Report: U.S. Marine Kills Wounded Iraqi
 

Link to the Article

Discuss among yourself

"Sites reported a Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent."

That's all the justification I need. Last I heard these insurgents were the enemy, and the enemy was killed. Boo hoo. Get over it.

So we should bring ourselves down to their level?

See, "Calley, Lt. William."

We're supposed to be the good guys here.

I gotta agree with you, DeltAlum. Until the investigation proves otherwise, let's give the Marine the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that it was intentional, throw the f*ckin' book at 'im!

Likewise, I gotta also agree with Pike1483 - the insurgents are the enemy and they need to be killed dead. However, if they are wounded or surrender, that's no excuse to whack 'em. Marines oughta know better concerning the Laws of Armed Combat.

Yep. And "they" have committed a lot of real atrocities, but if this story was about an insurgent killing a helpless U.S. Marine, we would be outraged. And we should.

Of course I agree with your comment about giving the Marine involved the benefit of the doubt until the alleged event is proven.

From the unedited video footage I'd have to say it doesn't look good for the Marine... particularlly for what he says after the shooting; he realizes that he what he did was wrong - the legal folks will be all over that.

Somewhat related to this incident:

What is the point of observing certain "humanitarian" protocols with these prisoners?

Generally it makes sense if the US says hey we know the French would torture our prisoners if we torture theirs, but coalition troops are getting massacred and treated brutally and I don't see why we have to observe these protocols?

-Rudey

My sentiments exactly.

So, if nobody knows about it, did it really happen?

"Fallujah Video Has Congressman Calling For Reporter Ban
Associated Press

CAPITOL HILL - The videotaped shooting of a Fallujah combatant by a US Marine has evoked strong emotions in the Arab world and on Capitol Hill.

Texas Democrat Sylvestre Reyes says it's time to rethink the presence of embedded reporters in combat zones. During a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Reyes compared it to a football game, saying "we don't want to know everything that's going on the field." Reyes says this is not censorship. In his words, "We should not be providing the Al-Jazeera the kind of propaganda they've had the last couple of three days."

Marine Corps commandant General Michael Hagee disagrees, saying embedded reporters have actually worked very well and inform the American public about "what these great young Americans are doing over there."

I've heard about tools like this... people that have attacked the reporter's character and called him a traitor because he reported this incident. The level of stupidity that this line of reason requires you to hold to is unfathomable to me (even after 11 pints).

Basically my worry is this: without incidents like this being reported, or recorded then they will not be procecuted... and that is one giant step in losing both the moral/ethical highground and the locals hearts & minds.

Alright, here's the deal.

All soldiers are taught that's wrong to shoot an injured combatant. We all understand that once an enemy is wounded if they don't make an aggressive move, they are to be considered a non-combatant. I believe shooting an injured enemy is called a "Double Tap". In ROTC it was the worst thing you could do. For instance, were we on a training exercise and you committed one, it's called a Black Spot. It goes in your permanent ROTC record and will be considered at your acessions meeting and every evaluation point after that.

That being said. This is war. This is vastly different then Lt. Calley ordering his troops to slaughter men, women and children in a village.

This is a soldier, that was engaged at the time with an enemy. An enemy that has over the course of the war shown NO regard for human life. I understand that we are expected to observe Geneva convention policies, but, these are people that are beheading innocents, INNOCENTS! They are not capturing soldiers and beheading them, they are beheading NON-COMBATANTS. In addition, these insurgents have been known to booby trap themselves if wounded and turn into suicide bombers. In that respect, i can't blame the Marine in this situation too much.

Also, we don't know all the facts, we don't know what exactly the person on the floor was doing, the camera is trained on him at all times. During normal EPW procedures, you have one soldier inspecting the wounded, while his battle buddy has his weapon trained on the EPW, ready to fire if he makes a suspicious movement, i.e., i'm searching the guy and ktsnake is my buddy, with his M-16 trained on the guy. You can bet your ass that if the guy reaches into his shirt suddenly, i want kt to pull the trigger instantly and end it. And that's in a sterile, training situation, i have no idea the pressures that actual combat troops are under.

