Illegal Killing?

[Cate]

I guess the big question here is Are Embedded Reporters A Good Thing, Check One Yes No. And the answer to that one is, well, 42. Right now, the news media is the main source of information about Iraq for people back home. And it's been a good thing. A lot of important images have come back from pool reporters, images that have contributed to the positive impression of the Iraqi conflict that, let's face it, helped get President Bush re-elected. The clips of the statue of Saddam Hussein falling, pictures of troops handing out Beanie Babies to Iraqi children, that "Marlboro Man" picture going around, pictures of women in Afghanistan lining up to vote - all of those came from pool reporters, and all of them portray American troops in a positive light.

Good things and bad things happen in war. As justifiable as that Marine's actions were to us, they were also against the rules. The same camera that would have watched him pull a child out of a well caught him breaking the rules. I hope that the incident is investigated to the satisfaction of the watching world, and that he's then let off easy. But the Marine Corps saw the footage before anyone else did, and they could have stifled it, but instead, they just asked that the Marine's identity be shielded. And then they let it go. Because that's how war reporting works. There wouldn't be a "We Were Soldiers" if there wasn't a Joe Galloway.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Aww, I'm blushing.

Sorry, didn't mean to make you blush. I didn't know an evil conservative could make a liberal blush. :icon_wink

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.

What would the world be without ideals? But one would argue that it should be indirectly. Not directly, say, as in William Randolph Hearst and his fanning the flames that ignited the Spanish-American War with his half truths about the Spanish in Cuba.

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.

If a reporter is a stenographer, then we might as well have a government run news agency.

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.

I saw a poll a few months ago conducted among journalist/reporters asking why they were in journalism. The preponderance responded that they were in journalism to "change the world".

As insider in the media, do you think that we are headed down the path of the muckraking and yellow presses, again? Especially given the CBS/Rather "memogate" and the calling of certain networks by a certain campaign to get those certain networks to refrain from calling a certain state and the said networks complied. To me something smells funny.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I guess the big question here is Are Embedded Reporters A Good Thing, Check One Yes No. And the answer to that one is, well, 42. Right now, the news media is the main source of information about Iraq for people back home. And it's been a good thing. A lot of important images have come back from pool reporters, images that have contributed to the positive impression of the Iraqi conflict that, let's face it, helped get President Bush re-elected. The clips of the statue of Saddam Hussein falling, pictures of troops handing out Beanie Babies to Iraqi children, that "Marlboro Man" picture going around, pictures of women in Afghanistan lining up to vote - all of those came from pool reporters, and all of them portray American troops in a positive light.

I'd agree with that. However,

Good things and bad things happen in war. As justifiable as that Marine's actions were to us, they were also against the rules. The same camera that would have watched him pull a child out of a well caught him breaking the rules. I hope that the incident is investigated to the satisfaction of the watching world, and that he's then let off easy. But the Marine Corps saw the footage before anyone else did, and they could have stifled it, but instead, they just asked that the Marine's identity be shielded. And then they let it go. Because that's how war reporting works. There wouldn't be a "We Were Soldiers" if there wasn't a Joe Galloway.

given the extenuating circumstances this should not be beat to death. The Marines are doing the right thing by setting up an inquiry into the the incident. Time and again, police officers who shoot and kill unarmed suspects, who they believed are armed and/or reaching for a weapon, have been exonerated.

 

[Cate]

As insider in the media, do you think that we are headed down the path of the muckraking and yellow presses, again? Especially given the CBS/Rather "memogate" and the calling of certain networks by a certain campaign to get those certain networks to refrain from calling a certain state and the said networks complied. To me something smells funny.

I don't really know where the media is going, and I don't like it. I've seen a lot of stuff during the election that really displeased me. "Memogate" ticked me off - it shouldn't take a blogger to debunk a story. CNN's delay in calling the election ticked me off. On the other side of things, the quality of reporting throughout the election was crap; when you're watching a press conference with your friends and shouting followups at the screen because the damn press won't freaking follow up, that's poor reporting, and it ticked me off. 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 if/when the country is a little less polarized. The media is influenced to some extent by watchers and readers, and I think that the emergence of CNN and NBC as "blue" networks and FOX as a "red" network is largely a response to a hella divided populus (and vice versa, so it's just a big old ugly cycle). When every reader is either Wicked Left or Wicked Right, it's hard to have a moderate publication.

