U.S. Troops Kill Pregnant Woman in Iraq

You're right. Why don't be have fluorescent orange signs like we use for road construction here?

And almost all states operate under the Castle rule. A man's home is his castle, and those who intrude on the property or house have to make due with the fact the homeowner doesn't have a duty to retreat.

If you want to make this into a legal argument, you're more than welcome.

Daniel, Why so hostile toward James Mack? He makes a good point. Another good point is that Iraq is not the US so the laws here probably make little difference there. I would think that in Iraq crossbones might mean danger AND you might get shot if you don't pay attention.

I was not being Hostel I was being curt. in responce to the statment of his, it was inuando for I know more then you, your an idiot, .

Sorry if you took it that way, but that's not what I was referring. I said that because making it into a legal argument was going to open a lot of doors beyond the usual point/counterpoint on the subject.

Daniel, I was not talking about Sam, but about James. I did not get the 'inuando' that you seemed to. I have seen before here on the vine where people have talked about how important it is not to read into what others are saying. Since you are reading text it can be easy to feel something said is a 'snide remark' when it might be merely a remark. Since you can't here the tonal inflections or see the facial and body expresions, I find it better to merely read what is being written. (not that I am always succesful at this).

I am going to assume in your statement above that you mean to say extradition and not expedition. I also do not think that the statement was meant to place our laws surrounding things like 'our home is our castle' to foreigners. The fact that these laws in the US are different from one state to the next is only the least of the issues with something like that...

The skull and crossbones are very small on that sign. The sign should be large, bright orange, and have one simple picture on it. I would never see that sign in the picture if I was driving up the road unless I was looking for it.

@James - here's an interesting item you should know, tho' about the "castle" theory. Here in Colorado we have the "make my day" law - which basically gives you the right to shoot anyone who invades your property without your permission and with clear intent to harm you or your possessions. However, if you have a dog, and your dog bites that same person, your dog may be euthanized for being "dangerous."

Well the dog doesn't own the house now does he?

Well the dog doesn't own the house now does he?

Shhhhh!

Don't tell that to my dog...

;-)

And almost all states operate under the Castle rule. A man's home is his castle, and those who intrude on the property or house have to make due with the fact the homeowner doesn't have a duty to retreat.

Not the best argument for you to make. It could easily be turned around to say that Iraq is THEIR castle, and the intruders (the "coalition of the willing") had better learn that the residents ("insurgents", as they are sometimes called) have no duty to bow to the U.S. will.

If the police are allowed to interpret the law on the whim of attitude then they to Break that law.

The police do interpret the law when enforcing it. Ever been let out of a traffic ticket? Perhaps had a cop mediate a dispute?

Cops aren't robots. They have the power to engage in community law enforcement and to exercise discretion.

On top of that, states give homeowners the benefit of the doubt, so the rules (laws) aren't in the favor of the people who are breaking the law to begin with, or for the people who act in good faith in their actions.

If we're the intruders, they have had plenty (and will have plenty more) to vote for politicians who will expell our forces.

Do you seriously think that the Iraq government will be truly democratic? And that a true democracy can spring from a country at civil war at the point of a gun? Iraq's government will, as long as we remain, be at the best illegitimate, at the worst, a sham.

Until that happens, we're a supplementary law enforcement and peacekeeping force.

Peace through shooting pregnant women and killing civilians. And what laws were they enforcing by shooting that car and those people, other than those they had made (martial law)?

And the law we uphold is first and formost American Law, If we are there as Peacekeepers.
If we are there as an Invading Military force, then,.Military law. You can't have it both ways

Ummm, yes you can. The UCMJ applies to soldiers regardless if we're at peace or war.

Do you seriously think that the Iraq government will be truly democratic? And that a true democracy can spring from a country at civil war at the point of a gun? Iraq's government will, as long as we remain, be at the best illegitimate, at the worst, a sham.

Seems infinitely more legitimate than Saddam's 99.99999% reelection numbers.