So, its all fine and good for us to lament this and the negative reaction it causes with Arabs. But at the same time, we don't know. By doing that, the Marine may have saved lives. Not only of himself, but his buddy, the rest of the Marines in there, any Marines that this guy could have escaped and later attacked, hell, possibly even the reporter in question.

So, pardon me if i have a hard time finding sympathy for the scumbag.

KS 361

Do you know for certain that this particular individual were involved with the same groups that are beheading the hostages? One of my pet peeves about the coverages is the lack of actual analysis on what groups are actually out there. The media is being lazy and have painted every group as one entity.

As for the soldier, I will wait until the investigation is done. If he is found to be innocent, move on. If he is found guilty, of to prison.

A 'Double Tap' is actually a rapid-fire shooting technique originated by the British SAS and adopted by special forces and tactical teams throughout the world. Quickest way to knock down and kill the enemy before he even knew what happened.

Shooting an injured, unarmed enemy is a direct violation of the Geneva and the Hague Conventions.

We don't know all the facts yet, so I think we shouldn't judge until we do.

I suggest that some of the posters on GC should try to find a copy of the un-edited video of the incident... you can watch the unit enter the Mosque in open order (ie. not tactically), watch them move around the room securing the area, listen to the Marine in question make jokes about the prostrate man faking being dead (ie. he's still breathing), then raise his rifle and shoot him, then make a follow-up joke (ie. he's not breathing anymore)...

This might remove some of the misguided attempts to explain away the Marine's action.

Here is a link to the BBC site that had the video:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4014901.stm

Which is reallly where the argument ends.

As I said earlier, we can't bring ourselves down to their level.

Remember that I am from the Calley era. It stained all of us.

Certainly, the situations aren't apples and apples, but, if the Marine did shoot a "helpless" person, the outcome is the same.

For all of those who have not been in the Military or Para Military, carrying a Weapon is Like playing GOD! It is a life and death weapon, Period.

It depends a lot on the situation and state of mind of THE Individual at that moment in time.

I have carried a Weapon and that is where I figured I had GOD in My Hand and wanted to use it wisely. Yes, I damn near Blew someones brains out!:( But I was one of the lucky ones that didnt. This Marine may have been making a joke and it was taped, but it didnt work. Maybe He saw something that was not filmed, just what was said?

Taking a Human Life is a Huge Resposibilty and He will have to live with it the rest of His Life. I can speak from true experiences of seeing people die.

Whether He is found guilty or not is not up to us or the Media, buyt a Panel of His Peers. Under the circumstances, I am sure He will get hosed for what He did!:(

We as Rightous People from America hold to certains rules, many do not!:mad:

You know what? This is what I was talking about with in the Islam/terrorism thread.

People seem to define terrorism different. To me a sniper shooting at Americans is no different than someone who decapitates an American other than one has been more gruesome, filthy, and disgusting.

Again, what is wrong with this man being killed? Someone please tell me why he shouldn't be? Was he an innocent school boy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time? If he was left alive would he kill again? If we released him would they take better care of wounded US soldiers on their end?

-Rudey

Rudey is right. This is not like a police crime scene gone wrong . . . This is a war zone and these are combatants.

These things happen. Also, ethically how can we find this lad responsible for poor judgement in a war zone when he comes from an age demographic that we believe so lacks judgement they can't legally drink one beer?

I see a logical fallacy somewhere.

I agree with that but go a little further. I don't think its fit for us to pass moral judgement at all. If its legal in nature, then legal justice will run its course.

Well other than the moral, ethical, legal, and strategic reasons you mean? ;)

Okay morally in seizing and keeping the morally superior postion is always benifical to both your cause and to your troops morale - as long as the troops can see themselves as the "good guys" morale and combat stress issues appear at a much lower rate.

Ethical speaking holding yourself to a high standard is not only seen by your own troops, but by the "enemy" and civilians - while some of the enemy may exploit this, it is important to note that it is harder to kill someone that you have at least some respect for... hence the constant barrage of proganda meant to demonize the "enemy" (on both sides). Further it is hypocrytical to demonize the enemy for actions that your own troops commit as well... again it is import to maintain the ethically superior position as well.

Legally... well I know Ashcroft's successor feels that the Geneva Convention is quaint, it is still applicable to all signatories. Now putting aside the Geneva Convention the Marine in question almost certainly violated US Military Code as well... even that aside this was also a violation of the Nuremburg Laws concerning war crimes - again which the US is a signatory to.