 

[Slammer2]

My problem is what if that guy would have somehow lived. In a few weeks he's full of his anti-infadelic energy and comes back to shoot American troops or build some kind of bomb. Or maybe just attack the troops on their way out of the mosque with the gun or bomb hidden under his robes. Those tactics have been used so far so its not like that wasnt on the soldiers mind. I'm pretty sure that the job of the soldiers moving from building to building over there is to kill the enemy. In my opinion, that video shows one less opposing fighter who could potentially kill American or Iraqi soldiers or civilans. I think people are so upset by the fact that the man was just laying there and shot at close range.

Sure, its possible that the wounds were obviously fatal and maybe he would have died anyway in about 30 seconds, but you cant tell that from the camera shots. And everybody who is throwing a fit is only getting all their "intell" from seeing these pictures and video clip. Sometimes things are as different as night and day when they are shown out of context

I am also open to the possibility (although at this point I'm not handing down my verdict) that maybe this was wrong of him to do. Maybe it was against the rules of war or humanity whether written or unwrtten, but I dont think that its right for the masses to pass judgement on the soldier. Everyone always reminds us of our right to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty when they're in the dog house, but is quick to harp on others when something happens. I will admit I'm guilty of it too though I try not to.

 

[kevin]

unfortunately, a lot of those police incidents are b.s. that "i thought i saw" story works well with cops who can cover each other, and who enforce the laws that empower them (it's like a closed circle). not always the case by any means, but it happens too often, especially in the inner city.

 

[Jolly Roger]

What frustrated me about memogate, was that after a week everyone dropped it. It should have been beat to death, a powerful news organization manipulating the news. It doesn't get much worse than that. Another thing that frustrated me was how no one brought up or talked about Kerry's senate history, until the Bush Campaign started airing those things out.

There are many, many examples like that. I read an interview with Schultzberger, the head of the NY Times, who said that his father asked him during the Vietnam War, "If a NVA soldier and US GI were fighting to the death, who would you choose to die?" He responded, "The GI because he doesn't belong there, the NVA soldier does." Now isn' that a jaw dropper.

 

[Fly Navy]

There are many, many examples like that. I read an interview with Schultzberger, the head of the NY Times, who said that his father asked him during the Vietnam War, "If a NVA soldier and US GI were fighting to the death, who would you choose to die?" He responded, "The GI because he doesn't belong there, the NVA soldier does." Now isn' that a jaw dropper.

Yeah, because the NVA soldier belongs in South Vietnam. What a douche! People like him make me sick and I'm ashamed to call him a fellow American.

 

[Cate]

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

Touche.

10chars

 

[akamifeldman]

justified killing

Whats that, like "jumbo shrimp?"

Lets not forget we're talking about the taking of human life.

EDIT: Hey, where'd my post count go?

 

[El Cid]

"U.S. rules of engagement prohibit American troops from killing any prisoner who does not pose a threat"

"About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents."

"Amnesty also noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and in one incident appear to have used a white flag to lure Marines into an ambush."

I think that this makes the point by itself. Oh, and if Amnesty is calling this out it just goes to further the case that the "insurgents" are POS's that need to be squashed.

As far as journalism goes, idealism or no, the editors are the ones who assign the liberal garbage and screen items that do not fit their agenda.

Whats that, like "jumbo shrimp?"

Lets not forget we're talking about the taking of human life.

Are you serious? Yes there is such a thing as a justified killing. Case and point, if you come at my wife with so much as a glint in your eye that I don't like. I promise you that you will be lying in a pool of your own blood very shortly there after. War is a dirty buisness and casualties occur. What needs to happen is that more of theirs occurs than ours. That's how we win em. I don't know where the notion of "spare as many as you can came" from but it is by our, the US's, benevolence that we take a limited war appraoch. Don't think that for a moment that if this sh*t landed at your door step that you wouldn't have a blood soaked K-bar in one hand and rifle in the other. Well you know what, this sh*t landed at this young Marines door step and he had to do what was nesessary. Even if the "insurgent" didn't have a weapon on him at that time, HE WAS SHOOTING ONE not but seconds earlier. He did his job and secured the area. The only person that can be held accountable for that life is the CinC and you know what he won by 51% so that means the death was ligit and with in the proper execution of his job.

