Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (100376)	2/14/2005 12:40:22 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

If the journalist is perceived as an enemy combatant, is it murder? Which is why I said "journalist qua journalist." If the allegation is that some of our soldiers deliberately tried to kill journalists, that's murder. And Jordan certainly seems to be suggesting that this is widely known. So, taking him at face value -- if, as he alleges, some of our soldiers have deliberately shot at, maybe killed, journalists knowing they were journalists, and if, as he alleges, this is widely known, and if, as we all know, no American soldier has been proscuted or even sanctioned for killing journalists, then I can't think of any other way for this to be happening other than the brass taking a blind eye or even approval. That's the steps of the reasoning. I don't see any other way for it to come out, except to say Jordan didn't really mean what he said. I have no idea whether he meant what he said, and I have no idea what he actually said, but if he said what he is alleged to have said, he's accusing some members of the military of murder and the rest of the military of failure to punish murder.

To: Lane3 who wrote (100376)	2/14/2005 12:45:11 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

I should mention that I would not find it implausible if some of our soldiers deliberately shot at Al Jazeera journalists, due to the wide-spread perception (which I share) that Al Jazeera is assisting the terrorists, and I would not be surprised if they got away with it. Al Jazeera is that unpopular. I also would not be surprised if Israeli soldiers shot at AP journalists in Palestine for the same reason. CNN, though, is another thing entirely. They might wish to shoot at CNN but probably could not get away with it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (100376)	2/14/2005 6:17:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793670

I agree with you that "murder" has a more plausible defense. I think "very fair" is a bit of a stretch, though. If the journalist is perceived as an enemy combatant, is it murder? In any event, Eason said "target" and "kill" and there's no reason to upgrade that language to "murder" other than inserting one's own spin. "Target" can have different meanings. If John wants to kill Bob, and makes the effort to do so he is targeting Bob. If John wants to kill Bob, sees Jim, thinks Jim is Bob, aim's carefully at Jim and prepares to fire he is targeting Jim but not in the same way he was targeting Bob. Target in the context of much of the military, terrorist, and anti-terrorist discussion in recent years has been used in the first sense of the term. Using that sense of the term target, if you are targeting someone and you do kill them, and they where not a legitimate target than you did murder them. Tim