I have a real problem with the way the media is reporting the beheading of Nick Berg and the most recent victim, Kim Sun-il.
According to this AP report:
An Iraqi militant group has beheaded its South Korean hostage, Al-Jazeera television reported Tuesday.
The pan-Arab station said it had received a videotape showing that Kim Sun-il had been executed.
The Beeb reports it as such (looks like a slightly modified AP filing):
Islamic militants in Iraq have beheaded a South Korean man they were holding hostage, al-Jazeera television reports.
The Arabic satellite channel said it had received a video tape saying Kim Sun-il, 33, had been executed.
Kim Sun-il was not executed. He was murdered. This is not a stupid nitpicking like the ‘suicide-bombing’ v. ‘homicide bombing’ nonsense. When the term execute is used, it brings with it the implication that the sentence waslawful.
This was not- this was cold-blooded murder by a bunch of cretinous thugs. Hell- this wasn’t even in accordance to any version of Islamic law.
So stop using the term executed in these cases. They were murdered, and they are victims.
*** Update ***
BTW- The Back Country Conservative reminds us that these savages may have ten other captives.
Sharp as a Marble
I was surprised that the Tampa Tribune had the main headline of ‘American Hostage Slain’ for P.Johnson.
Too bad that was about all I can expect from them.
Ken Hahn
I cannot see why you’d expect organizations that use the term militants for terrorists to use the correct term for murder.
JohnO
Checking dictionary.com I found these entries:
-execute:
“To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence.”
-executed:
“To put to death illegally; to kill.”
Apparently, in the past tense it becomes illegal while the present and future tense is a lawful demise. But you’re right, they could remove all ambiguity by simply stating he was “murdered” and follow it up with “in cold blood” by “cowardly assassins”.
Aaron Matthew Arnwine
Thanks for your distinction. There was an article penned on townhall.com about the semantics used in the California SC ruling saying the partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional.
She would use the word “demise” when referring to the fetus instead of kill or crush-skull or whatever.
Rick
With all the press’ demonstrable difficulty with plain English in re: “reporting” on the 9/11 Commission staff manifesto, why should this surprise?
Cordially…
All Things Political
OK People
Kimmitt
“The survival of western civilization is at stake!”
“I think it would be a good idea.”
RoguePlanet
Apparently, in the past tense it becomes illegal while the present and future tense is a lawful demise. But you’re right, they could remove all ambiguity by simply stating he was “murdered” and follow it up with “in cold blood” by “cowardly assassins”.
Yes, I guess they could do that, for people who are so goddamned stupid they need to be instructed when to be outraged.
Yo Mama
This is the kind of petty squabbling that creates wars. Word choice is your fight? You just cut off your own head with a pen.
ape
Damn that evil BEEB. Although they were quoting someone else’s words.