Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

CentralTexas
November 17, 2004, 06:23 PM
By now you have seen the video of the marine who thought the wounded Iraqui was a threat. He had the bad fortune of the media filming so either way he is probably screwed. After review of the facts & the video- 8 or so 15hr+ days on patrol, shot in face day before and the hours before booby trapping of a dead body that killed another marine and wounded five I think without a doubt this guy was in the right.
Thoughts?
CT

If you enjoyed reading about "Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
critter
November 17, 2004, 06:28 PM
War is hell. I was not there. I will not judge him to be guilty.

DRZinn
November 17, 2004, 06:41 PM
Why did that :cuss: cameraman turn the film over to the press? It should have been given to the brass. He could have easily kept a copy to publicize later if the incident wasn't investigated. Let's see - justice done, no black eye for the US... yep, too easy.

Delmar
November 17, 2004, 06:44 PM
As per usual, the press will make more of this than the clear cut atrocities done by the other side. I am not in a position to judge this particular marine.

I do hope he is able to live with what he has had to go through-the shooting plus all the unspeakable things that young man has had to witness in the past days.

Some strange things happen in battle, and if you take them completely out of context, its pretty clear what is right and wrong. Put them on a battlefield, and the most you can say is, "I wouldn't a done that, but I understand why."

F4GIB
November 17, 2004, 06:51 PM
The cameraman get PAID by the footage that he sells. We (gun owners) should all know by now that the "media" doesn't act because they search for the truth but to sell newspapers, TV advertising, or, in the case of this cameraman, to pay for his next BMW. I'll bet he got $50,000 from Al-Jezzera.

birdv
November 17, 2004, 07:03 PM
I thought they were screening the tapes. I guess I was wrong.


Judged by 12 carried by 6.

What would you choose???
:confused:

Grey54956
November 17, 2004, 07:03 PM
If I understand the situation as it unfolded, the Iraqis were holed up in a mosque taking potshots at our marines, which is strictly a no-no. Temples are typically sanctuaries, not to be used as firing positions. A group of marines stormed the mosque, during which the Iraqi insurgents were wounded. After the insurgents surrendered, they were told to sit tight and another group of marines would arrive to pick them up and take them to the back of the lines for treatment. Once the original marines are out of sight, the insurgents dig up some more weapons, and fire upon the second group of marines. The second group of marines storm the place and find the wounded insurgents. One of whom is playing dead, presumably waiting for the marines to clear out so he can take up a firing position again. Unfortunately for him, "pop goes the weasel..." I believe that this would qualify him as a spy or saboteur, and thus would not be subject to protections under the Geneva Conventions. The shooting is justified.

The moral of the story is don't be a weasel.

itgoesboom
November 17, 2004, 07:24 PM
Anybody have a link to the video?

I have seen part of it, but I would prefer to withhold judgement.

I can see how the soldier might be worried about a booby trapped body, and would be justified in shooting, and I can see the other side as well.

I.G.B.

mattHP
November 17, 2004, 07:35 PM
i accidentally hit not justified instead of not enough info. IF the actions depicted on the video were all there was to it, he was probably not justified. i don't give a damn about the iraqi, but i'd be a lot more concerned about the mental well-being of the marine and the effects of his actions on his unit's order and discipline. the book achilles in vietnam had a lot to say on the subject, basically that a failure of the chain of command to levy some sort of punishment for violation of laws of war can worsen ptsd. the iraqi can burn for all i care.

Chris Rhines
November 17, 2004, 07:58 PM
Having seen the video and read the audio transcripts, there is no possible way that the soldier was justified in shooting an unarmed prisoner. That soldier (I use the term loosely) is a murderer who deserves neither consideration nor sympathy.

- Chris

sigmaman
November 17, 2004, 08:07 PM
i agree with doczinn
reporter turns tape over to military keeps copy for himself soldier not prosecuted air the tape

nygunguy
November 17, 2004, 08:10 PM
I personally can't believe that this is even an issue. We need to call or write our congress people and get them to stop the insanity.



I found Froggy Ruminations (http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com) to have a very nice perspective on the matter.

"...So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what."

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 08:11 PM
Having seen the video and read the audio transcripts, there is no possible way that the soldier was justified in shooting an unarmed prisoner. That soldier (I use the term loosely) is a murderer who deserves neither consideration nor sympathy.

- Chris

Wow that's absolutely ridiculous. So you're saying that seeing the video you were able to ascertain that the terrorist did not have a weapon, a grenade or an IED under that blanket? I guess the marines are supposed to have ESP now and determine who is armed and who isn't while in a combat zone? Calling a US Marine fighting for OUR country and doing his JOB.....which would be KILLING terrorists...yes that's what marines and soldiers do....kill people and break things....a murderer really disgusts me. It shows you have zero respect for the US military. :fire:

CannibalCrowley
November 17, 2004, 08:29 PM
Why did that :cuss: cameraman turn the film over to the press? It should have been given to the brass. He could have easily kept a copy to publicize later if the incident wasn't investigated. Let's see - justice done, no black eye for the US... yep, too easy.Because that method worked so well for Abu Gharib :rolleyes: Is it better that he released it now, or after the military tried to cover it up?If I understand the situation as it unfoldedYou obviously don't.Once the original marines are out of sight, the insurgents dig up some more weapons, and fire upon the second group of marines.No weapons were found in the room.One of whom is playing dead, presumably waiting for the marines to clear out so he can take up a firing position again.What's the difference between someone "playing dead" and someone lying there because he's severely wounded and maybe even unconscious? Of course if he was moving the excuse would be that they thought he was going for a weapon. It's like two cops with their guns drawn on a suspect. One is yelling "put your hands up" and the other is shouting "don't move". Either way they'll have an excuse when they fire. What was he going to fire at them with, the magical rifles than suddenly disappeared?I believe that this would qualify him as a spy or saboteur, and thus would not be subject to protections under the Geneva Conventions. The shooting is justified.He would still be entitled to a trial. Maybe you should visit the thread about Geneva misconceptions.After review of the facts & the video- 8 or so 15hr+ days on patrol, shot in face day before and the hours before booby trapping of a dead body that killed another marine and wounded five I think without a doubt this guy was in the right.None of that matters. Him being worn out doesn't change the law any.

sigmaman
November 17, 2004, 08:37 PM
link to video unedited
[video here (http://www.ogrish.com/attachments/2004/11/16/ogrish-dot-com-marine_shoots_wounded_pow_video.wmv)

Blackhawk 6
November 17, 2004, 08:40 PM
This situation is much too complex to determine the legitimacy of the Marine's actions based on a video clip. A detailed understanding of all the circumstance involved is required, a none of us are privy to the information.

sabre452
November 17, 2004, 08:41 PM
Wow,
we send the Marines in to Fallujah to kill terrorist and then we want to crucify one of them for doing our bidding. These wounded people had been firing from a Mosque at these Marines (violation of the Geneva Convention). The guy was faking death, in the presence of our soldiers in a combat zone. Incidently, the remainder of the wounded surrendered after this guy was shot. Why didn't this guy surrender immediately instead of playing possum. We'll never know, and frankly I don't think we need to know. I would have handled the situation exactly the same way if I had the courage to be a Marine in that combat zone. The reporter is a weasel and needs to be sent home before he steps on a booby trap or gets one of our guys killed.

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 08:45 PM
No weapons were found in the room.

And of course your position is the marine is just supposed to KNOW that. Do you have some magic weapon and bomb detection device that I'm unaware of? This is a COMBAT ZONE and the job of marines and soldiers is to KILL the enemy and STAY ALIVE....taking prisoners is a secondary concern. If you feel otherwise I encourage you to start up your own platoon of marines who will sign a pact to put the lives of wounded enemy above their own. Then YOU can go on over to Falluja and do the much better job that you seem to think you could accomplish than this marine.

Delmar
November 17, 2004, 08:48 PM
I suppose it wouldn't have mattered if the Iraqi was armed or connected to an IED, either. The only thing different is that it would not have been on TV, because it would have been just a couple more dead marines.

It's one thing to sit at the computer and monday morning quarterback this young fella-its a different sight by far to have to do what he is doing. Those so quick to jump to conclusions as to the man's guilt makes me wonder where their experience lies.

Putting a man's guilt up this quick after so little info reminds me of the whoop and holler about the Olympic guard in Atlanta years ago. :rolleyes:

Wildalaska
November 17, 2004, 08:49 PM
This situation is much too complex to determine the legitimacy of the Marine's actions based on a video clip. A detailed understanding of all the circumstance involved is required, a none of us are privy to the information.


Bingo!

WildthevoiceofreasonaboveAlaska

TheLastBoyScout
November 17, 2004, 08:53 PM
link to video unedited
[video here (http://www.ogrish.com/attachments/2004/11/16/ogrish-dot-com-marine_shoots_wounded_pow_video.wmv)

This video shows the Marine's actions in a positive light, in view of the situation...

He knows that hajis are feigning death for tactical reasons in other parts of the city... He sees a "dead" terrorist move, and lights him up... BUT his squad sees an obviously injured terrorist on the deck, and lets him live.

Moral: If you're injured and we know it, ok; If we think you're feigning death, we make sure.

He might not have been faking it. If he was really just severely injured, tough luck for him... He should not have expected to fire on US Marines and live to tell about it anyways. It is war. ???? like that happens... And if it comes down to it, I'd rather see a dead Iraqi than dead or injured Marines any day.

sigmaman
November 17, 2004, 08:55 PM
the fact is we all know the marine did wrong but we dont care cause they are arab bastards and they do the same to us
is that what you really feel
i dont care about the damm iraqi getting shot
but you know what the marine is wrong
if the camera man hadnt of been there we would not be having this argument
still doesnt change anything the marine summarily executed the man
so keep reaching and reaching

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 09:00 PM
the fact is we all know the marine did wrong but we dont care cause they are arab bastards and they do the same to us
is that what you really feel
i dont care about the damm iraqi getting shot
but you know what the marine is wrong
if the camera man hadnt of been there we would not be having this argument
still doesnt change anything the marine summarily executed the man
so keep reaching and reaching

Please do not speak for me or try to put words in my mouth. I do NOT believe that this marine was wrong. Some people just can't seem to comprehend what happens in war. I don't know how many times I have to say this but the job of soldiers and marines is to KILL PEOPLE. That is what he did.....killed the enemy before the enemy could do the same to him or his comrades. This is not a diffcult issue to comprehend. Had I been in his situation I would have done exactly the same thing and not felt one bit sorry for it.

Barbara
November 17, 2004, 09:04 PM
NBC said the Marine, who had reportedly been shot in the face himself the previous day, said immediately after the shooting: "Well, he's dead now."



I'm not judging him. It's a war, and people are die. You do what you have to do to survive and sometimes things get fuzzy.