Strategically it is important to demonstrate to both your allies and the civilians that you are the "good guys" - to secure both continued support and to erode the support base of the enemy. In this case who knows what the victim or any of the other wounded would have done had they be processed through regular chanels... maybe they might have begun to question their hatred of US forces or the propaganda that they where fed - however I can say that now they (and many in the Arab world) probibly have a much less favourable view of US forces, now have a concrete example to focus on. So now there is fresh material to incite both the enemy, civilians, and the Muslim community; and another blow to the reputation of the US forces has been made - both of which do not help both the battle for "hearts and minds" nor in breaking the insurgents will to fight.

Well the problem here is that the unconsious, wounded individual wasn't a combatant... nor were any of the other wounded in the Mosque. In the video footage there is no evidence of weapons, and all of the men (well those alive) are prostrate and bandaged - having been defeated, disarmed and bandaged the day before when Marines first captured the Mospue.

The middle east is full of a people who very much believe conspiracy theories. They believe the Jews commited 9/11. They believe that American soldiers come to rape. These stories move around rapidly with no basis and are beyond offensive. In terms of this image you keep describing, we lost before we ever even arrived.

As for being the good guy...what does that mean? Would you let this man kill again after he killed before just so you could say you're the good guy? Would people support you because you let this killer live?

I don't see our troops' actions as the same as the enemy's. This was a murderer and a terrorist. Odds are that he probably would have acted again in the same manner. Who would have punished him for the acts he has perpetrated? The US military is stretched thin and we should be worrying about implications of a US soldier liquidating a terrorist that was unarmed because of some false notion of honor? In Japan they cut off their fingers and stab themselves all in the name of honor.

-Rudey

Says who? Just because they are out of weapons and holed up in a mosque just like many other terrorists, they are no longer terrorists?

-Rudey

No, but legally they are protected by treaties and conventions we have signed.

As well as our Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So, to me, the question is that if we don't obey those laws and conventions, don't we become terrorists in their view? Are their views correct in those circumstances?

Yeah but these are the same kids we don't trust to drink a beer. Isn't it small wonder they might error from time to time with automatic weapons?

To me it's all red tape. And I'm asking why. I'm asking why because chances are this man would go on being a terrorist, this man would go on being unpunished, this man would not treat Americans better because of any treaty or convention, etc.

And we are worse than terrorists in their view from the moment we are born. Margaret Hassan who lived in Iraq for 30 years, married an Iraqi, and dedicated her life to helping poor Iraqis while being against the war was brutally murdered by these terrorists. Was it because she shot a terrorist when he didn't have a weapon?

Yes, get the embedded reporters out of there and let our troops decide how to fight on the ground and adapt as best as they can. If they blatantly attack a civilian then punish them.

-Rudey

Well, when it was my turn, we could drink "low" (3.2% or less) beer in a few states, but couldn't vote.

It doesn't change anything, though. The law is still the law. Obeying the law only partially -- or ignoring it even if it makes no sense to you only leads to anarchy in most cases.

I understand the argument, however:

The man in question would probably have become a POW and be held for a long time. Probably way past the time that we leave.

The Margaret Hassan argument is a strong one, but it still comes down to sinking to their level. We shouldn't.

In addition, the Marine General in charge in this action(and the military in general -- no pun intended) love the imbedded system because otherwise the news folks would be going and doing pretty much anything they want. Imbedding is no favor to the media because it adds another layer of control by the military.

Finally, if you were part of a unit with an imbedded camera crew, why would you shoot an unarmed man in front of that crew? The Marine must have been over the edge one way or another. Which could turn out to be his best defense.

OK but let's say you know you're son is out there fighting. Would you rather you have your son kill a terrorist that could possibly kill him him in the future or obey the law? I think that's how many Americans will see it.

But then again the military is about discipline and rules that may not make sense to me since I didn't serve...

that's just how I see it though.

-Rudey

I'm just saying that creating all these rules to fit every situation is not ideal. I'd rather sink to their level and live if I'm a soldier and accomplish my goals. I'm sure none of the soldiers just want to die.

The last part: I don't know. I didn't think about that. It doesn't make sense to me.

