In May 2007, [Ethan] McCord, a 33-year-old Army specialist, was engaged in a firefight with insurgents in an Iraqi suburb when his platoon, part of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, got orders to investigate a nearby street. When they arrived, they found a scene of fresh carnage – the scattered remains of a group of men, believed to be armed, who had just been gunned down by Apache attack helicopters. They also found 10-year-old Sajad Mutashar and his five-year-old sister Doaha covered in blood in a van. Their 43-year-old father, Saleh, had been driving them to a class when he spotted one of the wounded men moving in the street and drove over to help him, only to become a victim of the Apache guns.
McCord was captured in a video shot from one helicopter as he ran frantically to a military vehicle with Sajad in his arms seeking medical care. That classified video created its own firestorm when the whistleblower site Wikileaks posted it April 5 on a website titled “Collateral Murder” and asserted that the attack was unprovoked. More than a dozen people were killed in three attacks captured in the video, including two Reuters journalists, one carrying a camera that was apparently mistaken for a weapon.
McCord, who served five years in the military before leaving in Nov. 2007 due to injuries, recently posted an apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber supporting the release of the video and asking the family’s forgiveness. McCord is the father of three children.
Wired’s Kim Zetter reached McCord at his home in Kansas. This is his account of what he saw.
Clancy, thats great. Now, should we gang up on LDA for his preposterous position that he wouldn’t kill Hitler as a child?
That was an episode on Twilight Zone. I “love” the going back in History to make things better stories==playing with the devil.
Turns out our time traveler killed the natural child of Mr and Mrs Hitler which caused them to adopt the evil Adolf==and we all know how adoptees turn out? ((My mom was one, so I feel I can joke about it.))
But on the issue of “morality” how can one balance one innocent life off against 68 Million ((or whatever.)).
LDA I will grant you the rest of the world that is not fighting. So do you kill Hitler because he is a WWI combatant or for what he will do after WWI? Society makes laws those laws do not necessary coincide with JAG definitions of legal or illegal. Military civilian dichotomy. Its a toss up. We both agree with what is is not always whats best.
Bobbo To respond please explain this statement, Just a little clarification.
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
If I understand your context the statement is meant to say that only in the heat of battle is killing/murder acceptable. If not I apologize. In response is the sniper on the battlefield who kills/murders an unarmed but identified enemy combatant, guilty of murder to the point of prosecution? By military law he would not be. If the sniper shoots an individual he (currently women cannot be snipers, not a sexist comment) believes that the individual is an enemy combatant and kills/murders them under current JAG definitions he would not necessarily be prosecuted. However if the sniper knowingly kills/murders a non-combatant than he could be prosecuted for premeditated murder.
While much of combat has occurred in what would be defined a “firefight.” Today’s use of technology, smart bombs, predator drones, or snipers appears very close to the definition of premeditated murder. But the current definitions used by JAG allow for the use of these weapons.
I still think Westmoreland was an idiot. The concept of the body count was essentially an 18th century strategy that didn’t work in WWII or Korea and had no place in the guerrilla type conflict of Vietnam. The body count was a way of showing we were winning. We killed more of them than they did of us. I do not subscribe to the old adage “kill em all and let god sort em out” I would prefer that all combatants wear uniforms and stand up fight like in the john wayne movies. I have an even better idea let the politicians who want war go fight them. But then I’m an old fashioned guy. I doubt very much and hope very much that such a war will not occur in my remaining life time. War is not pretty or nice or clean, or antiseptic. It is not a video game.
Sorry that was not directed at LDA towards 37.
Aahh see now your getting into that angels asses pin thing. Hypotheticals are great after about ten or twenty beers you can always solve the worlds problems.
#41 bobbo
I know you love hypotheticals.
What if 10 years later Germany (no-Hitler, stabbed in the head by the doctor at birth) had developed Nukes and another crazy scum-bag took over and killed 227 million ((or whatever))? That would be your fault for killing baby Hitler (or mine for killing WWI Hitler).
Maybe we should not have fought Germany in WWI and then maybe, hypothetically, for argument’s sake, there would have been no WWII, Germany would rule all of Europe and a second global industrial revolution happened and we all had space cars and no-one ever died again.
The context that you ignore (not surprisingly) was “At what point does killing him become justified?”, the first instance is WWI, there are many other opportunities afterwards.
My killing WWI Hitler, solved the problem I was posed.
On the evil adolf thing, did he come from a russian orphanage?
LDA you need another beer.
and finally cause I am to old to up this late.
http://tiny.cc/7kx44
be up this late (told you)
#42 clancys_daddy
I take the opportunity to kill him as a WWI combatant because of what he will do later and because he is currently a combatant.
If it is just hypothetical then you could kill him any time before he comes to power and avoid the carnage. If you knew what he would become and your only opportunity to kill him was as a child and you knew that killing him would avoid more carnage than not killing him, I would.
That said, the kid in the road in Vietnam was not Hitler and the army has not got a time machine.
So to sum it up I would not have gone to Vietnam and would not have needed to choose weather to run over the child. Vietnam was a good example of ‘what if’. ‘What if we do not fight and the Commies take over the world’? Well we did fight, millions died, we lost, and the Commies still didn’t take over the world.
If you knew what you know now, would you have gone to Vietnam?
#47 clancys_daddy
You buying?
#49 clancys_daddy
Good night.
#42–Clancy==you ask: “Bobbo To respond please explain this statement, Just a little clarification.
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
If I understand your context the statement is meant to say that only in the heat of battle is killing/murder acceptable. If not I apologize.
Very straightforward–”Words have a meaning and a context:” killing can be legal as in war, or illegal as in murder. You should not use them interchangeably as you do.
The fog of war may make certain killings uncertain as to their legality but if the conclusion is “that in peacetime in would be cold blooded murder” then it would be in war as well.
Its all definitional. I use the dictionary.
#45–LDA–yes, I do love a good hypothetical, a tonic for the mind. Killing Hitler as a child–not so good but even it helped resolve a few issues?
I think your even worse outcome is possible, but not likely for while anti-antisemitism and racism was common in Europe at the time, I don’t think it was as virulent as Hitlers. But yeah, I have often wondered at the the fact that if Hitler weren’t so crazy, really crazy, he might have won.
Rereading–I took a wrong turn. Yes–any leader of Germany with a 10-20 year delay and/or an actual “inviting” of inferior human beings into the society of Germany before coming to power could well have allowed Germany to continue its technical edge on the rest of the world and nukes could have been developed by “reasonable” German leaders.
Hence: playing with the devil. Still, the world would go on and we could be living with greater freedoms from want under German Lieberstrom and socialized healthcare.
The USA has always had too much of a paternalistic attitude towards countries. Iraq is a 2500 year old culture, America is a 250 year old one.
The child is trying to tell the adult what to do.
Son of Cain==nice demonstration on the dangers of anthropomorphizing an issue.
Total NONSENSE.
# 29 smartalix said, on April 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 am
28,
First off, dumbass, this video is from Bush’s term. Second, the right continues to block everything Obama does and then accuses him of not getting anything done. Nice try, though.
================================================
Hmmm… if the evil Republican minority can thwart Obama at every turn, why couldn’t the glorious Democrat majority get us out of Iraq as promised?
You should get a different handle unless the “smart” is meant to be ironic.