We keep prosecuting our folks for being a little too mean to the enemy, and meanwhile, the enemy is sawing the heads off our citizens and shooting humanitarian aid workers in the head after torturing them for a few weeks. I'm waiting for a trial for one of them, eh?

Blackhawk 6
November 17, 2004, 09:07 PM
the fact is we all know the marine did wrong ...
The fact is most of us do not know what we are talking about. We can not state with any degree of certainty under what circumstances the Marine's actions would be justified and under what circumstances they would not.
...we dont care cause they are arab bastards and they do the same to us
There may be some truth in that statement though I would submit it has more to do with them being bastards and less to do with them being Arab.

ravinraven
November 17, 2004, 09:25 PM
I can see the recruiting posters now. "Uncle Sam wants you to dodge bullets. If you shoot back, you'll get courtmartialled."

I'll bet the kids will be beating down the doors to get in now.

rr

Gordy Wesen
November 17, 2004, 09:32 PM
Thanks for the link.
Methinks anybody who faults the Marine is talking out of his butt for other prisoners were then held at gunpoint and not shot.
THis was the first pass for a second group of Marines. We'll see.

Kim
November 17, 2004, 10:15 PM
Not Guilty. If I have to explain why I might just get angry with you. :cuss: We sit hear and parse about a justifiable homicide with our concealed weapons second guessing the spit second decisions we may have to make or others have made like Gods behind a keyboard. Then some have the nerve to talk about murder in a time of war. How Orwellian.

Firethorn
November 17, 2004, 10:44 PM
My vote went to "not enough info". I don't like making snap judgements of trials. I've done this since the OJ trial.

This is going to trial for two reasons: A: The news got ahold of it, and we need to at least investigate what happened. B: A question of improprity came up. We're addressing the issue.

I will say that I lean "not guilty". If only for not guilty because of temporary insanity caused by intense combat and a recent head wound.

On a little further thought, there may be little question that the soldier shot an unarmed and wounded future detainee. However, I think it comes down to whether the soldier, at the time of the shot, thought that the terrorist was an immediate threat to him, his fellow soldiers, the war effort, or civilians. If he did, the shot was good (maybe some remedial training on threat discrimination needed), if not, well, then he does deserve to be sentenced.

CWatson
November 17, 2004, 10:57 PM
I think the Marine did the right thing,why what for the dirtbag to throw a grenade?

I am a little more cold than most,as far as I am concerned if a person is in combat with our forces and is captured,wounded or doing pushups and is out of uniform,should be put against a wall and shot.

CWatson

Chris Rhines
November 17, 2004, 11:06 PM
So you're saying that seeing the video you were able to ascertain that the terrorist did not have a weapon, a grenade or an IED under that blanket? That is exactly what turned out to be the case. No weapons were found on or near the victim.

I guess the marines are supposed to have ESP now and determine who is armed and who isn't while in a combat zone? That's EXACTLY what morality requires them to do. American soldiers do not get to shoot first and ask questions later - part of the price of being the good guys.

Calling a US Marine fighting for OUR country and doing his JOB.....which would be KILLING terrorists...yes that's what marines and soldiers do....kill people and break things....a murderer really disgusts me. Tough. If the shoe fits, then they can wear it. That so-called Marine shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no threat to him. That is murder, and people who make excuses for murderers disgust me equally much.

- Chris

DRZinn
November 17, 2004, 11:07 PM
Because that method worked so well for Abu Gharib :rolleyes: Is it better that he released it now, or after the military tried to cover it up?

IIRC, the Abu Ghraib investigation had already started before anything got leaked. He could have sent a copy to the brass, with a letter explaining just exactly how much access they better give him to the investigation, or the tape gets released. Think they wouldn't comply?

Again, it ends this way: incident gets investigated, Marien gets punished if it is deemed to be necessary, and the US avoids another black eye.

There's no need to air our dirty laundry for the entire world. Marine was right = he returns to duty and nobody ever has to know. Marine was wrong = he gets punished and nobody ever has to know.

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 11:16 PM
That is exactly what turned out to be the case. No weapons were found on or near the victim.

That is irrelavant. If someone pointed a gun at you and you shot him you would not be required to determine whether the gun was loaded at the time it was pointed at you. If it turned out later it was not then youe shoot is STILL good. This marine could NOT have known if there were weapons or bombs under the terrorist's blanket.

That's EXACTLY what morality requires them to do. American soldiers do not get to shoot first and ask questions later - part of the price of being the good guys.

Bologna. In WAR a soldier is allowed to fire at any enemy that can possibly be a threat. If you don't like that well then there's not much I can tell you because that's the way it is. The primary objective of any soldier is to KILL the enemy and for him and his comrades to stay alive. Killing in war is not immoral and looking out for your safety and the safety of your friends certainly isn't either. If you believe it to be then I'm glad you're not in the military cause I sure wouldn't want someone like you in my squad.

Tough. If the shoe fits, then they can wear it. That so-called Marine shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no threat to him. That is murder, and people who make excuses for murderers disgust me equally much.

Again this is WAR. The "unarmed man" as you so nicely call him was a TERRORIST who was shooting at OUR marines and soldiers. He was feigning death which is against the "rules of war", which you claim to love so much. It is a common practice for terrorists to booby trap dead bodies and wounded fighters so they can blow up marines on their way out. This marine should be given a medal for putting the lives of his squad above that of a scumbag terrorist. If you continue to insist that marines and soldiers are murderers I really think you need to evaluate who's side you're on.

Blackhawk 6
November 17, 2004, 11:21 PM
That so-called Marine shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no threat to him.

First of all, he IS a Marine, whether he was right or wrong. He earned that title and neither you nor anyone else participating in this discussion can take that away from him.

Second, while it is easy to ascertain the man posed no threat after the fact, we do not know why the Marine felt it necessary to shoot. It is possible that he had a legitimate reason for believing the man did pose a threat but was mistaken.

Lighten up.

Firethorn
November 17, 2004, 11:22 PM
Bologna. In WAR a soldier is allowed to fire at any enemy that can possibly be a threat. If you don't like that well then there's not much I can tell you because that's the way it is. The primary objective of any soldier is to KILL the enemy and for him and his comrades to stay alive. Killing in war is not immoral and looking out for your safety and the safety of your friends certainly isn't either. If you believe it to be then I'm glad you're not in the military cause I sure wouldn't want someone like you in my squad.

Exactly. This is why I think that the trial, which will be conducted by other military personal who understand the situation, will end up being a question of whether the soldier believed, had reason to believe, that the terrorist was/could be a threat.

Kim
November 17, 2004, 11:22 PM
I am really, really glad the citizens of this country during WW2 did not have instant video of the battle field being beamed to them on T.V or we would have never won if they reacted as many do now. Have any of you guys ever read about or talked to the men who fought that war. I have and they would laugh at your fretting about this incident. Man the vietnam syndrome is still with us. I am convienced we will lose a major war if we ever are in the situation again. During WW2 our men of the greatest generation bayoneted alot of dead or wounded bodies they came across just to make sure they were dead.(this was standared procedure) Good grief the hand wringing going on.

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 11:28 PM
I am really, really glad the citizens of this country during WW2 did not have instant video of the battle field being beamed to them on T.V or we would have never won if they reacted as many do now. Have any of you guys ever read about or talked to the men who fought that war. I have and they would laugh at your fretting about this incident. Man the vietnam syndrome is still with us. I am convienced we will lose a major war if we ever are in the situation again. During WW2 our men of the greatest generation bayoneted alot of dead or wounded bodies they came across just to make sure they were dead.(this was standared procedure) Good grief the hand wringing going on.

Exactly.......also it is long standing policy that the British SAS (hostage rescue team) when making a dynamic entry every man will put two shots into any hostile they come across whether dead or alive. This is to make sure no one "pops back to life" and comes up behind them. Imagine the horror that would cause some people! :what:

ReadyontheRight
November 17, 2004, 11:29 PM
Regardless of how anyone feels based on Monday-morning quarterbacking a few minutes of intense combat video, he is suspended and being investigated. The system works, despite what many professional pundits and politicians who hate the military would have us believe.

As far as my own sheer speculation, it seems that they left the wounded there for a day assuming that the enemy's people would tend to them. They come back and the wounded are still there. Our soldiers have already experienced casualties due to enemy combatants pretending to be dead or wounded and then attacking when a US soldier comes near. Shooting an enemy combatant apparently pretending to be dead does not seem all that unreasonable. Especially if a similar situation led to being shot in the face and seeing your buddies die a day earlier.

Dannyboy
November 17, 2004, 11:40 PM
That's EXACTLY what morality requires them to do. American soldiers do not get to shoot first and ask questions later - part of the price of being the good guys.

Tough. If the shoe fits, then they can wear it. That so-called Marine shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no threat to him. That is murder, and people who make excuses for murderers disgust me equally much.

- Chris

Holy sheepshagging Scotsman! That may well be the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen someone write on this board. So-called Marine! I'd bet money that kid's twice the man you are. But I guess you're speaking from experience, right? You've been through this kind of thing before, right? Whatever.

sigmaman
November 17, 2004, 11:51 PM
if a wounded marine was lying on the ground and a terrorist insurgent whatever they wish to call themselves shot him in the head and it was on tape what would you call him?
instead of the guy on the ground being one of them it was one of us what would you call the guy pulling the trigger?
answer the question not interested in your stories just answer the question honestly

CentralTexas
November 17, 2004, 11:54 PM
the fact is we all know the marine did wrong but we dont care cause they are arab bastards and they do the same to us
is that what you really feel
i dont care about the damm iraqi getting shot
but you know what the marine is wrong
if the camera man hadnt of been there we would not be having this argument
still doesnt change anything the marine summarily executed the man
so keep reaching and reaching

I'm amazed at this rant.You as a Marine know and have been warned that the enemy is without honor, have waved white flags and then killed soldiers,booby trap bodiesetc.
You see a dead body breathing and know you have seconds to give these dishonarable folks the time to pull agrenade pin or come up with an AK47 and kill you or your fellow Marines so why would you give the guy the benefit of the doubt? Murder? No way possible. He didn't just shoot him he shouted an alert to his squad and resolved the matter in the appropriate manner. Dishonarable enemies should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Error in judgment? WOuld you rather be wrong and have you and your squad die?
Ack!
CT

Dbl0Kevin
November 17, 2004, 11:55 PM
if a wounded marine was lying on the ground and a terrorist insurgent whatever they wish to call themselves shot him in the head and it was on tape what would you call him?
instead of the guy on the ground being one of them it was one of us what would you call the guy pulling the trigger?
answer the question not interested in your stories just answer the question honestly

I would call him the same thing I'd call any of them right now.....a terrorist scumbag. I don't care if an American was wounded, unwounded, standing on his head, or about to kill the terrorist himself. Any terrorist who kills an American soldier should be sought out and killed as that's what happens in war.

