Jump to content

good shooting, or travesty?


entwined

Recommended Posts

This article tells of a very long shot made by a US sniper in Iraq.

 

"

 

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres."

 

What do you think of the use of snipers in war? I have talked to some who call this murder.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're asking for a moral judgement, you might have taken a moment to include this key passage:

 

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

 

Would your friends call the insurgent's act murder as well? And if not (say, because we invaded), then what does the act of using a sniper rifle have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that the authorized use of force by a soldier in a time of war cannot, by definition, be murder.

 

Since we're talking about a legal concept here, what legally-delineated war would you be referring to? Congress has not declared war on Iraq (or, for that matter, "Terrorovia").

 

(There's plenty of legal basis for this use of force, IMO. I'm just not agreeing with this particular choice.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're asking for a moral judgement' date=' you might have taken a moment to include this key passage:

 

 

 

Would your friends call the insurgent's act murder as well? And if not (say, because we invaded), then what does the act of using a sniper rifle have to do with anything?[/quote']

 

I did include that passage. All one had to do was click the included link to read it (as you have so ably proved).

 

As to the accusations of murder, they seem to think that the act of shooting someone from afar puts it outside the realm of a sporting proposition.:rolleyes:

 

I really don't argue much with these folks much, I find that it is more entertaining just to listen......

 

Edit: By the way, these same people think it is murder to execute a murderer. And they are not "friends" of mine, just people I happen to know and talk to sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not include that passage, and there is a clear and obvious difference between linking and quoting. Your post distorted the issue. I corrected your error. If was just an honest mistake, and not a deliberate attempt to distort the issue, then I'm certainly glad to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the accusations of murder, they seem to think that the act of shooting someone from afar puts it outside the realm of a sporting proposition.

I've met some of that type. They seem unaware that the purpose of military action (in a shooting war) is to kill the other guy.

 

Let me guess, they also think that all we need to do to stop terrorism (or organized violence in general) is to sit down with their leaders and have a meaningful discussion over a latte or two?

 

In answer to the original question. I have no problem with the military use of snipers, but I'm biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're talking about a legal concept here' date=' what legally-delineated war would you be referring to? Congress has not declared war on Iraq (or, for that matter, "Terrorovia").

 

(There's plenty of legal basis for this use of force, IMO. I'm just not agreeing with this particular choice.)[/quote']

 

The last declared war was WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met some of that type. They seem unaware that the purpose of military action (in a shooting war) is to kill the other guy.

 

Let me guess' date=' they also think that all we need to do to stop terrorism (or organized violence in general) is to sit down with their leaders and have a meaningful discussion over a latte or two?

 

In answer to the original question. I have no problem with the [b']military[/b] use of snipers, but I'm biased.

 

In general, yes, that seems to be their answer to the problem.

 

Also, "take it to the UNSC." As if the UN could impose some sort of "economic sanctions" on the terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Iraq is not a declared war, so "the authorized use of force by a soldier in a time of war cannot, by definition, be murder" would not apply here.

 

I am not so sure about that.

 

The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, but it does not say that war cannot be conducted absent such a formal declaration.

 

The following quote is PART of an article that can be accessed be the provided link. It seems to support the idea that war is war, whether congress bothers with the declaration of same or not.......

It has long been recognized that, even absent a formal declaration of war, the President may, on his own authority, use military force to carry out the Congressionally delegated power to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Thus, for example, in The Prize Cases the Supreme Court upheld President Lincoln's Civil War blockade of southern ports. And no one doubts that in the event of an actual attack on the United States, the President can and should use military force even if there is insufficient time to seek Congressional approval.

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html

 

Edited to add....

This link lists all the times that congress actually declared war and also the times that congress merely gave the nod to conduct war without a formal declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not so sure about that.

 

The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war' date=' but it does [i']not[/i] say that war cannot be conducted absent such a formal declaration.

 

The following quote is PART of an article that can be accessed be the provided link. It seems to support the idea that war is war, whether congress bothers with the declaration of same or not.......

 

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html

 

Edited to add....

This link lists all the times that congress actually declared war and also the times that congress merely gave the nod to conduct war without a formal declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

 

 

The alternative is that every soldier who killed a persion from the Korean War to Gulf War II is guilty of murder. I've never researched the question of what difference formal declaration makes to this kind of question; however, I do not believe it makes a real difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the conclusion of one author:

 

R. Turner, The War on Terrorism and the Modern Relevance of the Congressional Power to "Declare War," 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 519, 536-37

 

**********

 

"Where does all of this leave us? What, if anything, is left of the power of Congress to "declare War?" I submit that it is largely an anachronism, because the kind of aggressive uses of force historically associated with formal declarations of war, which the Framers seemed most concerned about checking with a congressional veto, have now been outlawed. Because this exception to the President's power in foreign affairs was intended to be construed strictly, it would properly only apply if a president wished to launch an aggressive "war" in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter.. . ."

 

*******

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2782/is_200203/ai_n6797127

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War isnt a sport so I dont really see why a kill is sporting enough or not matters. War isnt fair so I dont see why it would matter if a target gets a fair attempt at defense or not.

 

If that shot was made at 1250 meters I gotta hand it to the sniper, thats one hell of a shot. Certainly not a travesty, rather an extraordinary display of skill and discipline.

 

No innocents hurt, 1 dead bad guy...hmm I have to say its a good deal all around. Just wish he would have been able to do it sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.