How about violate them CONSTANTLY? They intentionally target innocents. They behead the prisoners of those they choose for political effect. They re-stage the war (i.e. Spain) where it suits them. They booby-trap bodies... and you're main concern is the WE fight fair? I think under the circumstances our soldiers are doing an amazing job against a desperate enemy who constantly and , worse, proudly fights dirty.
Shooting an unarmed wounded soldier is still a crime. It could have been prevented. He acted out of a believed but not real threat.
You didn't read where I said we should go after and kill/punish the other side for not following the conventions. Or maybe you ignored it. But we should be more concerned with us fighting fairly. Because that is our nation's honor and integrity at stake. Our nation is not dishonored because some terrorists or enemies break the conventions. Our nation is dishonored when we break the conventions. I'm talking about preserving our nations honor. It is one thing to believe as Cohen does that no crime was committed. It is another thing altogether to try and justify the crime by pointing out the other side doesn't follow the conventions.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade You didn't read where I said we should go after and kill/punish the other side for not following the conventions. Or maybe you ignored it. <b>Well, that's exactly what this soldier did. He killed a guy on the side who was flaunting the rules.</b> But we should be more concerned with us fighting fairly. Because that is our nation's honor and integrity at stake. Our nation is not dishonored because some terrorists or enemies break the conventions. Our nation is dishonored when we break the conventions. I'm talking about preserving our nations honor. <b>I understand your aspirations. I admire them, but I won't ask any soldier to unduly risk his life to follow a code that is being totally ignored by the enemy.</b> It is one thing to believe as Cohen does that no crime was committed. It is another thing altogether to try and justify the crime by pointing out the other side doesn't follow the conventions. <b>I don't think I'm the one calling it a crime. I'm in line with Cohen on this one. My call was for the marines to discipline their own-- that doesn't mean that I think a crime was committed.</b>
You're saying that even if you knew that terrorists purposefully booby-trapped wounded or dead insurgents, and that you knew a marine in your unit got killed by the same tactic, and that marines around you suddently shouted that a particular body near you really isn't dead and that he was "f***ing faking it", that you would without a doubt still go ahead and calmly frisk him with the very real and possible threat of blowing yourself up or shot or whatever? If you really would, well, I'd admire your bravery (no sarcasm), but I think most of us, in the interest of self-preservation and self-defense, at the very least can't be sure we wouldn't have done what this marine did. This of course, is just my opinion.
How about those 35+ children that we delivered fresh water to their neighborhood? As evidence of US and of course his own great love for the Iraqis giddyupp gives out a little story of how we tried to give some fresh water to some Iraqis. Of course no mention of how we haeve systematically tried to deny the Iraqis fresh water for years through Gulf War I, the destruction of their water supplies needlessly and the denial of parts to fix it long after it was not necessary to do so to get Sadam out of Kuwait. Oh, no fair now you want to talk about more than the simple act of trying to give waer to 35 people. BTW even the particular 35+ children needed the opportunity for Christian charity that our troops decided to do because we had just destroyed the fresh water supply again of Fallujah a day a few days earlier. What Giddy and much of the rest of Christian American have said and still say is that the Iraqis deserve life and even fresh water only as long as we as foreign invaders think they do or as long as we approve of their type of government. Oh, no fair!!! You see we have "Iraqis" and then we have the insurgents who are only 99% from Iraq so they are not "Iraqis" and voila! we still are showing our great love of the Iraqis of Fallujah. Besides we were so humane we told all of the women and children of Fallujah to get ut before we razed it. Collective punishment of a whole city of course is a war crime. "HOw quaint as the Atty. General Elect might say.
The restrictions you speak of were UN sanctions and sanctioned, I believe. I know you're a big UN hater though, so not suprising. Isn't it cool there are no more sanctions now? Or would you prefer the Iraqis were still under sanctions? And any policy you don't agree with is not a war crime, glynch. People like you almost give creedence to the Administrations arguments against a world court.
you assassination of the character or intellect of those who disagree with you rages on, huh? of course, it wasn't "their type of government," glynch. they didn't exactly have a say in the matter. thanks for playing, though.
Hmmm. Say you are aware that your neighborhood has had a bunch of home invasion robberies recently resulting in some of your neighbors being murdered. Now a bloody, 6' 5", 300lb guy runs into your home screaming. You perceive a threat, shoot and kill him, then find out that he was just in a car accident and needed assistance. Unfortunate act? Poor judgement? A crime? He was unarmed, no real threat, only perceived.
Oh yeah. Giddy and those other evil Christians. glynch, are you even remotely aware of how offensive that is?
http://www.kevinsites.net/ I haven't read this whole thread but oddly, I was reading this blog right before I came to the D&D where this thread was on top. It's by the reporter that filmed the incident. I think it captures the ambiguity of the event.
I'm not saying that it's not understandable. Just that it was avoidable. If I shot the man in my home, then I would have over reacted. I would deserve some type of punishment. I don't think I should be tried for murder, but I should be punished. Having one or two boobytrapped bodies, doesn't excuse a rash of soldiers killing wounded unarmed enemies. I know that this one incident isn't a rash of them, and by making sure that the incident doesn't go unpunished, hopefully it won't ever turn into standard operating procedure.
i realize this is a sidetrack...but you know that you wouldn't be charged with anything if you did this, right? if you feel legitimately threatened, it's self-defense
I might well have reacted as this marine did. I think nobody really knows until they are in the situation. But if I shot out of fear and not rationale or standard procedure, I would expect some type of punishment. This is the reason why the 'nothing to fear, but fear itself' quote is so good. Because this guy was afraid he made a snap decision based on that fear, and it killed a wounded, unarmed, man.
I think legitimately is the key word. I think I would feel understandably threatened, but it wouldn't be legitimate.
if it's understandable, then it will be legitimate in the eyes of jurors...they'll place themselves in your place at the same time and think, "how would i feel??" people rarely even get brought up for charges on that, FB.
Quoting 'nothing to fear but fear itself' would be silly if it weren't such a serious question. I'm not sure what the right answer is about this question, although I lean toward shooting the guy. But there is PLENTY to fear from this exact situation, as detailed with descriptions of similar situations where insurgents faking it or being booby trapped killed marines. Engaging in hindsight second guessing and acting like there was no reason for fear is just wrong.
Thanks, Max. Perhaps I was wrong then. I thought it was a lesser crime, but still a crime. If it that's not a crime then so be it. I will admit I was wrong. I will say that something should be done in this case, because we don't want a rash of incident where unarmed, and wounded soldiers are simply shot to death. I definitely understand the marine's fear.
