In defense of murder

A lot of my fellow patriots are coming to the defense of the brave Marine who shot the wounded, unarmed man in Fallujah by pointing out that he could have been a suicide homicide bomber. Bill "I have a falafel and I'm not afraid to use it" O' Reilly writes:

Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash. If that wounded insurgent had a grenade or other explosive device, the entire marine squad and the photographer could be dead right now. In a killing zone, one cannot afford the luxury of knowing what is certain.

Future MENSA Hall of Fame inductee Kathleen Parker echoes O'Reilly's comments, writing:

We now know the man was unarmed, though he might have been hiding a weapon under the blanket...

What we do know is that Iraqi insurgents frequently fake death, booby-trap dead bodies and perform other ruses that have resulted in many GI deaths. In the context of that knowledge, is it possible that the young Marine acted reasonably? That he was acting in self-defense?

The General agrees. You just can't trust the Iraqi wounded enough to let them live, but if you murder them, you leave yourself open to being charged with war crimes.

That's why I think we should make the summary execution of the wounded our official policy. That way, our soldiers will know that they have the full backing of the most powerful nation on Earth when they violate the Geneva Convention.

Now, I don't think the wounded should be shot right away--I'm not a monster. Instead, I believe they should be left to lie in place for a few days in excruciating pain--just like the Iraqi who was eventually killed by the Marine. That way, he has a chance to be picked up by a concerned family member. If no one comes to get him, an Einsatzkommando making an execution sweep a few days later can shoot him.

I'm sure that's how Our Lord Jesus would handle it.