This situation is a textbook definition of a war crime and murder. But I have no clue why you think this is what military snipers typically do.
They are? Do you have a citation for this?
Purposefully killing a non-combatant in such a fashion would be a war crime. A sniper receiving an order to do so should disobey the order on the grounds that it is not a lawful order.
Or are you referring to forces that don’t generally follow the Laws of Armed Conflict? If a member of ISIS kills a non-combatant by sniping then, they’ve committed murder and if caught should be tried as such (they’ve also potentially broken other LoAC but that’s another matter).
But sure, if an American or Canadian or whatever soldier commits murder by killing a non-combatant they should absolutely be charged.
Trained and paid to kill the enemy serially, one bullet at a time, with high significance with regard to running totals. Frequency between kills could vary.
Of Course Not…!
What serial killer collects a paycheck?
But according to you there is a distinction and a difference:
So, there are “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis] that should be punished” and “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis] that should not be punished”. That seems like a pretty important distinction and difference between two different types of “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis]” to me. (The rest of us refer to the “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis] that should be punished” as “murders” or in some cases “manslaughters”, and the “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis] that should not be punished” as “justifiable homicides”; with “homicide” being the term for all “[mikecurtis] murders [/mikecurtis]”.)
Really? So, if you’re on the jury for a murder case, and the defendant present compelling evidence that he acted out of self-defense - he only killed the victim because the victim was trying to kill him - you’d vote to convict anyway?
If you wouldn’t convict - if you’d say, “Yeah, it’s a tragedy that guy got killed, but it doesn’t make any sense to send his killer to jail for the rest of his life,” then you are, indeed, making a moral distinction between different kinds of killing.
I’m not sure what dictionary you’re using that lists “killing” as a synonym for “praiseworthy” or “celebrated.” It’s not one that any one else is using.
But your logic for using the word “murder” here is, explicitly, “because every death is a tragedy.” Why does that logic apply to the tragedy of a person killing another person, but not to the tragedy of a person being killed by an icy road?
I wasn’t implying that a sniper should be charged with a crime, I was asking if the use of snipers should be considered unlawful and, if so, discontinued.
And, no, I do not have a cite for American snipers targeting non traditional targets. But I do have a
[quote]
(What Does a Sniper Really Do? - The Sniper | HowStuffWorks) from a sniper saying he would target unsuspecting support personnel such as technicians and communications operators. And a cite of a non american sniper targeting civilians.
If you believe that a country who has no problem carpet-bombing entire cities, using napalm and agent orange to clear vast sections of forest, or use drones on civilians and noncombatants doesn’t use snipers in “non approved” ways, then I dont know what to say. I guess the debate is over.
mc
I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on this. Just because “murder” is currently defined as unlawful killing, doesn’t mean that it always has to be. We made the definition and we can change it. And just because I believe that the current definition is inadequate doesn’t mean that I don’t understand english.
And just because something is currently legal, doesn’t make that legality right. Slavery used to be legal, now it’s not. Drunk driving used to be legal, now it’s not. Sometimes Killing is legal, maybe it should not be.
I thought that maybe the intelligent folk here might like to debate the merits of something meaty for a change, but I guess who is the prettiest girl on tv, or whether to throw out your beverage if it gets fur in it is more important.
mc
You tried to introduce odd non-standard definitions of words, creating confusion from the outset, since nobody was quite sure what you were talking about. That’s really entirely on you. It’s just not a sensible way to introduce a debate. Anyway, moving on…
You seem to be leaning towards a view that all life is supremely valuable and should be preserved at all costs. Why? That’s far from obvious to me. Making people is easy, as the population explosion of the last few hundred years has demonstrated. So “life” is certainly not a scarce resource. If you think “life” is just so peachy, do you think we should all be out there making as many babies as possible? Or is it just life that already happens to exist that is automatically so worthy? Why should that be so? Why, for example, should we care about preserving a piece of human excrement like Bin Laden, somebody so antithetical to civilized existence? Why not celebrate his death?
I think my view is probably the diametric opposite of yours, that life should be far less obsessively sacrosanct than we tend to make it. I think I favor quality over quantity where life is concerned. If a life is poor in character (Bin Laden), why hesitate to remove it to make the world a better place? Why not celebrate his death for the fact that it improves the quality of 7 billion other lives?
