[Hoot Gibson]

Never said they didn't. But condoning someones death is far different then giving an order to have it done. From the article u posted it said a going rebel was excited and shot him. What does the leaders suppose to be? Bring the kid to trial for killing the most hated man there? That's asking for a civil war.

Plus I didn't insult u in any way.

In a civilized country that is exactly what happens. Maybe a jury (or military court-martial panel) would find the shooter not guilty or decide to sentence him to a minimal prison term but when laws are broken, there should be a process to dispense justice.

Are you familiar with Allan West's experience in Iraq involving his intimidation of a prisoner? Col. West made a command decision to violate the rules of engagement in an attempt to gain safety for the troops under his command. He threatened the prisoner and fired his pistol near the prisoner's head to elicit information about the location of his comrades, who had attacked Col. West's unit moments before.

When West returned to his base, he immediately informed his commander that he had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice in an effort to protect his men. West later faced an Article 15 action, was fined $5,000, and retired from the Army. He later said that faced with the same decision again, he "would walk through hell with a gasoline can to protect his men." He knowingly violated the rules but immediately confessed and accepted the consequences of his actions.

Discipline is extremely important in the military and it is important that everybody from the top to the bottom of the chain of command understand that fact. Our military has a very complex justice system that parallels our civil justice system.

The Libyan rebels don't have the benefit of an established UCMJ but not shooting prisoners in the head is a pretty basic and widely accepted principle of managing POWs.