CannibalCrowley
November 17, 2004, 11:56 PM
IIRC, the Abu Ghraib investigation had already started before anything got leaked.The Army was made aware of the abuses at least five months before 60 Minutes aired the photos. How many people were brought to trial or charged with crimes in that time? He could have sent a copy to the brass, with a letter explaining just exactly how much access they better give him to the investigation, or the tape gets released.Sounds like blackmail to me.If someone pointed a gun at you and you shot him you would not be required to determine whether the gun was loaded at the time it was pointed at you. If it turned out later it was not then youe shoot is STILL good.That example is nothing like what happened here. It's closer to walking down the street and shooting someone because you thought he might have a weapon. Your example would e correct if the Marine saw a weapon, but he did not.This marine could NOT have known if there were weapons or bombs under the terrorist's blanket.Ding, ding we have a winner. The Marine did not know if the man was a threat, but he shot him anyway. Killing someone without justification=murder.Bologna. In WAR a soldier is allowed to fire at any enemy that can possibly be a threat.By that logic our guys would be justified in shooting anyone on sight because anyone could be a threat.Killing in war is not immoralSometimes it is, and sometimes it's a war crime as well.He was feigning death which is against the "rules of war", which you claim to love so muchWhat is your definition of "feigning death" and how would you recognize such on sight? Just by looking at someone briefly from across the room, can you tell whether he is "feigning death" or simply unconscious? Can you please point me to the proper article of a convention which states that feigning death is a war crime.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 12:02 AM
That example is nothing like what happened here. It's closer to walking down the street and shooting someone because you thought he might have a weapon. Your example would e correct if the Marine saw a weapon, but he did not.

You can't compare walking down a normal street with doing the same in a COMBAT ZONE. You are not expecting everyone you see in town to be armed and trying to kill you, but in a combat zone you ARE. As the town was deserted and no one but insurgents remained I'd say any reasonable person would assume that a non-US military personel was a threat.

Ding, ding we have a winner. The Marine did not know if the man was a threat, but he shot him anyway. Killing someone without justification=murder.

Wrong again. As I said combat zone not town street. Unknown people are considered hostile until proven otherwise.

By that logic our guys would be justified in shooting anyone on sight because anyone could be a threat.

Ding ding ding.....we have a winner. That is EXACTLY what happens in a combat zone.

Tierhog
November 18, 2004, 12:02 AM
if a wounded marine was lying on the ground and a terrorist insurgent whatever they wish to call themselves shot him in the head and it was on tape what would you call him?
instead of the guy on the ground being one of them it was one of us what would you call the guy pulling the trigger?
answer the question not interested in your stories just answer the question honestly


I'd call him a smart terrorist. Any terrorist stupid enough to leave a wounded Marine behind him is asking for an early retirement. I would not just quietly lay there and wait for death, I would fight with my last breath.

Besides, didn't Kerry get a medal for shooting a wounded enemy?

CentralTexas
November 18, 2004, 12:04 AM
served in life or death military situations. Without the understanding of service and the way this is different from the civilian world & TV it's hard to understand how this wasn't a murder for some.
Rules of war for our troops allow us to kill the enemy coming at you. We are also allowed to kill a fleeing armed enemy, shoot them right in the back.
Murder to some of you maybe but it's to PREVENT the hostile from having another chance to kill you. No different from what this guy did, he protected himself and squad from a possible armed enemy. War has adifferent sensibility from civilian police even though officers have always been in these situations too. When a cop makes a mistake and shoots a 13 year old kid with a squirt gun we call it "Tragic" not murder. CT

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 12:09 AM
The Army was made aware of the abuses at least five months before 60 Minutes aired the photos. How many people were
brought to trial or charged with crimes in that time?
Again, IIRC the investigation had already begun. Military justice moves slowly, especially in a war zone. There are some things going on that tend to be a little more pressing. I don't know the details and I'm not saying that something would definitely have happened if the tape had not aired. BUT - if the tape had not aired, but the brass knew it could, they'd be inclined to take care of the situation if they were not already so inclined.

Sounds like blackmail to me.
Not really. Blackmail, to me, involves getting someone to do something wrong through coercion.

Chris Rhines
November 18, 2004, 12:14 AM
Boy, is it fun to see the id come out in some people. Sigh. :(

- Chris

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 12:15 AM
the first group of marines the ones being fired at were probably pretty stressed. they suppressed them treated them deemed them not a threat moved on

back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no
you have a choice a 3 letter word or a 2 letter word
blah blah blah blah blah
just answer the question honestly if the roles were reversed and you seen the marine on the ground same situation being shot by the BG would you call the BG a murderer?
yes
or no

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 12:19 AM
Boy, is it fun to see the id come out in some people. Sigh. :(

- Chris

I'm really shocked that a gun enthusiast has difficulty grasping this concept. If you felt you were in danger would you not act to defend yourself? Even in the civilian world there have been numerous incidents where a police officer shot someone who made a furtive movement to go for what could have been a gun. If there was in fact no gun the officer was not called a murderer. He simply used all the information available to him and made the best decision he could. I suppose in your moral superiority (wearing the white hat of the good guys) you would wait for someone get the first shot off at you, since that's the only way to be fair. Then of course you'd just shoot the gun right out of his hands cause you wouldn't want to kill him.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 12:22 AM
I'm really shocked that a gun enthusiast has difficulty grasping this concept. If you felt you were in danger would you not act to defend yourself? Even in the civilian world there have been numerous incidents where a police officer shot someone who made a furtive movement to go for what could have been a gun. If there was in fact no gun the officer was not called a murderer. He simply used all the information available to him and made the best decision he could. I suppose in your moral superiority (wearing the white hat of the good guys) you would wait for someone get the first shot off at you, since that's the only way to be fair. Then of course you'd just shoot the gun right out of his hands cause you wouldn't want to kill him.

longest reply to a yes or no question so far

CentralTexas
November 18, 2004, 12:23 AM
back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no

Uh, no especially if we conducted war the way they do. Glad to see you at least used the word "Terrorist" instead of "victim"
CT

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 12:23 AM
the first group of marines the ones being fired at were probably pretty stressed. they suppressed them treated them deemed them not a threat moved on

back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no
you have a choice a 3 letter word or a 2 letter word
blah blah blah blah blah
just answer the question honestly if the roles were reversed and you seen the marine on the ground same situation being shot by the BG would you call the BG a murderer?
yes
or no

I already answered this question. Any terrorist that kills any american in ANY way I would call a scumbag terrorist. Do you expect them to meet our soldiers for milk and cookies at noon? No they are out to kill us the same as we are out to kill them. That is what WAR is all about. We're not over there fighting because the terrorists are such nice people and we have a petty disagreement. War = killing....plain and simple.

If you really want to get picky the true "murderers" are the ones who flew a CIVILIAN plane into a CIVILIAN target with no warning. The rest as I said are simple scumbag terrorist killers who need to be killed.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 12:24 AM
longest reply to a yes or no question so far

That wasn't a reply to you....patience grasshopper yours was coming next and if you look right above this you'll see it. :neener:

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 12:26 AM
If there was in fact no gun the officer was not called a murderer.
Except, of course, that some people would be jumping all over each other to be the first to call him a murderer. Without having the facts.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 12:28 AM
Except, of course, that some people would be jumping all over each other to be the first to call him a murderer. Without having the facts.

Of course....parallel anyone? :scrutiny:

Coronach
November 18, 2004, 01:27 AM
I'm gonna go with...


*drumroll*

Not enough info.

For instance:

Was he placed in the corner, having been taken into custody by US forces and searched and secured, and then simply executed?

Or was he laying there in a pile of corpses looking like another IED-strapped suicide bomber lurking in wait? Oh...no weapons discovered? Okay...you volunteering to go look for 'em before we know everything is safe?

Hey, let me be the first to say this:

If you start booby-trapping surrendering militants and hiding live killers amid the dead bodies, you cannot expect to have your warriors taken into custody like this is some stand-up war. The rules of warfare apply when both sides abide by them. I'm hurt means I'm hurt. I surrender means I surrender. When you turn it into "I surrender....*BOOM* Ha ha! Fooled You!" you really cannot gripe when next time you don't get the chance.

Mike

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 01:36 AM
watch the unedited tape

BamBam-31
November 18, 2004, 02:59 AM
I did, and I can't see how you can say either way just from watching the tape.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 18, 2004, 03:40 AM
The answer is not enough information.

It's too easy to second guess from 14,000 miles away and from a video clip.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 04:41 AM
i have a pay pal account
taking all $5 dollar bets he is found guilty
whether they take into consideration his insanity plea or not he will be found guilty
whose on?

Iain
November 18, 2004, 04:55 AM
I voted last night before this thread took off.

I was also not going to post in it because of the turn the thread in Roundtable took. But here I am posting.

I voted 'not enough info', and that was my position before.

Glad to see that a good number of people agree with me. And here is why they should - we don't know what happened yet, but there needs to be a full investigation and if wrong was done that needs to be punished. No whitewash, no total secrecy, no ignoring of the facts by anyone.

What bothers me is that some here want to absolve this Marine of any case to answer before they have a real clue what happened. What also bothers me are the people who want this kind of thing kept secret.

That's me out. If it was a British soldier I'd feel the exact same way. No desire to whitewash, no desire to crucify - I want the facts.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 06:15 AM
last post
i really dont care that that iraqi died
but he was murdered in my opinion
the marine will be found guilty
and the reporter served no useful purpose in reporting it
well actually al qaeda and zarqawi probably got a spike in there recruitment drives so i take that back (its sarcasm dont report me to the fbi please)

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 06:55 AM
Wrong again. As I said combat zone not town street. Unknown people are considered hostile until proven otherwise.No, unknown people are considered unknown until proven hostile.
You can't compare walking down a normal street with doing the same in a COMBAT ZONE.Why not, you did. That's a bit hypocritical. By that logic our guys would be justified in shooting anyone on sight because anyone could be a threat.Ding ding ding.....we have a winner. That is EXACTLY what happens in a combat zone.No it's not. Patrolling the streets and shooting everyone on sight isn't very effective at winning those hearts and minds.Again, IIRC the investigation had already begun. Military justice moves slowly, especially in a war zone.The investigation was not focused on the individuals, it was an overview of the prison conditions as a whole. The general who was investigating it had already issued his report and no one had even been charged. But 60 Minutes aired their piece and within a month the soldiers were charged and I believe at least one court-martial had started.

Still no answer, let's try again: He was feigning death which is against the "rules of war", which you claim to love so much
What is your definition of "feigning death" and how would you recognize such on sight? Just by looking at someone briefly from across the room, can you tell whether he is "feigning death" or simply unconscious? Can you please point me to the proper article of a convention which states that feigning death is a war crime (if such an article exists)?

ojibweindian
November 18, 2004, 08:14 AM
just answer the question honestly if the roles were reversed and you seen the marine on the ground same situation being shot by the BG would you call the BG a murderer?

