Why is everybody surprised about the reporter's death?

[jjones]

This isn't the first time a reporter has been killed in a war zone, and it certainly won't be the last. Reporters are there chasing a story, chasing the Pulitzer prize; they know the risks.

 

[nardvark]

Amerdoux, not to be a total ass or anything, but don't take offense when "him" is used instead of "her" when gender is unknown. The proper word to use in an ambiguous setting is "him." It is not a biased assumption, it is proper english. If you want to avoid this "problem" in the future, I suggest that you make your username "Iamawoman" or something of the sort...

 

[DT4K]

Anyone hear the reporter who looked at the room and from where it is, the amount of damage, and the position of the tank, he doesn't think it was a tank shell that hit that area. Who knows if he is right or wrong.

The only clear thing here is that it is unclear.

Originally posted by Amerdoux
The Geneva Convention states that civilians and civilian buildings are not to be bombed or fired upon. The exception to this is if a military force moves into and occupies the site. Only then does it become free game

Wouldn't snipers shooting at you qualify as a military force and therefore be an exception?

Assuming there were snipers there.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Were you there? Do you know the full story? Or do you just want to take this opportunity to bash the US troops?

I don't see him claiming he has all the facts, or "bashing the troops". He is pointing out why this is an issue, which is what the original thread poster was asking. Try not to read so much into a person's posts.

Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out and keeping us on track.

The premise I have trouble with is that same one we use for police officers. These soldiers had to make a split second decision to fire or not to fire on a building they thought housed a sniper. Tanks are very good protection from snipers, but they are not so good in pinpointing a sniper's location. If the tank needs to take out 5 (or any number of buildings) to deal with the sniper and to minimize their loses, then they should be allowed to do it. If they shot the wrong building (sniper was in a different building), then they made a mistake in the heat of the battle that caused human death. They are human and this is war afterall.

They should not be required to enter every building to determine which one contained the sniper.

If they shot the building for fun (or some other equally ludicrous reason), then they should be held totally responsible for every death that occurred.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Sxotty
I appreciate the reporters being there, and you should too, the press is very important, otherwise we would never know what happened over there except from what the disinformation minister had told us. We should all appreciate the journalists even if we get pissed when they bias and shade the truth since apparently journalism school no longer teaches that journalists should report facts but rather opinions.

I am mixed on this one. We do need updates, but we do not need reporters on the front line taking footage of the troops who are actually fighting or of the actual war. Press conferences with the US generals would be totally sufficient for me.

If I was a soldier I would be totally uneasy about having a reporter with lights and camera and most importantly no training shadowing my moves. This is totally unnecessary.

 

[Red Dawn]

The reporters took a calculated risk to further their status as journalist and their careers. I seriously doubt if more than a minute percentage of them did it for altruistic ideals.

 

[AmerDoux]

Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

.....
.....

Chapter II: Civilians and Civilian Population
Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population
A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
Chapter III: Civilian Objects
Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects
Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used. Article 53 Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:
to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
to use such objects in support of the military effort;
to make such objects the object of reprisals.


This is a partial text to the Geneva Convention and addresses why this is an issue.

I am not saying whether the US military was right or wrong in this incident. Only that there is a reason to question what happened. Overall, they (the US & UK militaries) have done an outstanding job.
As far as having reporters in the field, while they all have their biases, they do serve as the "eyes and ears" of the world. They keep us honest and force us to review our actions. It is a good thing they are there.

link to text failed
anyway, go do a Google search on it
lots of info on the Geneva Convention

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Sxotty
I appreciate the reporters being there, and you should too, the press is very important, otherwise we would never know what happened over there except from what the disinformation minister had told us. We should all appreciate the journalists even if we get pissed when they bias and shade the truth since apparently journalism school no longer teaches that journalists should report facts but rather opinions.

I am mixed on this one. We do need updates, but we do not need reporters on the front line taking footage of the troops who are actually fighting or of the actual war. Press conferences with the US generals would be totally sufficient for me.

If I was a soldier I would be totally uneasy about having a reporter with lights and camera and most importantly no training shadowing my moves. This is totally unnecessary.

W/o reporters and cameras we would have very little, if any, footage of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf War. The people out there shooting video instead of bullets are documenting history for future generations. Take a second to recall all of the film, video, and still pictures you've seen of previous wars and remeber that the vast majority of those were taken by someone lugging a camera instead of a rifle.


Lethal

 

[DT4K]

Sounds like there is a lot of room for interpretation there.

If there actually were snipers there, it sounds to me like it then becomes a legitimate military objective to take out the snipers.

It is a very difficult situation to imagine yourself in. In any case, whether they made the right or wrong decision, assuming they actually caused those deaths, it is ridiculous for people to claim they were targeting journalists.