Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
To me it's all red tape. And I'm asking why. I'm asking why because chances are this man would go on being a terrorist, this man would go on being unpunished, this man would not treat Americans better because of any treaty or convention, etc.
And we are worse than terrorists in their view from the moment we are born. Margaret Hassan who lived in Iraq for 30 years, married an Iraqi, and dedicated her life to helping poor Iraqis while being against the war was brutally murdered by these terrorists. Was it because she shot a terrorist when he didn't have a weapon?
Yes, get the embedded reporters out of there and let our troops decide how to fight on the ground and adapt as best as they can. If they blatantly attack a civilian then punish them.
-Rudey
|
I understand the argument, however:
The man in question would probably have become a POW and be held for a long time. Probably way past the time that we leave.
The Margaret Hassan argument is a strong one, but it still comes down to sinking to their level. We shouldn't.
In addition, the Marine General in charge in this action(and the military in general -- no pun intended) love the imbedded system because otherwise the news folks would be going and doing pretty much anything they want. Imbedding is no favor to the media because it adds another layer of control by the military.
Finally, if you were part of a unit with an imbedded camera crew, why would you shoot an unarmed man in front of that crew? The Marine must have been over the edge one way or another. Which could turn out to be his best defense.