My guess is that it isn't a US reporter and cameraman "embedded" with the terrorist snipers. CNN, like most news reporting organizations, are not limited to using "domestic" sources. They have a number of correspondants of a variety of nationalities, either direct employees or "contractors" or free-lance volunteers that feed CNN. So, in this case, how are you going to bring charges up against anyone if the reporter and cameraman were not even US citizens? They would have to be captured in the act of actually taking part in the violence and then maybe they could be declared unlawful combatants, and that could be hard to prove and make stick as long as they claim they were just journalists reporting...

It is in extremely poor taste though to show actual casualties occuring in a news story, regardless of the side. Back in the days when journalists still had some level of decorum and the like, this sort of stuff did not happen that often. At least, the stuff would be edited out prior to broadcasting. You may see the aftermath, or the action going on, but it was considered unethical to actually show someone being killed. Of course, I think that probably started changing with the Vietnam War as more and more journalists started to follow the thinking of Hanoi Jane... CNN has shown itself to be very sympathetic in it's coverage of the terrorists and insurgents and Hamas over the past several months. I don't know why, but probably the same Hanoi Jane sort of crapola... and, like always, they can hide behind the facade of freedom of the press and being individual citizens with an opinion and that they aren't really aiding and abetting the enemy or acting treasonously...

Well CNN shouldn't be surprised when (not if) one of our snipers takes that camera man out.

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

My understanding is that its an email sent to them, that they did not travel with the sniper.

---

Well whoever did the filming is going down.  US mil snipers are a special breed.  They'll look at something like this as a challenge.  Had a contact who got me some pics of some special ops SEALS that he knows.  One was of the sniper's nest the guy set up in Bagdad.  They even made up special calling cards to leave places as part of psychological warfare.  They had pictures of an owl's eyes and arabic words saying something to the effect that "We are watching you".  I guess owls have some special significance over in the middle east.

Sniper duals are intensly personal matters with both snipers.  The movie, Enemy at the Gates kind of showed that.  Carlos Halfcock was probably the greatest sniper in modern history.  His exploits in Vietnam are legendary.  There was a huge price on his head and snipers went after him.  He took out one enemy sniper in a dual that has become legendary.  The bullet went down the scope of the other sniper which meant that Carlos was just a split second faster.  These guys are like celebrities in their own sniper circles and they often know the names or code names of the enemy snipers.  We just don't hear about it like we hear about fighter pilots from WWI or WWII.  This sniper who had the camera man with him will be found out and they will hunt him.  In a theater of war a sniper isn't just a nutcase on a water tower.  These guys are hunters.  The sniper probably has the same camera man with him and if not they will find out who he is and take him out.  That's what the dual is all about.

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

"Enemies at the Gate" was, to be blunt, a crock.  There is no documentation outside of Soviet provided documentation, that such a duel ever took place.  Given the German penchant for documentation, one would have to ask where the orders were that sent the German "super sniper" to Stalingrad.  No such German order has been found, while other similar orders for other officers in special grades could be found (even the more secretive SS).

 

Snipers by and large work in teams of two.  One is the observer and the other is the shooter.  It is one reason that I find the one or two reports of a sniper killing a civilian to be laughable, they hit what they shoot at and their teams work in great cohesion.

---

Maybe you didn't read the "kind of" part in my post when refering to that movie.  I never said it was the real deal but that it "kind of" illistrated the idea of sniper duals.  Yes it is true that snipers work in two man teams today in the U.S. military.  But they are trained to work alone and those of our enemies may work alone or in groups.  You can't generalize by comparing our snipers to Iraqi insurgent snipers.  Are you familiar with how they work?  I'm not.  By the way, Carlos Halfcock often worked alone so your assertion that snipers work in teams is not completely accurate.  One of his greatest kills against a senior North Vietnamese officer involved just him.  There was no other person there spotting for him.  Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.  It also depends on the target, terrain, area, objective, etc.

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

I don't think the duels are quite as you picture them, they are more opportunity killings than single one on one fighting.  I doubt there is much documentation beyond the somewhat questionable "Enemies at the Gate" as far as "sniper duels" are concerned.  One wonders why Iraq in both this war and the last, or even Vietnam, have not produced more public documentation in regard to this.

A sniper teams job is, quite simply, opportunity kills (or "created opportunity" kills).  The higher in the command structure the kill, the more successful the sniper.

---

The opportunity is created as you state.  You know that an enemy sniper is working a particular area and you send in your sniper to take him or her out.  That is the dual.  The enemy sniper is known either by name, code, or derrisive type name to personalize it.  In Vietnam, as your father could tell you, many of our best snipers had prices on their heads and the enemy snipers would go after them.  Why isn't there more documentation?  Snipers are sometimes seen as the hands of assasination orders.  It's dirty work.  Not the thing a country finds a lot of pride in.  There are no great battle field heroics.  Just one shot, one kill.  There are stories of great sniper battles but you have to look hard to find them and they are usually only out there from long ago wars.  The stories of the current war will be told down the road someday.

Of interesting note.  During the Revolution, a British sniper actually had an opportunity to take down General George Washington.  He had the position and opportunity.  Only his officer didn't think it very proper.  The sniper in question was using a revolutionary piece of hardward called the Fergusson Rifle, the first practicle breech loading rifle to be used in war.

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

Washington led a charmed life.  He was like Indiana Jones in a sense.  By rights he should have died at Fort Necessity, or with Braddock when he lost three horses underneath him, his hat, several balls going through his coat and creasing his trousers.

 

Or the time after Saratoga when his men were about to fall back in disarray and instead held their ground when he rode out in front of them between them and the British.  It almost seems as if he did not care if he lived or died.

<<In Vietnam, as your father could tell you, many of our best snipers had prices on their heads and the enemy snipers would go after them.  >>

The price on my fathers head, was not exclusive to snipers, if his identity were known, it was for anyone who could get a shot off.  One of the favorite method of assassination was to drive up beside a vehicle in a motor scooter and have the passenger in the scooter simply pull a gun and shoot the passenger or driver in the car.  I would not call that a snipers duel.

 

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 12:20, 2006-10-24

---

No, that's Charlie doin' a drive by!