good shooting, or travesty?

[entwined]

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

[patcalhoun]

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

 

They work. Case closed.

[Pangloss]

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?

[JustStuit]

We do plenty of stuff considered immoral when at war. Bombs and air strikes seem just as bad. Or toxic gasses and stuff like that.

[Jim]

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

 

 

 

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

 

Murder is usually defined as an unlawful killing.

[JustStuit]

At war arn't most laws thrown out or something? Within reason. Like killing at war is ok but unrelated to war or not in war is illegal or somethin

[Jim]

At war arn't most laws thrown out or something?

 

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

[JustStuit]

Oh, ok. I see what you're saying. At war it can't be murder because they're at war fighting.

[Pangloss]

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.)

[Pangloss]

It should be noted that Pakistan confirmed today that three of the men killed in the attacks were "foreign fighters". This would seem to confirm the general accuracy of the administration's intelligence reports on the subject.

[zyncod]

Except that no bodies were found and they don't even know the nationality of the people that they killed. The intelligence should at least have stretched that far.

[entwined]

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.

 

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.

[Pangloss]

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.

[JohnB]

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.

[Jim]

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.

[entwined]

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.

[Pangloss]

The last declared war was WWII.

 

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.

[Sisyphus]

I still don't understand what the suggested moral difference is depending on what weapon is used.

[entwined]

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

[AzurePhoenix]

All I'll be saying; how can something that Mr. Rogers was good at be immoral? If so, all my television-based childhood teachings might as well be tossed out the window.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I admit I have not considered it.

[Sisyphus]

Still, though, it can't be illegal without a law. There's no law, therefore it's not illegal. That is, unless you're a Christian...

[Jim]

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.

[Jim]

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

[Soonerborn]

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.