And that reminds me...

One quote from the OSC article:

Much has been made about the report -- and recording -- of U.S. soldiers who entered a mosque that was being used by the enemy as an outpost. A soldier was heard to call out, "This one's faking that he's dead." Then a gunshot. Then (as the reporter I heard on Fox said it): "Now he's not dead anymore." (Though of course what the soldier meant -- or might have even said -- was "Now he's not faking anymore.") <snip> What might have happened was: A wounded insurgent was lying there bleeding, and an American soldier accused him of faking death and shot him, helpless and unarmed. War crime. But what also might have happened is: An unwounded insurgent was lying there, his weapon still in his hands, hoping that careless Americans would turn their back on him so he could kill a few Gis before dying himself in the returning fire. Not helpless. Not unarmed. And in war, you don't wait for the enemy to start shooting. A potentially effective, armed enemy combatant who is not surrendering is always a fair target, even if he's not actually pointing a weapon and shooting.

Card discusses how the lack of historical context has impaired the reporter's ability to report the full story. I have some comments on another tangent.

In a discussion with a non-citizen (born in Canada, currently living in the UK), I got to discussing the rules of engagement used by police. There are any number of cases where the police have to make a decision, decide whether that person pointing an object toward them in the dark, is actually pointing a weapon. They have a fraction of a second to decide whether or not to shoot, and if they guess wrong, someone winds up dead.

On asking how long the police should take to decide whether that person has a weapon and the intent to use it, I was told, in effect, "as long as it takes".

Well, I'm sorry, my worthy opponent is wrong.

This is not policy, as far as I know, in any police force in the world. Or, if it is policy in any police force, it's a police force that won't exist for much longer.

Now some court cases have been decided in such a way that they only make sense if we assume that's the proper rule, but that doesn't necessarily change the rule, and it certainly doesn't make it workable. Any police force which requires a policeman to be dead before he can return fire will soon run out of policemen.

That my worthy opponent suffers such an extreme disconnect from reality does not provide much encouragement for the rest of her debate points.