Damn straight I would. I root for the home team.

ravinraven
November 18, 2004, 08:37 AM
From way back up the thread, I got this gem: "Besides, didn't Kerry get a medal for shooting a wounded enemy?"

You all know that sKerry is a liberal CS therefore not subject to the rules that govern Americans. The question is out of order.

rr
__________________

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 09:23 AM
The investigation was not focused on the individuals, it was an overview of the prison conditions as a whole. The general who was investigating it had already issued his report and no one had even been charged. But 60 Minutes aired their piece and within a month the soldiers were charged and I believe at least one court-martial had started.
In that case, perhaps the photos needed to be released because that incident wasn't being investigated. BUT, the brass in that case ddin't have the public release hanging over their heads; they thought they could keep the whole thing quiet.

Look at it from their view:

1. Questionable shooting.
2. Videotape, which will look very bad if released.
3. Two choices:
A. sweep it under the rug, tape gets released, you look bad
B. investigate it, the tape (probably) doesn't get released, but at least if it does you can say "See? I already took care of it."

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 09:28 AM
Nice one. Call them all "hajis" (the term comes from an old kids' cartoon called "Johnny Quest") and it's easier to treat them like paper targets, huh?
It's not really a perjorative, Styles. It's a pretty common term in the military to mean any native of the Middle East. It's easier than saying "Hey, I've got three Iraqis or Syrians or Jordanians coming around the north side of the building." Some use it as a perjorative, but that can be done with any word. Heck, even the hated n----- wasn't originally a bad thing, just a term that meant an African. Came from the Spanish word negro, meaning, of course, black.

capt. Nemo
November 18, 2004, 10:02 AM
Just reading some of the posts in this thread makes me realize that we can't win this war or any other. We're fighting a wild fire here and some would like to try and put it out with a garden hose. With the press and some of our dimwitted people defending the enemy and persecuting the Marines...we have a WINNER!

And it ain't us.

Hawkmoon
November 18, 2004, 10:07 AM
the fact is we all know the marine did wrong but we dont
Speak for yourself, and don't include me in your "we all"

Leatherneck
November 18, 2004, 10:15 AM
I'm not convinced that every person who practices Islam is out to get me Totally irrelevant. Those Marines clearing Fallujah had dam well better assume that any Middle Easterners out of uniform and found in hothouses in the city at that point are indeed hostile. As to whether this guy needed killin' or not, I still withhold judgement for lack of being there. There were witnesses, and apparently most are rooting for our marine, so my prejudice is in sympathy with the shooter. But it still needs investigating; I believe one will clear him.

The posters on this thread that liken urban warfare against a devious and innovative, entrenched enemy to any domestic situation are wacko.

TC
TFL Survivor

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 10:54 AM
We're fighting a wild fire here and some would like to try and put it out with a garden hose.Not prosecuting this Marine would be like trying to put out the blaze while tossing lit torches into it. With the press and some of our dimwitted people defending the enemy and persecuting the MarinesFirst off, calling for the Marine to be prosecuted for an alleged crime is not defending the enemy. Secondly, if you can't argue your point without name calling, this isn't the correct forum for you.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 11:10 AM
I voted last night before this thread took off.

I was also not going to post in it because of the turn the thread in Roundtable took. But here I am posting.

I voted 'not enough info', and that was my position before.

Glad to see that a good number of people agree with me. And here is why they should - we don't know what happened yet, but there needs to be a full investigation and if wrong was done that needs to be punished. No whitewash, no total secrecy, no ignoring of the facts by anyone.

What bothers me is that some here want to absolve this Marine of any case to answer before they have a real clue what happened. What also bothers me are the people who want this kind of thing kept secret.

That's me out. If it was a British soldier I'd feel the exact same way. No desire to whitewash, no desire to crucify - I want the facts.

Ok I really have to question you "not enough info" people. Exactly what more information do you need? The facts of this case are very simple:

1. They are in a combat zone....NOT the streets of NY.
2. The room they were in was NOT secured....it MAY have been secured the day before but in urban warfare a LOT can happen in an hour not to mention a day and it could be reoccupied or rearmed
3. It is common practice for wounded and dead terrorists to be booby trapped or have bombs so they can suicide and kill marines.
4. While sweeping this room one of the terrorists was faking that he was dead and not responding to commands when the marines shouted.

Given all that information what else would you like to satisfy before you allow a marine to do his job and kill the enemy and also protect the lives of himself and his fellow marines in that room?

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 11:18 AM
No, unknown people are considered unknown until proven hostile.

No you're wrong. Sorry you're just wrong. When there are nothing left but insurgents in the city then they are considered hostile plain and simple.


Why not, you did. That's a bit hypocritical.

No I did not.....my analogy was relative while yours was not. In my analogy of someone pointing a gun at you and you were not required to determine it was loaded the terrorist himself equals the gun. Being in a combat zone coming up on the enemy is the equivalent to having a gun pointed at you. What is so hard to grasp about that? You on the other hand tried to equate this to the marine walking down the streets of NY and shooting a bum lying in the street. WRONG

No it's not. Patrolling the streets and shooting everyone on sight isn't very effective at winning those hearts and minds.

Guess what it's not the marines jobs to win hearts and minds when in the midst of combat. Winning the hearts and minds begins when combat ends, until then their job is to kill people and break things and do it so well that they live and the enemy does not. I will say again if you feel so strongly otherwise feel free to commission your own platoon who will swear an oath to hold the lives of the terrorists above their own lives and head on over there and do the job yourself.

What is your definition of "feigning death" and how would you recognize such on sight? Just by looking at someone briefly from across the room, can you tell whether he is "feigning death" or simply unconscious? Can you please point me to the proper article of a convention which states that feigning death is a war crime (if such an article exists)?

I'm not going to go digging through the articles of war just to please you but I will tell you this. It is common knowledge that the standard practice of terrorists is to pretend they are dead or wounded and then when the marines approach they are blown up. Knowing that tactic it is perfectly reasonable to be overly cautious when dealing with an enemy of unknown status. The burden is on the ENEMY to prove that he is NOT a threat. Not on OUR soldier to prove that he IS.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 11:26 AM
Look people the basic problem is this: These kinds of incidents should not be shown to the general public when the war is still going on. "BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!" Yes I can already hear those cries now. Guess what....tough. The marines and soldiers have a right to LIVE and to win the war that WE sent them out to fight. The basic fact is a great majority of civilians do NOT understand what it is like to be in combat and to be fighting for your very life day in and day out. These tactics that the marines are using are NOT new and have gone on throughout every war. The marines, are in fact, fighting much more honorable than the terrorists. When was the last time you saw a marine boobytrap the dead or wounded body of another marine? Or when was the last time you saw a marine surrender to the terrorists only to blow himself up? I sure as hell can't remember any of that. Some of you people are trying to equate what goes on in combat to what goes on in normal civlilized life.......you can not do that. Combat is dirty, it is kill or be killed....civilian life is not and because of that most people just don't get it. Not that there is anything wrong with that......not everyone is meant to be warriors or soldiers. For those that are, however, get out of their business and let them fight the war to win and to survive. Then after it's all over you can see all the damn video you want and study and learn and evaluate till you heart's content.

Think about it. This marine has done nothing wrong, yeah I know some will argue that. But he didn't. But no matter what happens in the useless investigation now it will be a victory for the enemy. If he is found guilty then the enemy can say "look at how brutal the American's are!" and if he is found not guilty then they will say "look how the American's won't punish one of their own". This video served NO purpose except causing arguements like these and giving the enemy propaganda. How any of you can be for that and be on the side of your country in this war is beyond me.

Blackcloud6
November 18, 2004, 11:27 AM
Well, if I was that squad leader, the next time that cameraman/reporter was on patrol with me it would go like this: "Hey, press guy, see that bad guy against the wall over there? He looks like he's faking death. Go roll him him over and see...."

hm
November 18, 2004, 11:30 AM
Having only seen this short video from a brief window of time, without a complete understanding the context of that soldier's world and without thorough questioning and review of the soldier himself and relevant others, there's not enough info to say. I believe that's why we have Courts Marshall.

Anyone who stated absolutely in the affirmative or negative on this issue is being too simplistic in their thinking. Wake up please.

Rebar
November 18, 2004, 11:42 AM
The burden is on the ENEMY to prove that he is NOT a threat. Not on OUR soldier to prove that he IS.
Exactly correct.

This is further proven, in that the other four terrorists in the room, having shown that they weren't a threat, were not shot.

I don't see where anyone would need more information, everything you need to know is on the tape. There were five wounded terrorists, one was acting suspicious, and the Marine shot him. If they were just executing wounded terrorists, he'd have shot them all.

Anyone saying they wouldn't have shot him, are liars or damn fools.

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 12:03 PM
Whatever happened to "IPs"?
Huh?

Not prosecuting this Marine would be like trying to put out the blaze while tossing lit torches into it.
There it is! The idea that we should prosecute the Marine, if for no other reason than to show the world that we're fair! The idea that world opinion can trump right or wrong! There it is! I was waiting for it, and you didn't let me down!

<Apologies if that's not how you meant it, but many others do mean it that way, so my statement still stands, even if I redirect it from you to someone else.>

juggler
November 18, 2004, 12:12 PM
Marines alive, terrorists dead. Sounds right to me.
Yes, they were terrorists. They became such when they started firing from the mosque......twice!!! :banghead: :fire: :cuss: :what:

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 01:28 PM
INDIGENOUS PERSONNEL, i.e., NATIVES, rather than calling them speedbumps, towel-heads, hajis, etc., etc., etc.

It goes a long way towards taking some of the sting out of our presence over there to avoid "pet names" for ethnic groups.

When have you EVER heard a soldier refer to the enemy as Indigenous Personnel??? It's funny I seem to remember Krauts, Jerrys, Japs, Zips, Gooks, Ivans, Rags, Towels etc. When you are at war the whole purpose is to not LIKE your enemy because if you feel mercy for him then you will hesitate and if you hesitate then you will be DEAD. Some of you people continue to live in a dream world with your rose colored glasses on.

And how come I don't hear you moaning about the terrorists calling US infidels or zionists? :rolleyes:

Iain
November 18, 2004, 01:33 PM
I'm going to back hm up, and reiterate:

Where is anyone getting the information to make a definite decision on this one? Presumed innocent or presumed guilty - THR is not a court of law so I'd like to emphase that either way - you are presuming.

ojibweindian
November 18, 2004, 01:34 PM
It goes a long way towards taking some of the sting out of our presence over there to avoid "pet names" for ethnic groups.

Why should I care about their feelings?

Did they care about the feelings of Margaret Hassan? Or the others they beheaded?

Nope.

So, I say F.E.T.E.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 01:35 PM
When have you EVER heard a soldier refer to the enemy as Indigenous Personnel??? It's funny I seem to remember Krauts, Jerrys, Japs, Zips, Gooks, Ivans, Rags, Towels etc. When you are at war the whole purpose is to not LIKE your enemy because if you feel mercy for him then you will hesitate and if you hesitate then you will be DEAD. Some of you people continue to live in a dream world with your rose colored glasses on.

