississippi@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:01 AM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Executing Wounded Combatants


        Time Magazine reported last month that Uday had actually been taken
        alive, but as part of Delta Force's "standard operating procedure,"
        the Delta Force commando put a sidearm into Uday's mouth and squeezed
        the trigger twice. I'm not sure I can imagine how this would be
        considered a legal action, and it got me thinking about the ACW.

        What if Davis et al. had not been captured, and managed to escape
        into the trans-Mississippi with a sizeable force of combatants. If
        the United States Army captured them during reconstruction, could
        they have been summarily executed under GO 100?









        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • slippymississippi
        ... How would the Federals have justified this under GO 100? IIRC, the only charge which would result in an enemy being summarily executed was perfidy. Were
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 23, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
          > Could have been? Yes,

          How would the Federals have justified this under GO 100? IIRC, the
          only charge which would result in an enemy being summarily executed
          was perfidy. Were there other conditions under which a combatant
          could be summarily executed on the battlefield?
        • tmix
          Were they an enemy or a traitor ? ... From: slippymississippi [mailto:slippymississippi@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:21 AM To:
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 23, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Were they an "enemy" or a "traitor" ?

            -----Original Message-----
            From: slippymississippi [mailto:slippymississippi@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:21 AM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Executing Wounded Combatants

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
            > Could have been? Yes,

            How would the Federals have justified this under GO 100? IIRC, the
            only charge which would result in an enemy being summarily executed
            was perfidy. Were there other conditions under which a combatant
            could be summarily executed on the battlefield?








            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • slippymississippi
            ... Treason would require a trial. Perfidy, however, *could* result in summary execution, but it seldom did. The only case I know of was the killing of some
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 23, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
              > Were they an "enemy" or a "traitor" ?

              Treason would require a trial. Perfidy, however, *could* result in
              summary execution, but it seldom did. The only case I know of was
              the killing of some of Mosby's men. There were probably others...
              I'm not at all familiar with the activity of Quantrill in Missouri,
              but from what little I've heard, they had their own set of rules of
              warfare out there.
            • james2044
              ... Unless the press is going to take the other side, why would they have to? James2044
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 24, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "slippymississippi"
                <slippymississippi@y...> wrote:
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                > > Could have been? Yes,
                >
                > How would the Federals have justified this under GO 100?

                Unless the press is going to take the other side, why would they
                have to?

                James2044
              • hartshje
                Yeah, pure, simple murder.
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 25, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yeah, pure, simple murder.

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "slippymississippi"
                  <slippymississippi@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Treason would require a trial. Perfidy, however, *could* result in
                  > summary execution, but it seldom did. The only case I know of was
                  > the killing of some of Mosby's men. There were probably others...
                  > I'm not at all familiar with the activity of Quantrill in Missouri,
                  > but from what little I've heard, they had their own set of rules of
                  > warfare out there.
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                  > > Were they an "enemy" or a "traitor" ?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.