 

[zuggerat]

Whats that, like "jumbo shrimp?"

Lets not forget we're talking about the taking of human life.

EDIT: Hey, where'd my post count go?

i see your point akami, but u have to realize, we're talking about losing another marine or losing another insurgent, which would u rather have? If i were the marine i would not say to myself "oh look he doesnt have a gun, lemme just wait until he has one so it's fair and the hague doesnt raise an eyebrow"... dude when the sh!t hits the fan the geneva convention and international constraints and norms of war go out the window.

PS. i've been writing a 25 page paper on Islam and terrorism for the past 4 days im in no mood to sympathize with them... *shrug*.... maybe tomorrow

 

[Fly Navy]

Whats that, like "jumbo shrimp?"

Lets not forget we're talking about the taking of human life.

EDIT: Hey, where'd my post count go?

"Justified killing" is a very common phrase that makes sense. It is not an oxymoron. Say for example you break into my house with a knife. I'm there with my wife and kids (I don't really have a wife and kids, but you're not gonna break into my house either). You're a threat to me and my family. You have a weapon. You intend to do harm. I put 2 rounds of 00 buck into your chest. That is what we call a justified killing. It's not pretty, but it's necessary.

Another point... Mr. Bank Robber is waiving a pistol at his hostages. Mr. Police Sniper takes a shot. Mr. Bank Robber is dead. That's a justified killing.

I'm not sure if you're confusing murder with killing, or you think all killing wrong. If it's the first case, then I've seen that confusion before. Guess what? Homicide is not necessarily a crime. If I shoot you in self-defense, it's still a homicide, but a justified homicide (or killing if you prefer). A murder is cold-blood. Murder results in killing. Killing does not necessarily result in murder.

If you think all killing is wrong, well I can't you help you there. That's something you have to find out for yourself.

Killing is a nasty business, but this is the military. We should all be prepared to do it. If you value your life and the life of others, you may have to do it as well... It's a part of life that is terrible, but sometimes necessary.

As for your post count, yeah I've seen that happen to othe rpeople... even mine. Not sure what causes it actually.

 

[akamifeldman]

I'm not sure if you're confusing murder with killing, or you think all killing wrong. If it's the first case, then I've seen that confusion before. Guess what? Homicide is not necessarily a crime. If I shoot you in self-defense, it's still a homicide, but a justified homicide (or killing if you prefer). A murder is cold-blood. Murder results in killing. Killing does not necessarily result in murder.

Right, that's what I was getting at (for the record, your analogy makes a lot more sense than zuggerat's "if looks could kill" comment). The initial reading and seeing the phrase "justified killing" seemed a little odd, thats all. Too much AP English for one kid...!

As for whether that guy was posing an [imminent] threat or not: If he was such a threat to that Marine and his fellow soldiers, he wouldn't have taken three seconds to say "He ain't fvcking dead yet." He woulda capped the sucka and moved on. And so would the media. We ain't gonna win this thing by merely "killling more of them than they do of us," and this video being broadcast around the world sure doesn't help us at all.

 

[Fly Navy]

Right, that's what I was getting at (for the record, your analogy makes a lot more sense than zuggerat's "if looks could kill" comment). The initial reading and seeing the phrase "justified killing" seemed a little odd, thats all. Too much AP English for one kid...!

Ok good. Hey, we cleared that up in a VERY controlled and mature manner! What's the world coming to???

As for whether that guy was posing an [imminent] threat or not: If he was such a threat to that Marine and his fellow soldiers, he wouldn't have taken three seconds to say "He ain't fvcking dead yet." He woulda capped the sucka and moved on. And so would the media. We ain't gonna win this thing by merely "killling more of them than they do of us," and this video being broadcast around the world sure doesn't help us at all.

I don't know. I'm not a grunt, hell I'm not a Marine. But people do strange things in a fight, and I'm sure if you just popped a round off without saying anything, when it was quiet, people might get... excited. And if he just shot a dude laying there, the media would possibly have a FIELD DAY with that one. "Marine shoots wounded and dead indiscriminately." etc etc.

I agree, this video does not need to be broadcast around the world. Who KNOWS what they're printing in Arab and Russian and French and whatever about this thing.