NationStates Jolt Archive

No, Kofi Annan made that comment and he is NOT the UN. In fact, he's in danger of being called out by a no confidence vote because of his corruption.
He is the "head" of the UN...just lique Bush is the "head" of the US...

If Bush says one day "Ossama is a Terrorist"...I assume that is the official position of the US...Untill there is an Official retractation...

Yes. Apparently all those Kurds who were gassed to death in northern Iraq are a bunch of hypocondriacs.

EXACTLY! And who remembers the underground bunker that Polish troops found a few months back full of illegal missiles loaded with filled chemical warheads?

He is the "head" of the UN...just lique Bush is the "head" of the US...

If Bush says one day "Ossama is a Terrorist"...I assume that is the official position of the US...Untill there is an Official retractation...Actually, no. The Secretary General is not empowered to make judgements like that for the UN, he is only able as SecGen to administer the UN bureacracy and report the findings of the bureuacracy, but not to make the official positions of the UN. He is able to use his seat as a platform to support his positions, but they remain the positions of him alone, not the UN. The president of the US however does have the power to make US policy and a statement of position by a US president is considered to be the position of the US (at least as far as foreign policy is concerned, domestic policy is pretty strange).

For the time being there has been a very big contversey going around. the U.S soilder who shot that terroist. Should have he done it?? Should he be punished??
I leave these questions up to you to debate. In my personal thought i think the soilder was justfied. If he did not shoot that guy then they all may be dead right now. In war you do not have a minute to decide. You have only a second.Iin that second can be life or death. What would you have done??

I am a big fan of the Geneva Convention. I have made a lot of protests about this particular war, and on occasion, war in general. I think that as a nation we should make every effort to always follow what we say is our own ethical code, even when it hurts or kills us.

However, a soldier, on a battlefield is on a mission. People are shooting at him/her, he or she is returning fire. It's freaking war. While s/he should make every effort to avoid killing or maiming unnecessarily, it is a bit unrealistic (and morally contemptable) to ask him to act in a stupid or dangerous manner to himself or his compatriots. If s/he feels that they are in very real danger (and they almost always are), then s/he should act accordingly, using what they feel is the minimum force to alleviate the danger. If that force is deadly, then so be it.

That soldier may have been incorrect in judging that particular person to be a dangerous combatant (I don't know, I haven't even seen the video, much less was there to determine for myself), but they were not morally wrong for taking action they fealt was necessary to prevent injury or death to themselves or their fellow soldiers.

War is messy and sometimes grave mistakes happen, but soldiers should not be expected to be martyrs, sacrifices, or scapegoats.

He is the "head" of the UN...just lique Bush is the "head" of the US...

If Bush says one day "Ossama is a Terrorist"...I assume that is the official position of the US...Untill there is an Official retractation...

No, he is not. The President of the United States holds executive power and has the authority to enforce US Law and policy. To equate that to the Secretary General of the UN is to say Kofi Anan is the President of the world.

This terrorist had every oppurtunity to not be involved in terrorism, could have thrown down his weapon and surrendered, could have even assisted the people hurt by this conflict, but chose to be a terrorist. He could have killed that soldier, could have killed other soldiers. The soldier did the right thing by killing that terrorist.

This terrorist had every oppurtunity to not be involved in terrorism, could have thrown down his weapon and surrendered, could have even assisted the people hurt by this conflict, but chose to be a terrorist. He could have killed that soldier, could have killed other soldiers. The soldier did the right thing by killing that terrorist.The problem in this instance is that the "terrorist" had thrown down his weapon and apparently was surrendering. He wasn't a POW yet (had not been takien prisoner) but was not necessarily a combatant, an ex-combatant? Somewhere legalistically in that grey area, not yet taken prisoner but no longer fighting. The tape makes clear that the marine believed the victim was still a combatant (with regards to The Bruce, according to drill this was the time for a headshot) wo was shamming death, but apparently he wasn't.
As for opportunitly to surrender, he was availing himself of an opportunity to surrender and was killed while doing so.

Shooting of prisoners or wounded is a war crime.

This guy wasn't a prisoner. He had not surrendered or attempted to surrender.

The US prosecuted SS members for just that for incidents that occured in the Battle of the Bulge.

We should point out that those were members of the SS, you dolt. Furthermore, no one has proven that the guy who got shot was even an Iraqi. Had that guy been a foreign national, he would be a mercenary under the rules of war, and could be shot on site without a trial. Same for spies. Those people have no protection under Geneva or Hague. If you're a merc, you can be shot, and it's not 'murder', it's
'saving yourself extra paperwork'.

The same laws and morals should apply to all - there is no special "get out of gaol free" card for the US. Neither for shooting prisoners nor for abusing them.

Not a prisoner. Say it with me, not a prisoner. You are not a prisoner until you surrender. Not a prisoner.

The problem in this instance is that the "terrorist" had thrown down his weapon and apparently was surrendering. He wasn't a POW yet (had not been takien prisoner) but was not necessarily a combatant, an ex-combatant? Somewhere legalistically in that grey area, not yet taken prisoner but no longer fighting. The tape makes clear that the marine believed the victim was still a combatant (with regards to The Bruce, according to drill this was the time for a headshot) wo was shamming death, but apparently he wasn't.
As for opportunitly to surrender, he was availing himself of an opportunity to surrender and was killed while doing so.
You have your facts all wrong. The man was a terrorist, faking death in a mosque after sniping at troops. He was not attempting to surrender, he was not a POW, he was not a combatent covered by the Geneva Convention. He was a terrorist engaged in terrorist behavior, and he was killed by a troop under tremendous pressure to make a split second decision regarding his safety and the the safety of his fellow soldiers.

You have your facts all wrong. The man was a terrorist, faking death in a mosque after sniping at troops. He was not attempting to surrender, he was not a POW, he was not a combatent covered by the Geneva Convention. He was a terrorist engaged in terrorist behavior, and he was killed by a troop under tremendous pressure to make a split second decision regarding his safety and the the safety of his fellow soldiers.
He was unarmed and injured and not threatening anyone at the time, all he was doing was lying on the floor. The marine's perception was (apparent from the audio) that he was shaming and was a threat, however this perception was not borne out by the investigators. There was no weapon found on him, and no explosives. He most certainly was not a POW, one only becomes a POW when one has been detained. As for whether or not he was an illegal or a legal combatant, that is irrelevant - in both cases a soldier is required to accept their surrender and permited to shoot them if they are a threat. There is no evidence that he was engaged in terrorist activity, even illegal combatants shooting at marines are not terrorists, but regardless, his previous behavior has no bearing on his combatant status at the time he was shot (although it can be a factor in the marine's decision). If lying on the floor without a weapon when the marines come in isn't surrendering, then I don't know how the marines can accept anyone's surrender, perhaps you can expain how one can surrender to the US marines.