Report: U.S. Marine Kills Wounded Iraqi

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
Alright, here's the deal.

All soldiers are taught that's wrong to shoot an injured combatant.

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.

[Tom Earp]

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!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
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.

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

[James]

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.

[Optimist Prime]

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

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.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by James
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.

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.

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by RACooper
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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
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.

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

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Just because they are out of weapons and holed up in a mosque just like many other terrorists, they are no longer terrorists?

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?

[James]

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?

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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?

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

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by James
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?

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

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