The only evidence a shot is fired is the matting of the hair. It just looks odd. Maybe it was a squib round or something.

I don't think film speed or shutter speed has anything to do with it. The area in the background all looks the same.

The rules were not ignored.
They simply do not apply to the guy getting shot in that picture.

He's the one that is out of Uniform, and who executed the family of a South Vienamese Officer who refused his orders. He used a knife to kill his wife, her elderly mother, his children and a whole bunch of others.

The protection provided by the Geneva Protocols do no extend to guerilla's that fight irregular, out of uniform and who murder civilians.
They do nto cover this "franc tireur" who under those rules in time of war was an illegal combatant, a spy, a saboteur and above a cold blooded murderer of civilians.

The man who shot him, saw those things happening to that officer under his command.

Even the photographer testified in his defence and he was fully aquitted of any wrong doing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BGrsw6m9UOY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What I recall from back then.
 

I remember seeing the video at the time, on CBS or one other of the US news channels.
It was a shock to watch, it was repeated many times but I only looked once. It seemed brutal and what struck me the most and what I recall the most was the amount of blood spurting out of this victim's head as he fell to the ground.
I never knew the details, and didn't need or wanted to know. For sure it was and remains the most horrific thing I've ever watched.

Never apologize for telling the truth, you've earned that right.

he didn't deserve to be treated that well

Pop goes the weasel was a gift.

It's also OK to imprison humans indefinitely, broad daylight and dark of night, year after year, without due process. We do it at Guantanamo Bay.

The reason is politics. Politics is a blood sport. It is only polite up to a point, then it is contentious but bloodless, then all he ll breaks loose.

You obviously don't understand the concept of due process of common law.

so shoot them and get it over with, they shouldn't leave the battlefield

Nah. It's horrifying.

However, it's unfair to judge at first blush. The dude needed to be capped.

I don't think due process applies to this situation. It IS the battlefield.

This Is PPOT, not PARF. In keeping with the purpose of PPOT I won't call you names or insult you.
War criminals are people who have been convicted of war crimes. Even the Nazi criminals of WWII were given trials within a reasonable period of time. The people in Gitmo are suspected of war crimes. They are being imprisoned indefinitely - maybe for the rest of their lives - because they are suspects. I'm all for punishing criminals. It's un-American to punish people suspected of crimes.

Agree. Need to chill on the name calling comments.

However, this was South Vietnam. Not a Rodney King/pissed off black dude, throwing a brick into a cracker's head in LA.

I got no argument with your viewpoint, just have done a lot of reading and vid watching on this situation because of how appalling it was. I was shaken.

It was a DIFFERENT place. Not a different time. A different place.

Just to argue a minor point as an aside...
Everyone involved: from lower to mid-level to upper Nazi party was pretty much automatically killed during the war process.
And today even conscripted ninety year old grandmothers are still being put on trial.
(Whether kidnapped internationally or just assassinated through various means.)
Let's not talk about Isreal's leading role in genetic scientific research or expelling citizens.
Then the upper crust Nazi echelon were given an international trial.
I believe there were special legal rules applied. Ones where evidence did not need to proven to be accepted into record as factual.


Right or wrong is not the point of my argument.
It is whether international rules and laws have consistently always been applied...
I say no.

Well I say prolly no as well. Goering partied with Americans before incarceration.

The subject issue was dealt with in real time.

Effectively

God bless expediency.

Quick to judgment there Afterburn, as regards Gitmo detainees and with out clear facts.

In the chaotic factional atmosphere in The Middle East at the time, members of supposedly friendly factions could have played us to eliminate an opponent simply by reporting them as terrorist. Possibly Resulting in open ended detainment and no recourse, without due process.

And now you are so sure of the situation that you are ready condem them to immediate execution. Still without trial or assured ness of the circumstances of their imprisonment.

Correction, I see now that it's Dean that thinks they should have been exicuted in the battlefield. It's my understanding that some were not battlefield captures.

You are correct, rules, such as they are, have not been applied. My question is whether it is morally right to execute prisoners (as in the Saigon photo) or indefinitely imprison them (as in Gitmo).
Is it now acceptable to execute our enemies when they pose no immediate threat to us? In WWII that was a crime - we rounded up and cared for tens of thousands of enemy combatants without killing them. By the time Viet Nam came along, it was apparently OK with some Americans to handcuff and then shoot the enemy in the head. Now, with Gitmo, many Americans think it is OK to capture and imprison people who are presumed to be the enemy for the rest of their lives without any trial at all.
Is that really the American way of doing things?

Did we release German of Japanese POW's before the war was over?

That is a fair question WD, considering we have alleged ourselves to a higher ground.