Illegal Killing?

[turtle_sc]

First let me say that I think the Marine was completely in the right for shooting that SOB...unfortunately, he will probably hang for doing it. It sucks that we have to fight wars with a double standard in place...it's ok for the bad guys to do something, but god forbid we play hardball with them. I really wish they would just take the kid gloves off and open up a big can of whoop a@@...

 

[VetteMuscle427]

If I was in that position, I would have done the exact same thing in a heartbeat, everyday of the week, and twice on Saturday. I rather be court martialed for keeping my fellow Marines safe, than from (if I had lived through a detenation) living with the deaths of my fellow Marines by an IED set off by that asshat.

Better to be judged by 10 than carried by 6 eh?

First let me say that I think the Marine was completely in the right for shooting that SOB...unfortunately, he will probably hang for doing it. It sucks that we have to fight wars with a double standard in place...it's ok for the bad guys to do something, but god forbid we play hardball with them. I really wish they would just take the kid gloves off and open up a big can of whoop a@@...

While that would be nice, that double standard is what makes us the good guys, and them the bad guys. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't think anything should happen to the Marine, it IS combat operations, and if he feels that he was threatened he should have a right to act. Maybe some other guys will learn from this and not do questionable acts IN FRONT OF CAMMERAS!!!!

 

[Cate]

I don't know you, but you seem cool.

Aww, I'm blushing.

Let me guess, you work for the Clinton News Network? Atlanta Journal Constitution?

Interestingly enough, none of the above.

Do you feel that a correspondent, journalist, or a reporter should have the attitude that they are out to change the world or to just report the news?

That's a really, really, fantastically good question. And the answer is, ehhh...

The purpose of the news media is, to some minor extent, to change the world. The news media is there to shine a light on things that might not otherwise be shiny, and in so doing allow the public to educate themselves. It's a little bit of an idealistic standard, I know, but you all know by now that I'm a little bit of an idealist in some cases.

Mike King, an editor for the AJC, recently made the point that a reporter isn't a stenographer. The five W's are a cliche, I know, but they're also the basis of good reporting. Particularly important to a good reporter is the fifth W, the Why. It's not enough to just report What happened, the public has to know Why, and it's a reporter's job to tell that.

That having been said, when a reporter starts using his position to push his own personal agenda, he's wrong. He's very, very wrong. If a reporter starts depending on only one source for his information, he's wrong. At the same time, a reporter can't artificially balance his reporting in order to seek an unbiased viewpoint. If Politician A runs a soup kitchen and Politician B eats babies, the reporter shouldn't start looking for dirt on Politician A just to make his reporting "balanced."

A reporter shouldn't be out to change the world, but if he's afraid or unwilling to expose it, there's no point to him being there.

 

[Fly Navy]

But the question is, will the watching world give that Marine a "fair trial". I know many probably called him a ruthless killer, before even knowing the tactics used by the bad guys. Some will still call him a ruthless killer, even with the knowledge that the bad guys pretend to be wounded (classic Japanese tactic by the way, though the Japanese tended to actually be wounded).

What ticks me off is that many of the talking heads don't know their English dictionary and war fighting terminology. An example is "it is illegal to shoot a wounded combatant." That is false, if the wounded person has a weapon and is actively resisting, they are a COMBATANT and therefore a fair target. If the wounded person is unarmed and not resisiting, they are not a combatant anymore. Of course, this gets majorly skewed when the bad guys play wounded, etc etc.

 

[VarmintShooter]

As justifiable as that Marine's actions were to us, they were also against the rules.

Wooooaaaa ... are you sure? I thought they had to do a whole investigation about it first ...

 

[VarmintShooter]

In my parents' town, the editorial board of the paper voted to endorse one candidate, and the owner of the paper dictated that they endorse the other one instead - and that ticked me off.

I think that the impartiality of the press will improve ...

Not to bash, but why do the editors get to endorese someone if not to advocate their own politcs? If it is a political advocation (which it obviously is), why wouldn't the owner get to pick the candidate - it's his paper after all.

I always wondered why editors/reporters thought they were smart enough to tell the rest of the country how to vote/think.

Besides, since when did impartial parties endorse candidates anyway? I don't think there is really any illusion of impatiality.

I'm not trying to pick on you Cate, we really agree on some aspects.

And the answer to that one is, well, 42.

Nice reference. :icon_mi_6

 

[CLAM97to99]

I hope that the Marine is determined to be justified in his actions. But I also believe if he killed that man with out proper justification he ought to go to jail. If they go around killing anyone that isn’t an obvious direct threat we become no better that the trash we are trying flush out of that city.

I also agree they need to think about who’s watching (video taping) before they do anything that could bring apparent disgrace on our country.