And how come I don't hear you moaning about the terrorists calling US infidels or zionists? :rolleyes:

Read Grossman's 'On Killing.' It discusses the ways that soldiers are persuaded to kill, one is just what you have described. The flip side is that when the enemy are no longer human it no longer matters what you do to them. Dangerous game to play.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 01:39 PM
I'm going to back hm up, and reiterate:

Where is anyone getting the information to make a definite decision on this one? Presumed innocent or presumed guilty - THR is not a court of law so I'd like to emphase that either way - you are presuming.

Since I guess you missed it I'll repeat this:

Ok I really have to question you "not enough info" people. Exactly what more information do you need? The facts of this case are very simple:

1. They are in a combat zone....NOT the streets of NY.
2. The room they were in was NOT secured....it MAY have been secured the day before but in urban warfare a LOT can happen in an hour not to mention a day and it could be reoccupied or rearmed
3. It is common practice for wounded and dead terrorists to be booby trapped or have bombs so they can suicide and kill marines.
4. While sweeping this room one of the terrorists was faking that he was dead and not responding to commands when the marines shouted.

Given all that information what else would you like to satisfy before you allow a marine to do his job and kill the enemy and also protect the lives of himself and his fellow marines in that room?

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 01:40 PM
Read Grossman's 'On Killing.' It discusses the ways that soldiers are persuaded to kill, one is just what you have described. The flip side is that when the enemy are no longer human it no longer matters what you do to them. Dangerous game to play.

War IS a dangerous game. There are no easy or nice ways to do it. Frankly whichever way the soldiers on my side surive and the enemy doesn't is fine by me.

ojibweindian
November 18, 2004, 01:40 PM
Dangerous game to play.

The world is a dangerous playground.

Sam
November 18, 2004, 01:46 PM
Apply the same test as a court, was there motive, opportunity and capacity.
It all boils down to how afeared the shooter was at that time, in that circumstance.
It was a nicety that he didn't apply what I consider proper methodology in the first place and grenade the room before entry. I think a reprimand may be in order for that lapse.

Sam

jlwatts3
November 18, 2004, 01:47 PM
The marines were sent in to Fallujah to eliminate the insurgent threat. It seems like he was just doing his job. Unfortunately, he was videotaped doing it and now has to answer to a public that has no idea what combat is like.

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 01:53 PM
Anyone saying they wouldn't have shot him, are liars or damn fools. Name calling, very high road of you.

I'm not going to go digging through the articles of war just to please you but I will tell you this. n other words, you can't back up your statement.
The burden is on the ENEMY to prove that he is NOT a threat. Please explain how an unconscious enemy is supposed to prove that he's not a threat.

There it is! The idea that we should prosecute the Marine, if for no other reason than to show the world that we're fair! The idea that world opinion can trump right or wrong! What are you talking about? How is prosecuting him allowing world opinion to trump right or wrong? His prosecution would prove whether he was right or wrong. The investigation and the court-martial will be run by our people, world opinion won't be a determining factor.

Edit: Cleaned up tags.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 01:54 PM
The world is a dangerous playground.

Yep. So you'll accept that next time an atrocity is committed on American troops that the world is a dangerous place and that the people who did it had been raised to believe that Americans are scum?

No you won't. It'll be murder, as you stated before.

(I'm trying to keep my comments away from this particular case because despite what Kevin thinks he knows there is no way to support any definite conclusion. I'll leave that to the investigation, and possibly the UCMJ.)

Sympathy for the villagers was reduced by seeing them as a threatening enemy, not as victims...The loss of sympathy was reinforced by the fact that the 'enemy' was also thought of in terms which dehumanized them.

Jonathan Glover in 'Humanity a moral history of the twentieth century' on the My Lai massacre. Same applies to many massacres throughout history. As soon as the enemy is not human it becomes possible to mistreat them, to carry out atrocities.

Frankly whichever way the soldiers on my side surive and the enemy doesn't is fine by me.

Kevin,

I don't know if a dialogue between us is going to be possible. I don't understand that viewpoint at all, I'll admit it. And I don't think you see mine. I'll try, if you will.

ojibweindian
November 18, 2004, 02:09 PM
Yep. So you'll accept that next time an atrocity is committed on American troops that the world is a dangerous place and that the people who did it had been raised to believe that Americans are scum?

I never thought the world was anything but dangerous to everybody.

And yes, I will consider it to be murder. I'm an American first and foremost, not some limp-wristed multi-culturalist who thinks that all points of view have validity.

Hawkmoon
November 18, 2004, 02:14 PM
back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no
Is this a trick question, or is the person who asks it really THAT naive?

The question is irrelevant and immaterial. Terrorists are already murderers, by definition.

What this question neatly avoids is the difference between a Marine and a terrorist, and the rules of engagement. In a conventional battle or engagement between the regular armed forces of two countries, there's an understanding that both sides will play by the rules. "Soldiers" don't kill unarmed enemies who have surrendered. Terrorists, on the other hand, don't fight fair. They send children wearing dynamite to blow up women and children in markets. They booby-trap the bodies of their own fallen comrades in arms hoping to take out a few of the enemy who might be willing to give a fallen enemy a decent burial.

Put yourself in the context. If you are fighting an enemy whose soldiers fight fair, you treat surrendered and wounded enemy soldiers with respect. If you are fighting an enemy who booby-traps the bodies of his own, how can you have any respect for that enemy? How can you see a fallen enemy across the room, lying in a position to feign death, and then see that supposedly-dead enemy "body" move and not have to believe that he's pulling the pin on a hand grenade?

The Sunnis are upset because we're shooting at mosques? Guess what -- I'm a minister and I believe churches of any kind should be sanctuaries. But the Marines didn't start it. When terrorists hide in mosques and schools and hospitals, it is THEY who bring death and destruction on those places, not the soldiers whose job it is to ferret out the terrorists. Once the Muslims allow terrorists to operate from their holy places, they lose any right to claim protection for those holy places. It is the terrorists who defile the holy places, because they are using them for unholy purposes.

I have not seen the video and, even if I had, I was not on the scene. I'm not quite prepared to declare it a good shoot, but I am certainly not prepared to declare it a bad shoot and the Marine a murderer.

ObeOne
November 18, 2004, 02:16 PM
My observations,
1. This is war, in a warzone not some civilized place in peacetime.
2. None of the insurgents/Terrorists have come close to acting honorably let alone close to following any of the "rules of war" or any conventions or treaties.
3. I don't remember all of the details how they set up us going in their, but if all civilians are out of the area, anything moving that is not IDed as friendly is considered hostile, period. And before you get up in arms and stomping on hankies, and crying in your tea about it, this is not at ALL unreasonable in a warzone.
4. Despite what you might think, we do not have to wait for them to be shooting at us before we fire back. If they are a threat, they are TAKEN OUT. Everything I have seen so far has shown that any reasonably trained person would consider that a threat.
And while I am sure their are more qualified people than me on this board who have seen and done more, as a Naval officer w/ six years in and having been over their before, I think I can give a reasonable opinion.
Obe One

Iain
November 18, 2004, 02:17 PM
I never thought the world was anything but dangerous to everybody.

And yes, I will consider it to be murder. I'm an American first and foremost, not some limp-wristed multi-culturalist who thinks that all points of view have validity.

Right. Your point is fairly clear. And so is mine, despite any limpwristed-ness.

I think what you have just said cuts to the quick of this matter for those who are trying to whitewash this without any investigation. And I happen to disagree. I'm going to leave it at that.

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 02:24 PM
I will say again if you feel so strongly otherwise feel free to commission your own platoon who will swear an oath to hold the lives of the terrorists above their own lives and head on over there and do the job yourself.Been there done that, but I had a section instead of a platoon, and it was Enduring Freedom not an occupation. Of course we didn't "swear an oath to hold the lives of the terrorists above their own lives". But we did treat everyone according to the Geneva Convention/Laws of Land Warfare as well as the ever-changing rules of engagement we were given. And as a fellow Marine I believe that he should face a court-martial.Frankly whichever way the soldiers on my side surive and the enemy doesn't is fine by me.So you wouldn't be upset if Iraq became our "Rape of Nanking"?Unfortunately, he was videotaped doing it and now has to answer to a public that has no idea what combat is like.No, he was taped committing a possible crime and he will answer to his peers at the court-martial.

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 04:33 PM
What are you talking about? How is prosecuting him allowing world opinion to trump right or wrong?...world opinion won't be a determining factor.
Go back to the statement of yours that I quoted:

Not prosecuting this Marine would be like trying to put out the blaze while tossing lit torches into it.

How is that not referencing world opinion as a reason for prosecution? And if it's not, then, as I said before:

<Apologies if that's not how you meant it, but many others do mean it that way, so my statement still stands, even if I redirect it from you to someone else.>

Styles, I never heard of IP's. And they're definitely not all, or even majority, "natives" of Iraq. As I said, some do use haji as a perjorative, but that would happen with any word generally used to describe the enemy. And haji, by nature, is not a perjorative, but a compliment.

itgoesboom
November 18, 2004, 04:35 PM
I have now seen the entire, unedited video, from a couple sources. Even after watching it repeatedly, I have a hard time coming to a conclusion.

On one hand, to the soldiers there, there is a possibility that the insurgent was "playing dead" so as to ambush the soldiers, and since they honestly felt he was possibly a threat, shooting him was the right thing to do.

On the other hand, the cavalier attitude of the soldier who shot him, and the fact that he didn't search the body right after shooting him, but instead turns around and walks away, doesn't really help his cause.

But then again, I wouldn't want to be the one to overturn a dead insurgent body, especially a day after another Marine is killed in a similar situation.

I have read first hand accounts of soldiers having to shoot at vehicles because the vehicle refused to stop. To the soldiers, it was a threat at the time they started to shoot. But when they searched the truck, they found out there was women and kids inside. Very sad situation, and those people didn't deserve to die.

But the soldiers who shot did so because the rightly felt that there was a threat to them and their fellow soldiers.

The soldiers need to defend their lives when they feel that there is a threat. But at the same time, we don't want our soldiers killing every little thing that moves.

It's a slippery slope, and its something that won't be resolved by all of us here on the internet. This is something that will be looked at by soldiers, and they will determine if what he did was right or wrong.

I.G.B.

Waitone
November 18, 2004, 04:50 PM
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=377

The media attacks on our marine in Fallujah are more ways to get our soldiers killed. This is a guest blog by a former marine and Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, whose blog can be found here.

Security Rounds

We're gonna see more on this issue in the near future. Most folks who've served in combat are taking a much more objective view of how things are changing w/re to the Law of Land Warfare than those who have not.

The shots fired at the "unarmed" terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are called "security rounds." Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists?

Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.

