From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 10:00:32 MDT
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>>Brian D Williams wrote:
>> You are missing at least one major point, the Geneva convention
>> does not apply here. The current Israeli war is probably the
>> most humane in history.
>
>> Who was murdered? We could do without the rhetoric.
>I never said anyone was murdered. I am questioning Israel's claim
>to be able to use deadly force, and this list's defense of killing
>reporters. I am asking if it is OK to kill an unarmed reporter.
>You seem to say "yes". I want to know why.
The quote below tends to imply they have.
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>I guess I am missing some major point here. Why does advance
>warning give them the right to murder unarmed civilians? Has the
>Geneva Convention or War Crimes treaties suddenly changed when I
>wasn't looking?
I did not say it was okay to kill an unarmed reporter, I said it
was okay to kill anyone (including reporters) who violate a closed
military zone.
>> You cannot approach a closed military zone without permission,
>> if you do you can be shot.
>You keep repeating this mantra without answering the question.
>That doesn't answer my question of "why?" I thought we stood for
>no initiation of force, especially not death, unless absolutely
>necessary. Is it really so vital that reporters not cover the
>middle-east that we shoot them?
In the case of war violence has already been initiated.
Non-military personnal are often a threat to military personnal,
reporters especially, that is why they are excluded.
In the current conflict the Israelis obviously perceive the
presence of the press to be of no benefit.
>Even in a war, there has to be a pretty clear and present danger
>before the military is allowed to fire upon unarmed civilians. I
>really can't believe I am the only one who believes this.
This is true, but violating a closed military zone means you
present a clear and present danger.
>I guess I am going to drop this thread. I apparently am the only
>person who is disturbed by the idea that we should kill reporters
>to keep bad press from being reported.
Actually I think the debate is good.
>> This is really just a simple case. The Israelis are at war and
>> declared Arafats compound a closed military zone. Reporters
>> decided to ignore the Israelis warning, acting as if they had
>> some right to intrude, which they did not. The Israelis
>> humanely chased them off with stun grenades and rubber bullets.
>Not rubber bullets. Real bullets. I seem to be in a twilight
>zone where everyone is hearing the news they want to hear. I am
>not objecting to rubber bullets or dispersal. I am objecting to
>real bullets being shot at unarmed civilians not involved in the
>conflict.
I did not see any reports involving real bullets, but as I've
already said this is allowed under accepted convention. The second
the reporters violated a closed military zone they were no longer
innocent civilians.
>Forget it. Sometimes this list really scares me. Everyone talks
>a good game about people's rights and less power to the
>government. But as soon as the real world comes along, they throw
>out all that "useless" theory and go back to government militias
>enforcing thought control over the people under threat of death.
This debate is about whether reporters should have unfettered
access to anything they want.
I vote no.
In fairness to the list I seem to be the only one arguing the
point.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:27 MST