Killing is more permissible than blinding?

A column I just put up over on the main site raises an interesting ethical question. Is it better to kill an enemy than wound him? 

This is the paradox of nonlethal weapons, and it has been around for some time. Yet as military technology becomes increasingly capable of halting an enemy without killing him, it is a situation that international law must reconsider. Isn't less deadly better?

Read more here.