UPDATE: Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and
things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kind of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason.

Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking English to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.

What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that in reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran then everything I have just written is self evident, if you are not a veteran than at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not
easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for war crimes. Be advised, I am not talking to my readers, but if this post gets linked up, I want regular folks to get this message loud and clear.

http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/

Blackhawk 6
November 18, 2004, 04:50 PM
It's a slippery slope, and its something that won't be resolved by all of us here on the internet. This is something that will be looked at by soldiers, and they will determine if what he did was right or wrong.

Well said.

hubel458
November 18, 2004, 05:08 PM
I voted yes. With terrorist involved, boobytrapped corpses,men
from same units dying from same, he was justified to shoot and
not take any chances.Ed.

popeye
November 18, 2004, 06:15 PM
"IMBEDDED" (sp) photographers from now on better use better judgement from now on or they could wind up "ENTOMBED"

What moron would make take that footage and make it public? I hope they make his name known.

Northslope Nimrod
November 18, 2004, 06:36 PM
It's criminal that the Civil Rights Attorney's and Watch Groups are already hanging this Marine. It's like they have lying in wait to pounce on the marines. They don't care about waiting for the evidence. Why? Because they aren't concerned about the marine or the dead terrorist....They have an anti-war, anti-bush agenda! Period! This type of coverage is great propoganda for them.
If the terrorist was faking death and made a sudden movement...then he should be shot.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 06:46 PM
Kevin,

I don't know if a dialogue between us is going to be possible. I don't understand that viewpoint at all, I'll admit it. And I don't think you see mine. I'll try, if you will.

That was basically my whole point. Certain people, such as yourself, do not have the warrior or soldier mentality. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with you it just means you don't belong in the Army in combat. But keeping that in mind you should also not try to impose your viewpoint on those in combat who are fighting for your freedom to hold that viewpoint along with their very survival.

When you are at war the only thing that you have time to care about is your life and the lives of those fighting along side you. It is why the bonds between soldiers are stronger than just about anything else. You must put your life in the hands of those around you and trust them that much. It's why soldiers will fall on grenades to save the lives of their friends, because you know they'd do the same for you. It's why when someone is wounded in the open there is always someone willing to run back into fire to get the wounded man out. It is also why when there is a terrorist enemy who could possibly blow up your whole squad that you will treat him like the threat he is and PULL THE TRIGGER to put the safety of your men over the life of an enemy terrorist. That's the way it is in combat. You don't have to like it, but that's the facts.

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 06:50 PM
"IMBEDDED" (sp) photographers from now on better use better judgement from now on or they could wind up "ENTOMBED"Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 06:52 PM
in other words, you can't back up your statement.

No in other words I don't feel like digging through rules. I notice you just quoted the first sentence and didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my qualifiying statement.

Please explain how an unconscious enemy is supposed to prove that he's not a threat.

Do you know he was unconcious? If a terrorist was that concerned with surrendering then he would find a way to do it. Seeing as how they have already violated MULPTIPLE rules of war especially booby trapping wounded and dead terrorists they do not get the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Would you rather he waited and had a whole squad of marines killed by an IED?

Hawkmoon
November 18, 2004, 06:55 PM
Well, if I was that squad leader, the next time that cameraman/reporter was on patrol with me it would go like this: "Hey, press guy, see that bad guy against the wall over there? He looks like he's faking death. Go roll him him over and see...."
:) :) :) :)

In fact, if I were the company CO I would be sure to assign the photog to the very next patrol I had headed for a terrorist lair, with those instructions to the platoon leader.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 07:02 PM
Coincidence, I'm still here, but I should be asleep.

That's not what I missing. Warrior mentality? Kevin what I was referring to was the statement of yours I quoted directly above what you quoted there.

That was where you said that you don't mind whatever your soldiers do. That leaves the field open to a lot of questionable, and downright wrong actions. Have a think about that.

Also think about what Grossman says about adrenaline filled combat situations - without modern training soldiers had a tendency to band together in the face of their flight or fight reactions - even with enemy soldiers. People like people. Modern training may have over-ridden all that but the price has been high. More British soldiers who fought in the Falklands have committed suicide since, than died there. Getting gung ho about warrior mentality is not a good thing.

Furious styles - thanks for agreeing with me. I read way too much 'two legged critters' and other such dehumanizing epithets around here at times.

Itgoesboom - you're absolutely right. I'm just shocked by the denial that there may be case to answer at all, when as you say we are not in full possession of the facts. An investigation needs to take place.

We've had similar situations to that which describe with the shooting at cars. British soldiers in Northern Ireland have been convicted of murder in that circumstance. Probably not right, but checks on military actions do need to take place, you can't just shoot up every car that fails to stop in Northern Ireland, but then again the car that you let through may be full of explosives. Complicated, and every case needs to be looked at carefully, which is all that I am asking for in this case.

Andrew Wyatt
November 18, 2004, 07:06 PM
Having seen the video and read the audio transcripts, there is no possible way that the soldier was justified in shooting an unarmed prisoner. That soldier (I use the term loosely) is a murderer who deserves neither consideration nor sympathy.

- Chris



He wasn't a prisoner. He had not been taken into custody yet.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:10 PM
Coincidence, I'm still here, but I should be asleep.

That's not what I missing. Warrior mentality? Kevin what I was referring to was the statement of yours I quoted directly above what you quoted there.

That was where you said that you don't mind whatever your soldiers do. That leaves the field open to a lot of questionable, and downright wrong actions. Have a think about that.

Also think about what Grossman says about adrenaline filled combat situations - without modern training soldiers had a tendency to band together in the face of their flight or fight reactions - even with enemy soldiers. People like people. Modern training may have over-ridden all that but the price has been high. More British soldiers who fought in the Falklands have committed suicide since, than died there. Getting gung ho about warrior mentality is not a good thing.

Furious styles - thanks for agreeing with me. I read way too much 'two legged critters' and other such dehumanizing epithets around here at times.

Itgoesboom - you're absolutely right. I'm just shocked by the denial that there may be case to answer at all, when as you say we are not in full possession of the facts. An investigation needs to take place.

We've had similar situations to that which describe with the shooting at cars. British soldiers in Northern Ireland have been convicted of murder in that circumstance. Probably not right, but checks on military actions do need to take place, you can't just shoot up every car that fails to stop in Northern Ireland, but then again the car that you let through may be full of explosives. Complicated, and every case needs to be looked at carefully, which is all that I am asking for in this case.

That statement was part of the warrior mentality. And no you don't have it.....as I said there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact is simple.

War = killing

There is no "nice" or "fair" way to kill someone. You do not wait for him to be ready so it can be fair. You take EVERY advantage you can in order to make sure YOU are the one that does the killing and does not become the killee. Getting "gung ho about the warrior mentality" is the ONLY way to make sure that you survive the combat zone. Like I said however certain people are not able to handle this as evidenced by the suicides that you mentioned. There are really not that many people in the world that understand and can handle war.

As for the situations with the cars, prosecuting the soldiers and convicting them of murder does nothing but ruin morale of the military and have them less likely to do their job in the future. It comes down to this. Either you want the military to do their job or you don't. You can't expect someone to put his life on the line to defend your country when you tie one hand behind his back. This is war and people will die. Some people will die in not so excellent circumstances but that cannot be stopped. There is no such thing as a war where people will not get killed under bad circumstances. That does not make the soldier a murderer. It makes him someone doing his job and putting the safety of his friends over the safety of his enemy. Personally I would have it no other way.

Hawkmoon
November 18, 2004, 07:23 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?
Cannibal, may I ask how old you are and if you have ever served in the military? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
I'mthe firstto pull the legalistic stuff in a political discussion and remind people that we are technically not at "war," because the Congress has not declared war. But, as the training cadre drummed into us ignorant louts before they shipped me to South Vietnam, it doesn't really matter what the polticians call it, when you're a soldier and somebody's shooting at you, it's war.

And in war conditions survival becomes important. In no way do I think what this Marine did could possibly rise to the level of "murder." I don't know if the UCMJ has a charge equivalent to manslaughter. If so, I hope the initial investigation doesn't even see fit to charge him with that. You want to know about murders? Ask Vietnam veterans about a warm and fuzzy little initiation ritual for idiot lieutenants called "fragging." Under the UCMJ it is very definitely a "bad thing" to blow up your own superior officer. Nonetheless, it did happen ... usually because the "victim" was an idiot and allowing him to continue in a command role would have endangered troops.

Why do I bring this up? Because let's face it, man, if combat can lead soldiers to blow up their OWN officers when circumstances make it necessary in order for the team to survive and complete the mission, why do you have so much trouble understanding why a prudent soldier might think it appropriate to neutralize a known enemy that posed an unknown but real and valid threat?

Iain
November 18, 2004, 07:27 PM
I wouldn't dare suggest that guys who committed suicide after the Falklands did so because they didn't have the 'warrior mentality' unless I had directly experienced what they did. I saw an interview with a typical hard British squaddie who admitted that he sees the dead body of the young Argentinian soldier he shot (during combat) several times a day. Lying on a cold hill with his brains in his helmet. Pretty difficult to deal with.

You do everything you can to survive, and even then you'll be lucky to survive unscathed mentally. Allowing for soldiers to 'do anything' is asking for more mental consequences.

War is killing. You're right. And according to Grossman soldiers rationalise that by realising they had to do what they did to survive. If they do things that they realise they didn't need to do - kill old men etc - that cannot be rationalised, except by pretty abnormal people. That is what I am arguing against - the idea that they should just go and do whatever they like - it's the soldiers themselves who pay the price for that, there are things human eyes should never see, and some things humans should never do.

NB _ I'm not saying this particular marine did anything wrong.

popeye
November 18, 2004, 07:30 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?

I'm not suggesting murder ..... I'm suggesting "stuff happens" to those who are traitors to those that serve, and are found out. That's life. The guy who was shot is now being serviced by 1000 virgins according to Allah. So he should be one happy mofo. BTW what do cannibals enjoy the most meal wise?

patentmike
November 18, 2004, 07:31 PM
The situation on the tape is not clear. Nobody sitting in safety and comfort has a right to jump to conclusions. NBC, just like ALjazeera, decided to run the tape for all it's worth to discredit the military and the president. Remember those similar incidents in Bosnia? No? That's because there was no desire by the legacy media to discredit that president. It happened. Combat is messy and it's not exactly something you can switch on and off for the cameras. Wait an extra second to make sure you see a grenade, and you (and the reporter standing over your shoulder) die.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:31 PM
I wouldn't dare suggest that guys who committed suicide after the Falklands did so because they didn't have the 'warrior mentality' unless I had directly experienced what they did. I saw an interview with a typical hard British squaddie who admitted that he sees the dead body of the young Argentinian soldier he shot (during combat) several times a day. Lying on a cold hill with his brains in his helmet. Pretty difficult to deal with.