The thing I would like to see is, if it is determined to be a justified killing, what the press will say about it. Wither they will pretend it never happened and let the American people think that this Marine disgraced us, or if they will come out and say what was determined.

 

[Fly Navy]

I see a lot of people saying the Marine should have thought first about whether it would "look bad", even if he felt threatened. Put yourself in his shoes. You're clearing a house, you come upon a wounded enemy. You know they have been using tactics like pretending their wounded then shooting when Americans get close. You see him move or shift... what do you think? Oh he's just wounded and still alive, or he's going for his weapon? Do you think "gee, that pesky reporter behind me might think I did something wrong, because he has no idea what's really going on here, so I'll wait till it is possibly too late before I do anything."

No, you pop the fvcker in the head and end of story. If it was a mistake because he thought he was a trap, then he is COMPLETELY in his rights. The enemy brought down that hell upon themselves. If he popped him because he wanted to have fun, well then he is WRONG.

 

[gagirl]

All I have to say is that Marine had a split second to make a decision on whether he and possibly those around him live or die. Given the history of the militants I think he made the right decision. If we had captured him and fixed him up he would have later been released and gone right back to contributing to the attacks on our guys. The way I see it's one less militant to threaten our men.
I just wish there was more "what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq"

Let our boys do their jobs and come home. No matter how they do it.
Anne

 

[gagirl]

Don't know why but my posts are being posted in weird order. Maybe this one will work.

All I have to say is that Marine had a split second to make a decision on whether he and possibly those around him live or die. Given the history of the militants I think he made the right decision. If we had captured him and fixed him up he would have later been released and gone right back to contributing to the attacks on our guys. The way I see it's one less militant to threaten our men.
I just wish there was more "what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq"

Let our boys do their jobs and come home. No matter how they do it.
Anne

 

[gaijin6423]

I just lost another acquaintence in Iraq. This Marine 2ndLt was shot in the back and killed while his platoon was clearing a building by an Iraqi who was either missed during the initial sweep or was playing dead (the details aren't clear yet). To everyone who has voiced questions along the lines of "What if he had a bomb" or "That Marine made a split-second decision that could have saved the lives of everyone in the room", all I have to say is, you're right on the money. What if that Iraqi had been holding a bomb and had scragged that reporter along with any nearby Marines? I haven't heard THAT argument from CNN yet, and I'm not holding my breath.

While I do think that imbedded reporters are a great idea, I wish that the people who are armchair quarterbacking the ongoing conflict for various news agencies back here in the States would be more willing to give the Marines the benefit of the doubt. Infantry Marines--and Marines in general--are some of the most professional and proficient individuals in the world. And that's not just because I've been a Marine for over nine years now. I say that, until the board of inquiry comes back with a finding to the contrary, that Marine deserves the benefit of the doubt, if not our active support.

 

[freshy]

All I have to say is read my quote.

 

[freshy]

1. We obviously don't need embedded reporters with front line fighters. Yes, keeping up on current events is one thing, but the public just doesn't need all this information.

2. Just because we have the capability to capture the most miniscule details of close combat on camera, doesn't mean we should provide it to the public.

 

[Fly Navy]

I just lost another acquaintence in Iraq. This Marine 2ndLt was shot in the back and killed while his platoon was clearing a building by an Iraqi who was either missed during the initial sweep or was playing dead (the details aren't clear yet). To everyone who has voiced questions along the lines of "What if he had a bomb" or "That Marine made a split-second decision that could have saved the lives of everyone in the room", all I have to say is, you're right on the money. What if that Iraqi had been holding a bomb and had scragged that reporter along with any nearby Marines? I haven't heard THAT argument from CNN yet, and I'm not holding my breath.

While I do think that imbedded reporters are a great idea, I wish that the people who are armchair quarterbacking the ongoing conflict for various news agencies back here in the States would be more willing to give the Marines the benefit of the doubt. Infantry Marines--and Marines in general--are some of the most professional and proficient individuals in the world. And that's not just because I've been a Marine for over nine years now. I say that, until the board of inquiry comes back with a finding to the contrary, that Marine deserves the benefit of the doubt, if not our active support.

Well said.

 

[gagirl]

gaijin6423,

I'm sorry for your loss. I agree with everything you said.
These Marines are the best in the world. Let them do their job. I just hope that maybe the USMC is just playing the game of investigating this to calm the storm, but supporting this Marine behind the scenes.

Don't y'all think that they were lectured or made aware of the fact that the wounded and dead aren't to be trusted? Maybe not, but I would think so. Anyway, who cares? Like I said it's one less militant to fool with.
God bless and protect our men and women.
Anne