-Rudey

"It's better to be judged by twelve than carried out by six."

So the basic arguement i've seen some put for is that a double standard should apply?

The way I see it is this: if the situation was reversed (unarmed, unconsious Marine killed in a church) the "terrorist" would be judged as the most base creature... so why shouldn't the same standard that is used to define the criminal acts of the "enemy" be applied to this Marine?

The difference is that the terrorist should simply not exist.

The terrorist, to begin with, is not the same as the soldier and hence to try and judge their actions on the same level is beyond ridiculous.

-Rudey

So you know that this man was a terrorist? not an insurgent, or a freedom fighter, or a patriot, or a conscript, or a Baathist? Because there is more than one type of "enemy", and unfortunately the distinction is quite important in the strategic and tactical battle because each is motivated by different impulses.

The great thing about this thread is the irony that the people that are/where soldiers are arguing for the rule of law, and the adherance to ethical and moral standards... while the arm-chair generals are the ones advocating the lower of those standards.

You're not an American soldier. Get that in your head. There is no irony there. The irony is you a Canadian constantly judging Americans. The irony is you a Canadian who doesn't know what happened and is ready to execute a man because you did a 2 second trial in your head since you're an arm-chair general.

Now again, he is a terrorist. You can call him a soldier or any other name, but at the end of the day he is what he is. Our American soldiers will deal with the conflict on the ground and our American military will deal with our soldiers.

You go read up on the new maple syrup or whatever it is that's the new big thing in Canada these days.

-Rudey

Actually the important thing up here for me is reading military reports and analysis from Afghanistan... and Iraq.

Okay since you're bigotted and dismisive regarding Canada, it's culture, military, politics... well anything... I'll try to put it into terms that YOU can indentify with then.

The actions of this Marine, which have been broadcast unedited pretty much world-wide... and in particular in the Middle East - most importantly Iraq. Now his actions in no way aid the cause of the US and coalition forces in Iraq, in fact they serve to furth incite the resistance to them... now I have friends (Marines) and relatives (Black Watch) serving there as we speak and this guy has just further endangered their lives...

Right. You did your very important investigation before the act even occured.

And the troops lives were endangered when they arrived. They were endangered by these terrorists. These terrorists were not stopping before and this hasn't changed a single thing. I do wish all the troops there, your friends, and your relatives safety but I have no doubt that my country will handle this appropriately and deal with the situation on the ground appropriately. If you need to be angry with someone endangering your friends and relatives, write a postcard to those terrorists, oops I mean "freedom fighters" as you call them.

Edited to add: you don't know what a bigot is. You have been called a bigot, racist, and anti-semite so don't throw around your own label. And don't make baseless charges.

-Rudey

Well I watched the entire video... which includes the approach to the Mosque; the entry into the Mosque; the securing of the Mosque; the joking of the Marine in question; the killing (murder) of the wounded, unarmed, unconsious, unresponsive, surrendered prisoner; and finally the Marine in question response after the fact.

From what I can see and hear the video is undoctored, and the content is pretty damning of the Marine in question actions - as well as intent - because you get to hear his running commentary before, during, and after the act.

And before you jump all over this... I do video and image analysis for work... so yes I am qualified to state the above.

Quote:

And the troops lives were endangered when they arrived. They were endangered by these terrorists. These terrorists were not stopping before and this hasn't changed a single thing. I do wish all the troops there, your friends, and your relatives safety but I have no doubt that my country will handle this appropriately and deal with the situation on the ground appropriately. If you need to be angry with someone endangering your friends and relatives, write a postcard to those terrorists, oops I mean "freedom fighters" as you call them.

Well duh! :rolleyes:

Of course there is danger from all the opponents to the coalition (well US/UK) forces in Iraq... as soldiers they expect that. What they don't expect is one of their own to betray the standards that they hold sacred (and swore an oath to such) and further endangering them... from the email it's pretty much the same reaction to Abu Gharib actually - disgust, rage, and disappointment.

Again you are a Canadian with a low rank who is not qualified for any investigation here although you claim that your experience qualifies you for everything from baking to video analysis. This is an American Marine and the American government will do the work here.

And again, tell your friends to write to the terrorists/freedom fighters. I'm sure they're probably more disgusted by your colleague's actions in Somalia.

-Rudey