You do everything you can to survive, and even then you'll be lucky to survive unscathed mentally. Allowing for soldiers to 'do anything' is asking for more mental consequences.

War is killing. You're right. And according to Grossman soldiers rationalise that by realising they had to do what they did to survive. If they do things that they realise they didn't need to do - kill old men etc - that cannot be rationalised, except by pretty abnormal people. That is what I am arguing against - the idea that they should just go and do whatever they like - it's the soldiers themselves who pay the price for that, there are things human eyes should never see, and some things humans should never do.

NB _ I'm not saying this particular marine did anything wrong.

Ok we're starting to get somewhere here. We're basically on the same page except that I do not clasify the terrorist in this situation, who could have very well been a threat, as something that they did not need to do. I think you may be taking my words to the extreme. I'm not talking about shooting someone in the gut just to watch them squirm around and suffer or cutting off ears and making a necklace. I'm talking about using every tactical advantage you can in order to make sure your enemy is killed instead of you. In this case I have to say the benefit of the doubt is not given to terrorists who have already proven they are willing to booby trap bodies and suicide bomb themselves.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 07:34 PM
the day before a group of marines were fired at by the same terrorists in that mosque. how come they didnt see the danger of the guy faking he was dead.
man o man those A-rabs sure are plenty sneaky . they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.
you all shud find out who was in that first group of marines ya know the ones that actually took that mosque and have them retrained into your school of cum -bat training
hell if i was that marine that was shot in da face by some udder non related walking dangerous A-rab id be looking to get me some too even better when they alls shot up like that
well see ya all later gotta go finish my six pack of meister brau and move the pick up truck so me sister/wife can mow the lawn in front of our here trailer

motoman
November 18, 2004, 07:34 PM
This Marine gets a pass. I was not there and Im sure he felt there was a threat present.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 07:41 PM
I think we are getting somewhere.

I'm studiously avoiding passing judgement on this particular case so I'll be a little more general if you don't mind.

I understand what you are saying in that last post, and admit I may have taken your intent a little far. I think I have read too many 'nuke Iraq' posts. I'm all for taking every tactical advantage, and fully agree with the sentiment that 'if you're in a fair fight you did something wrong'. I'm just into treating everyone with a certain amount of dignity, and if all the dignity they deserve is being tied up and left for a while until they can be dealt with properly that's fine.

There are two things I strongly object to - and that's whitewashing this case. As many people have said on this thread - we simply are not in possession of the full facts. That is why an investigation is needed, not a crucifixion. Agree?

The other is the dehumanization, nuke 'em attitude from some. We do need to be careful with that, I'm of a firm belief that this is the primary facilitating factor in all atrocities, be that Rwanda, Kosovo, Auschwitz etc.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:43 PM
the day before a group of marines were fired at by the same terrorists in that mosque. how come they didnt see the danger of the guy faking he was dead.
man o man those A-rabs sure are plenty sneaky . they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.
you all shud find out who was in that first group of marines ya know the ones that actually took that mosque and have them retrained into your school of cum -bat training
hell if i was that marine that was shot in da face by some udder non related walking dangerous A-rab id be looking to get me some too even better when they alls shot up like that
well see ya all later gotta go finish my six pack of meister brau and move the pick up truck so me sister/wife can mow the lawn in front of our here trailer

Wow....just wow. So I take it you're trying to imply that marines are just uneducated hicks by your excellent use of the English language there. :rolleyes:

First of all those terrorists could have very well surrendered the day before and made it clear to the first group of marines that they surrenedered. That group of marines was most likely not equipped to take prisoners so they left them in the mosque for someone else to pick up.

they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.

Second of all......YES that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you really think it is so far fetched that as soon as the original marines were out of the area they would have thought twice about re-arming themselves or possibly stapping an IED device on so they could suicide bomb. Oh of course not.....they're too honorable for that. :rolleyes:

As for your insinuation about the trailor park....very classy. I just love pure and utter ignorance right out for everyone to see. :fire:

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:47 PM
I think we are getting somewhere.

I'm studiously avoiding passing judgement on this particular case so I'll be a little more general if you don't mind.

I understand what you are saying in that last post, and admit I may have taken your intent a little far. I think I have read too many 'nuke Iraq' posts. I'm all for taking every tactical advantage, and fully agree with the sentiment that 'if you're in a fair fight you did something wrong'. I'm just into treating everyone with a certain amount of dignity, and if all the dignity they deserve is being tied up and left for a while until they can be dealt with properly that's fine.

There are two things I strongly object to - and that's whitewashing this case. As many people have said on this thread - we simply are not in possession of the full facts. That is why an investigation is needed, not a crucifixion. Agree?

The other is the dehumanization, nuke 'em attitude from some. We do need to be careful with that, I'm of a firm belief that this is the primary facilitating factor in all atrocities, be that Rwanda, Kosovo, Auschwitz etc.

We're gettin closer except that I do believe there is enough information in this case to determine this marine did nothing wrong. Due to the fact that it is widely known and already proven that the insurgents will booby trap bodies and suicide bomb themselves in order to kill marines I don't think that there is any reason why that terrorist on the ground would not be a threat. As was said before in the long version of the video the same marines did NOT kill the rest of the wounded insurgents who responded to commands and complied with orders. This man was clearly a threat......whether he turned out to be strapped to blow or not doesn't really matter. As I said before the burden of proof is on the enemy to prove he wants to surrender.....not on our soldier to prove he is a threat....that is already presumed.

Iain
November 18, 2004, 07:52 PM
Dialogue is good.

I think essentially we understand each. We differ on this case, but only because I think it is premature to pass judgement. I understand how you have come to your conclusion. It worries me a little, but much less than any 'nuke 'em' posts do. I'm sure there will be an investigation, and hopefully any resulting court action (if any at all) will be far from a show trial.

Transatlantic dialogue is all well and good, especially when I feel like contact has been made, but the downside is that it is presently ten to one in the morning.

Night.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:55 PM
Dialogue is good.

I think essentially we understand each. We differ on this case, but only because I think it is premature to pass judgement. I understand how you have come to your conclusion. It worries me a little, but much less than any 'nuke 'em' posts do. I'm sure there will be an investigation, and hopefully any resulting court action (if any at all) will be far from a show trial.

Transatlantic dialogue is all well and good, especially when I feel like contact has been made, but the downside is that it is presently ten to one in the morning.

Night.

Doh!.....alright well good to come to a conclusion. If I'm ever in England I'll have to buy ya a brew of whatever you guys drink over there. :)

Iain
November 18, 2004, 07:57 PM
Doh!.....alright well good to come to a conclusion. If I'm ever in England I'll have to buy ya a brew of whatever you guys drink over there. :)

That's a kind offer, but we drink beer - I don't know if you've ever really tried that. :neener: (-note the rare use of smilie - too tired to convey that I am kidding with words)

I really hope this thread can remain civil and unlocked.

It really is goodnight this time.

coma
November 18, 2004, 08:06 PM
I voted that the shooter was justified.

I can only say i probably would have done the same thing, when in the midst of a battle, shoot first and stay alive is the only rule that is needed. If people don't like it then don't fight ...just die.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:09 PM
Wow....just wow. So I take it you're trying to imply that marines are just uneducated hicks by your excellent use of the English language there. :rolleyes:

First of all those terrorists could have very well surrendered the day before and made it clear to the first group of marines that they surrenedered. That group of marines was most likely not equipped to take prisoners so they left them in the mosque for someone else to pick up.



Second of all......YES that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you really think it is so far fetched that as soon as the original marines were out of the area they would have thought twice about re-arming themselves or possibly stapping an IED device on so they could suicide bomb. Oh of course not.....they're too honorable for that. :rolleyes:

As for your insinuation about the trailor park....very classy. I just love pure and utter ignorance right out for everyone to see. :fire:

actually i respect the marines too bad this got out
but to hear the far fetched explanations i have heard here trying to rationalise the killing of a wounded man yeah i do look down a little

im guessing here we all are
but im guessing the marine in question was pretty pissed off at being shot in the face " i would be too"
that he was out to kill some of the bastards including the defenseless
just cause i dont care about the iraqi or the marines behavioour at least im honest
the marine murdered a helpless man and i dont care if he did
so if thats what you mean freaking say it stop trying to come up with these
"oh the man was dangerous fantasies" makes you look kinda.....
well you can come up with your own words

on a side note the photogs name is kevin sites
http://www.kevinsites.net/2004_10_17_archive.html

here is he web blog check out the cool photos of the guys he was embedded with

i think that marine forgot the reporter was there when he did that
otherwise why would he of shown remorse
10 dollars says he is convicted of murder
who is a taker on that PM me we will set up the paypal transactions

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:09 PM
That's a kind offer, but we drink beer - I don't know if you've ever really tried that. :neener: (-note the rare use of smilie - too tired to convey that I am kidding with words)

I really hope this thread can remain civil and unlocked.

It really is goodnight this time.

Ok I'll try your English "beer".....but I'll make sure to bring you some American Whiskey. :neener:

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:15 PM
actually i respect the marines too bad this got out
but to hear the far fetched explanations i have heard here trying to rationalise the killing of a wounded man yeah i do look down a little

im guessing here we all are
but im guessing the marine in question was pretty pissed off at being shot in the face " i would be too"
that he was out to kill some of the bastards including the defenseless
just cause i dont care about the iraqi or the marines behavioour at least im honest
the marine murdered a helpless man and i dont care if he did
so if thats what you mean freaking say it stop trying to come up with these
"oh the man was dangerous fantasies" makes you look kinda.....
well you can come up with your own words

10 dollars says he is convicted of murder
who is a taker on that PM me we will set up the paypal transactions

Number 1. You are crossing the line insinuating that this marine was out to kill some wounded people because he was wounded the previous day. You are NOT in his mind and the facts show he had perfectly good reason to percieve a threat.

the marine murdered a helpless man and i dont care if he did
so if thats what you mean freaking say it stop trying to come up with these
"oh the man was dangerous fantasies" makes you look kinda.....
well you can come up with your own words


Number 2. How many times do I have to tell you that is not my position. I am not coming up with "fantisies". You sir are the one saying that you know what he was thinking and that he was out to get a wounded terrorist.

I refuse to explain this again as I have done so 100 times and you still don't seem to get it. Have you noticed that the poll is running about 16 to 1 saying that the marine was justified as opposed to not justified. Maybe you could take a hint from that. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:19 PM
the guy faking "death" had what a ak 47 a nade?
how come cops dont shoot drunks passed out on the side walk?
im guessing its cause "they look at theyre hands!
he check out this wounded iraqi video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
tell me what he is hiding

make ya feel better?

CannibalCrowley
November 18, 2004, 08:26 PM
Cannibal, may I ask how old you are and if you have ever served in the military?Already answered, read the thread. I find it interesting that you quoted me about someone who was advocating that soldiers murder reporters, yet you never addressed that point.
I'm not suggesting murder ..... I'm suggesting "stuff happens" to those who are traitors to those that serve, and are found out.In other words, yes you are advocating murder. Now I'm interested in why you'd consider someone a traitor just because he reported a possible crime. Do you consider the soldier who turned over the Abu Gharib pictures to be a traitor as well?

