Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Interesting issue.
AL:
Want to fill us in on what authorities JAG will be considering in their analysis? This is not my area.
|
Not AL, or even a regular lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn recently.
IMHO, an impartial analysis (which I doubt it will receive, since the proponent has already rendered a personal negative opinion anbout the ammo), for general military use would be done by the JAG proponent for that specialty and he would consider the applicable Laws of Land Warfare and any Treaties we observe.
Use against non-protected combatants would be at the call of the NCA.
There were a lot of earlier comments that the round was illegal because of the Ballistic Tip (which I believe has been removed) and that the round did not work anyway. Interesting to see that the naysayers have moved from the "it doesn't work" camp, to the "it is TOO lethal" position.
I do not think the issue is excessive lethality as much as it is the cosmetics of such a catastrophic wound from an issued small arm. Dead is dead, after all, and from my perspective, if lethal force was required, the sooner the Bad Guys die, the better. Less suffering for them as well. If lethality was the issue, we would be fighting these campaigns with BB guns and Nerf bats. The objection would likely be the horrific nature of the wounds which would make quite a visual for the media to show. The round is not DESIGNED to cause undue suffering any more than an RPG is. It just works that way, the same way a fast moving 5.56 does.
The severe wounds (and fratricide) will probably be more significant in the decision than the Laws of Land Warfare.
That is a shame, because in the time of useful consciousness the BG has when hit by the current small arms ammo, he can kill or wound a LOT of our soldiers and Marines.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR