If a soldier is guilty of using civilian as a human shield, what should the punishment be?
Simple.... if a soldier used a civilian to block bullets, shrapnel, knives, explosion or anything else to save their sorry ass, then they deserve to die.
If anything, civilians are supposed to be protected by soldiers and those soldiers are supposed to defend their lives and security with their own lives..... as a soldier, to turn around and use a civilian to save your skin from taking bullets or otherwise dying, means you're on borrowed time, since in any other circumstance, those bullets would have been for you and it would have been you who died.
A civilian isn't trained to be a soldier, they did not sign up to sacrifice their lives in a time of war, or not in a time of war..... the soldier did. The Soldier is supposed to be the trained professional..... and when they stoop to such a low level as to use civilians' lives to reduce their own losses or their own lives directly, then they're no longer soldiers.
They're a disgrace.
Of course this is just me speaking generally towards the presented question. In regards to the claims made in the above particular report, I'll have to wait for more information before I make any calls/opinions on that matter.
Added:
In Regards to whether or not NK deliberately targeted a civilian village or not:
I still agree that it is wrong to deliberately target civilians, no matter who is doing it, so if NK deliberately targeted, I feel they'd be in the wrong.
But..... for those who agree with my above view towards deliberately targeting civilians but at the same time, justify the US's actions of nuking two civilian cities in WWII...... you guys need to get your priorities in check, because whatever excuses or justifications you can come up with for the US doing what they did, you can apply the same excuses to NK towards what they did.
A deliberate attack on civilians by a military force is an action to inflict fear and panic in your enemy's country as a whole and to demoralize them into thinking they're not safe and their military can not protect them...... that was one of the reasons why the US nuked two cities and planned to nuke more until Japan surrendered (besides not wanting to loose more soldiers in a ground assault)
So if the US and other allied nations can justify their actions against civilians, even on a grand scale as to nuke two cities without any form of warning to allow any civilians (Women, Children, etc.) to flee..... then everybody else can justify their own similar actions against civilians.
I don't think it's right and I still greatly oppose direct attacks on civilians..... but when you open the door to act a certain way and justify it as not being wrong, don't expect others to not follow in your footsteps someday.
And for the record, no I am not directly linking the US as being responsible for what NK did..... nor am I linking the US to what Israel or Gaza or the West Bank does...... I'm only linking the mentality.
It's always wrong when it's your enemy doing horrible things.... but when you do it, somehow it's not the same thing.
