![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis came up on my friend's page this morning.
followed by this .
When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.
But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.
Why is this?
-"Phanatic"
I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.
There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.
The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...
...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.
An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.
Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.
They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.
The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.
This is war.
Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.
All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.
Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.
Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.
followed by this .
When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.
But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.
Why is this?
-"Phanatic"
I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.
There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.
The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...
...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.
An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.
Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.
They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.
The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.
This is war.
Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.
All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.
Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.
Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/10 19:28 (UTC)Self defense, and in defense of another person who was in imminent danger.
s: As for The Geneva Conventions, I would reccomend reading the full text before going further in this debate.
Specifically what text in the conventions do you have in mind?
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 01:34 (UTC)as for the Geneva Conventions...
The Protections confered upon Medical Personel and "Good Samaretans" are contingent on them identifiying themselves as such. (Convention I, Chapter 7) They did not so the Van and it's occupants fall under the provisions of Convention IV, Chapter 1, wich prohibits the intentional targeting of Civillians who are not taking an active part in the conflict.
A case could be made for the two men in the van to be classified as "Active Participants". Likewise there was no way for the helicopter crew to know about the children in the van thus thier wounding could not be considered "Intentional".
With those two issues addressed there's no real grounds for a hearing. Yes, people do get prosecuted for Geneva Violations. I've seen plenty of guys go to Mast and a few go to Court Martial. It doesn't really make the news though because the Pentagon doesn't like to advertise its mistakes.
The original post was adressed to those fools out there who seem to think that it is possible to fight a "Clean War" where only the "Bad Guys" get killed. The truth is that these things happen. no matter how stringent the rules, extensive the training, or advanced the weaponry, people are fallible and make mistakes.
People who believe that this incident is somehow "special" are not being honest with themselves.