Peace through shooting pregnant women and killing civilians. And what laws were they enforcing by shooting that car and those people, other than those they had made (martial law)?

You're making a hyperbole into an argument. No one is saying it should be policy to target women and kill civilians, when the primary action is keeping peace, not killing innocents. Innocents get killed because there are some out there to hurt us that use civilians as a chess piece.

You should talk to my Dad. You can't talk politics with the man 5 minutes until you hear "nuke 'em all". He's been pushing this policy as a solution to all our woes for my whole life.

You're dad and my dad should talk..."Nuke the place to the ground" is what my dad says.

While UCMJ certainly may support their action, you'd be very hard pressed to ever defend shooting at anyone as being moral, in my opinion.

In defense of self? It's quite easy. When an ordinary, reasonable person perceives their lives to be in jeopardy unless they do one and only one available action to them, they chose the moral route. They live to protect again. Regardless of the outcome, they acted as they precisely should have.

Well, as a person, I can understand the desire to act in self-defense. As a Christian, I believe there's no exception made for that.

And I understand that Jason, that as a Christian, the same rules cannot apply that do apply to the general population or those under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. But when those are the rules they operate under and they follow said rules, they can't be faulted. They did what their training dictated them to do, and while the result happened to be someone innocent, they at the very least proved themselves to be trained. Sad, yes, but I would rather have them continuing to work a roadblock.

James, I was simply pointing your choice of the word moral. I think we are in agreement, but I do believe that there is a big difference between a soldier following orders and rules of conduct and a person trying to be moral. Doing the former does not necessarily mean you can claim the latter.

"I was just following orders?"

Yea, because that defense has worked so well in the past.

They're under standing orders anyway not to follow an illegal order. Nothing about firing on that car was illegal. It may have disrupted the delicate nature of anti-US or anti-Iraq war people, but it wasn't an invalid order.

Yes! Apparently nobody in the military has learned anything from the state highway departments back in the USA. If you need to put up a sign to alert drivers, you put up a big orange sign. On that sign you put a picture preferably, and if you can't do that you write about 4 words. This sign should be large, bright orange, and have "roadblock" written on it twice, once in Arabic and once in English.

And then there should be a bunch of bright orange cones, barriers, jersey barriers, gates, flashing lights, etc.

In fact -- and I feel kind of stupid that this just occurred to me -- we've seen the photos. No one in a moving vehicle could see those signs without knowing they were there in the first place, so we can dismiss the signs right out.

That means that the only "roadblock" was two guys wearing camouflage and carrying rifles. Dwell on that for a moment. We put people next to the road to alert people to stop.... and then dress them so as to render them as close to invisible as our technology will allow.

How does that make any sense?

I'm a little late to the discussion here, is that sign in the photo really it?!? That is the warning Iraqis get when approaching a check point? Two troops and wall poster?

Um, robK, if you read the caption, you will see that that is a

newly-erected warning sign put up Wednesday, May 31, 2006

So, No, in spite of any attempts to make it look as tho it was the only sign, I do NOT believe it was.

I'd like to see one. Does anyone know where a photo of a checkpoint can be found? I've always expected it to be similar to a toll booth on a bridge with proper signage. Seems like that may not be the case.

It's a bit old (written in reaction to last year's shooting involving an Italian journalist), but here is an article describing the situation at some checkpoints. It's possible that checkpoints have changed somewhat because of the shooting involving the journalist.

I cannot wait until we have some Newsviners who will report from Iraq.

You first.

Seriously, that will be amazing. Of course, the military hasn't been too willing to let soldiers post things that they disagree with -- so we'll see.

Hey man, I would happily report from Iraq. Been there once not as bad as the media wants you to think.

Here is what I think about all this. It was an accident and if anyone is to blame it is the driver. I think I would stop if I saw heavily armed troops trying to tell me to stop in no matter what language. This is an unfortunate tragedy and I pray for the families of the dead, and the soldier who must live with this for the rest of his life.