Similarly, I think we hold life too sacrosanct in restricting the right of suicide for those who wish to end it. But that’s another story.
So, say that a Delta Force sniper takes out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Is he supposed to heave a sigh, have a heavy heart, wipe a tear, and say, “I am a murderer, a serial killer, a Ted Bundy in uniform?”
Fair enough. It started with my interpretation of the term “serial killer” and wasn’t initially meant as a debate but seemed to morph into one so I thought I’d encourage it. Maybe I did muddy the waters a bit. . .
[QUOTE=Riemann]
You seem to be leaning towards a view that all life is supremely valuable and should be preserved at all costs. Why? That’s far from obvious to me. . . .
I think my view is probably the diametric opposite of yours, that life should be far less obsessively sacrosanct than we tend to make it. I think I favor quality over quantity where life is concerned. If a life is poor in character (Bin Laden), why hesitate to remove it to make the world a better place? Why not celebrate his death for the fact that it improves the quality of 7 billion other lives?. . .
[/QUOTE]
No, I recognize that life is fragile and sometimes circumstances conspire against us and makes the taking of a life inevitable or “justifiable”. My beef comes form the idea that there are “good” killings and “bad” killings; that one person’s life is more important than another’s. This leads to the obvious question: who decides. And. yes I hear everyone shouting “society decides”. But society should not decide who is worthy of death and who is not. No one is worthy of death. Society should decide how someone who takes a life should be punished. And sometimes society will decide not to punish. But we should start from a place of saying that all killings should be judged. Acts of war included.
And if you say that someone like bin Laden is of poor character and worthy of death, then aren’t his followers and family of equally poor character and worthy of death? why not just kill them all and be done with it? bin Laden made his choices and provoked the USA to decide to kill him, and I see the logic and reason behind our choice, but if we say we have done anything other than murder someone, we are lying to ourselves. And I, for one, am saddened that the murder of a human being was necessary. I do not celebrate his death, I mourn that we had no other choice.
mc
Interesting morality. that presupposes ‘our side’ is always the good side and opposing side is always evil.
The military is responsible for defeating/killing the enemy military. Killing civilians and other militia may be a side effect.
But you seem to be deciding here, and haven’t justified your position at all.Why do you place such high value on preserving every single life at all costs? It may seem self-evident to you, but it is not to me. If killing evil people makes the world a better place, why hold back? Yours is the burden of proof here.
“Aim for the man and don’t miss him. If you are fighting a two-seater, get the observer first; until you have silenced the gun, don’t bother about the pilot.”
Manfred von Richthofen
Pick a quote, any quote.
I’m pretty sure that Manfred von Richthofen had a far more specific definition of murder than mikecurtis
You want it to be unlawful but a soldier caught doing it should not be charged with a crime? Is this another case of using your own definitions? Can I ask what is your definition of “unlawful”? I’m confused.
But you then go on to say they’re not, by stating that a person who kills another in a purely accidental manner is not committing a murder.
You apologize for being “pedantic” but in fact you’re the opposite of that; you’re quite imprecise even within your own self-made definition of “murder” and “killing.”
I mean, I think you’re trying to make an interesting philosophical point, and that’s cool. I agree we may at times be handwaving away the gravity of killing human beings by using euphemisms and weak justifications. But you’re not being very consistent in your own use of terms.
Your OP title is really, really poorly chosen, too, because upon reading our posts, it’s clear to me that you have written an OP title that is wildly inaccurate and distracting from the point you’re trying to make. Aside from the fact you’re completely redefining a third term - “serial killer” is a term of art - you make it seem as if your point is specifically about military snipers, but as you yourself have sort of conceded, that’s not the point at all.
It’s not because he’s a “poor character”, it’s because his intention is to kill innocent civilians.
But let’s forget about other people and talk about you. Hypothetical: You are in a shopping mall and someone is opening fire on the shoppers, killing them randomly. A dead policeman lies at your feet, and his gun is easily retrievable. Do you grab it and try to kill the shooter, or let him continue his spree? You don’t have a cell phone on you, and there is no other way that you can see to stop the guy.
No and the question IMO is both flawed and nonsensical. If you are going to paint Military Snipers with this brush then you also have to paint most combat soldiers, all combat officers, combat pilots and the POTUS as Commander in Chief. :dubious:
SecDef Mattis said in an interview recently “We’re the good guys, not the perfect guys”. That sounds about right to me.