The guy who was shot is now being serviced by 1000 virgins according to Allah. So he should be one happy mofo.1000 virgins huh, I'm going to take a leap here and say that you've never read the Koran. Of course by your logic we shouldn't care about our own dead because each is off enjoying his respective afterlife.No in other words I don't feel like digging through rules. I notice you just quoted the first sentence and didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my qualifiying statement.I didn't bother to respond because the rest of it didn't matter. You claimed that feigning death was against the rules of war and now you refuse to back up your claim.
Do you know he was unconcious?Do you know he wasn't?

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:26 PM
the guy faking "death" had what a ak 47 a nade?


Could have easily had a grenade, IED, or a pistol concealed on him.

how come cops dont shoot drunks passed out on the side walk?

We've already been over this. Pay attention. Drunks on the side walk are not in a combat zone. This man was. Any non US personnel in a combat zone is deamed a threat unless proven otherwise, and the burden is on the enemy not the US soldier.

im guessing its cause "they look at theyre hands!

1. His hands weren't showing.
2. There have been police shootings where someone made a furtive movement and looked like he was reaching for a weapon that it turned out he did not have. The officer was not convicted a murder, though some people like you i'm sure would call for it.

he check out this wounded iraqi video
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5365.htm
tell me what he is hiding

make ya feel better?


Yep, that's war alright. When you have an enemy in your sights you kill them. That's the way it is. Wounded soldiers have been used for bait to shoot other soldiers when they came to rescue ever since the beginning of war. Why let an enemy get away only to be healed up and come back to kill you another day?

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:30 PM
Do you know he wasn't?

As I already said. The burden is NOT on the marine to prove an enemy is a threat. The burden is on the enemy to prove he is NOT a threat. As a former serviceman I can't believe you don't understand this.

I didn't bother to respond because the rest of it didn't matter. You claimed that feigning death was against the rules of war and now you refuse to back up your claim.

Of course it didn't matter because it goes right against your arguement. I really don't care if feigning death is against the rules of war or not.....THAT is what does not matter. What matters is that these people are proven to suicide bomb themselves and booby trap bodies. That equals THREAT in my book. When someone is showing hands and saying loudly "I SURRENDER" then they will no longer be a threat.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:30 PM
LOOK OUT!!
Over there ! That amputee has a rpg grafted onto his bleeding stumps of legs!

Omg That Profusely Bleeding wounded man blood is made of gasoline and he intends to ignite his own Blood!

Keep reaching
Bump
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:33 PM
LOOK OUT!!
Over there ! That amputee has a rpg grafted onto his bleeding stumps of legs!

Omg That Profusely Bleeding wounded man blood is made of gasoline and he intends to ignite his own Blood!

Keep reaching

I'm just not going to reply to any more of your posts. You are making me so furious that I could not possibly draft a response that would be appropriate for this forum if I truely said what I feel about you right now. You obviously have NO concern for OUR soldiers fighting for OUR country. Sickening.....absolutely sickening. Why don't you throw around some more trailer park jokes...that would be appropriate. :fire:

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:39 PM
good im glad your angry
im not im laughing at ya
ya cant be honest
OMG Hes faking Death and he has a Nuke coming out of his ass!
i dont care that he killed the iraqi

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

ok what threat was this shot up iraqi ?
just wondering what ya think he was doing writhing on the ground when they shot him maybe he was arming a claymore jockstrap
i am glad he is dead but i want to hear your rationalisation on how he was a threat to several armed marines shooting him for sport

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 08:43 PM
good im glad your angry
im not im laughing at ya
ya cant be honest
OMG Hes faking Death and he has a Nuke coming out of his ass!
i dont care that he killed the iraqi

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

ok what threat was this shot up iraqi ?
just wondering what ya think he was doing writhing on the ground when they shot him maybe he was arming a claymore jockstrap
i am glad he is dead but i want to hear your rationalisation on how he was a threat to several armed marines shooting him for sport

I know I said I wasn't going to do this but I can't be called a liar and not respond. I'm going to say this once more and once more only.

I AM BEING HONEST

Is that clear enough for you? This marine was justified in his shooting, there was a threat. You go ahead and make all your jokes about nukes coming out asses and whatever you want to do but he was a threat. It doesn't take a healthy man to press a button and blow up an IED. They have ALREADY done this. What part of that don't you understand??

So let me summarize your position here if I may.......

Marines are rednecks and those 177 of us supporting this marine are all liars. Gee I'm glad YOU are the fair one. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:58 PM
179 people said he was justified
they didnt say why they feel he was justified
i dont see 179 posts saying they believe he was a threat
i just see 179 posts saying he was justified
that means to me they dont care if he was a threat or not screw him hes the enemy just kill him and be done with it
i dont feel he was justified for killing him i just dont care
see thats honesty

can you tell me how this guy was a threat lying there?
great video have to check it out

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 09:09 PM
can you tell me how this guy was a threat lying there?

Ok now I get it. This is a joke. You're just screwing with me. I've already made at least 20 posts explaining EXACTLY WHY this man was a threat. You have chosen to ignore them or call them "dreams". But now I get it. You're just messing around......because no one can be that DENSE to not have read my explaining over and OVER and OVER again just why this terrorist was a threat.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 09:15 PM
no im not "messing " with you
i will believe you believe your theorys on why you think this guy was a threat
but i believe my thoerys on why i think he wasnt and im willing to put up money this man is found guilty of murder
15 bucks says he is found guilty of murder
whose in?

for those of you that havent seen this here is a video of sport shooting an iraqi by the marines
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
doesnt make me happy doesnt make me sad i dont know the iraqi and his death affects me none
but do you think the marines are acting morally or immorally

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 09:18 PM
U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself. Continued

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 09:19 PM
no im not "messing " with you
i will believe you believe your theorys on why you think this guy was a threat
but i believe my thoerys on why i think he wasnt and im willing to put up money this man is found guilty of murder
15 bucks says he is found guilty of murder
whose in?

for those of you that havent seen this here is a video of sport shooting an iraqi by the marines
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
doesnt make me happy doesnt make me sad i dont know the iraqi and his death affects me none
but do you think the marines are acting morally or immorally

I would bet you but 1. I don't trust the courts to do what is right and 2. I might not be around when everything is finished to collect my money.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 09:20 PM
Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

1SG Perry D. Jefferies <pjefferies@hot.rr.com>
Copperas Cove, TX

www.jeffzed.org
...information wants to be free...

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 09:24 PM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109904/

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 09:28 PM
U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself. Continued

That's all well and good and also irrelavant. This man was NOT a POW nor was he in custody.

AhmuqGB
November 18, 2004, 09:30 PM
Some ineresting points not brought up yet...
1. If Falluja had in fact been evacuated as I believe it was and the civilian population informed of the requirement to leave anyone then remaining could in theory be considered a beligerent (and since the beligerent fail to meet and of the requirements of the geneva convention, we already extend way more than any law of war requires)

2. If the above statement is true and the marines had taken fire from the building then definately anyone inside could be considered hostile (with the possible exception/addition of hostages or human shields which to date has not been a technique used by the insurgents).

3. There is no requirement in the Geneva or hague conventions requiring sides to take prisoners unless they have surrendered, or have been injured in a manner that places the in the out of combat category which is generally not determined until after crossing an objective while searching the OBJ and consolidating. Once they have done that however they are required to provide for their well being as stipulated in the genva conventions that we are signators of (which is not all of them).

Bottom line is that there are a lot of mitigating factors (unfortunately mostly legal distinctions) in this that we do not know. The Marine should and will have a fair investigation and personally I hope he is found innocent of all charges, but we don't know enough to make that judgement either way.

The part I'm waiting for is the international community to try to get hold of of this and turn it into a circus.

Moondoggie
November 18, 2004, 09:31 PM
OK, I'll take a stab at this.

First of all, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a retired Marine.

Please don't assume that I'm incapable of objectivity.

There will be (already underway) an Article 32 Investigation which will report it's findings of fact and recommendations to the Convening Authority (probably the Commanding General). There may or may not be a Court Martial. The Marine in question may go to prison for a long time, or he may receive a medal/commendation...there are about a dozen options in between.
Politics and concerns regarding public opinion should not play a role in the investigation or judicial processes.....but they will.

He is innocent until proven guilty. As of this point in time, he hasn't even been charged with a crime. It's under investigation. All of the relevant facts will be considered, including the Marine's past performance and evaluations by his seniors. Also, what experiences the Marine had been through in Fallujah will be considered. Did he get shot in the face by an "insurgent" who was feigning death? Had other Marines he knew been killed/wounded by "insurgents" using the same tactics? What emphasis had been placed on identifying threat tactics of "insurgents" during his training and reinforced just prior to the operation in Fallujah? None of us know the answers to these questions, but they will be covered in the investigation.

My OPINION is that he probably acted as most "ordinary, reasonable, and prudent" persons would have acted in the identical situation. Factor-in his experiences from the previous few days, and the stress of the situation of other Marines shouting warnings at him "He's not dead, he's faking he's dead!"
If the person who was yelling this was his fireteam leader/squad leader he may have perceived the shouted warning as an order to neutralize a potential threat. After all, he didn't just casually stroll into the room and cooly dispatch every non-Marine that he saw. Establishing his state of mind as being in immediate fear of losing his life isn't reaching...he'd been living in that state for days. I'm inclined to think that he may have made a mistake in a split second decision, but that doesn't constitute murder.

The difference between our guys and "The enemy" is that we will take the time to investigate (and punish, if warranted). Folks in our country will wail and gnash their teeth! Do any of you think that "they" would give an incident such as this a second thought? Remember what happens to "our" non combatant prisoners? Heard any condemnations of westerners being beheaded on Al Jezerra lately?

That's what puts us on the high road.

Oh, yeah.....and I second everything the Seal said in the article qouted. above!

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 09:35 PM
very good article
i sincerly liked it
i do have my "belief" this was murder
the marine that did it "knew" he was not a threat
and he killed him for "revenge"

hey did you check out this video?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 09:41 PM
the marine that did it "knew" he was not a threat

That's a pretty neat trick you have there where you can tell what a person knows and when he knows it. Interesting indeed. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 09:47 PM
That's a pretty neat trick you have there where you can tell what a person knows and when he knows it. Interesting indeed. :rolleyes:

i have my beliefs you have yours
i got 20.00 says hes guilty of murder by a panel of his peers
hey check out this video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

CentralTexas
November 18, 2004, 11:17 PM
i have my beliefs you have yours
i got 20.00 says hes guilty of murder by a panel of his peers
hey check out this video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

What's your point in posting this CNN/Michael Moore type stuff?
Oh- will a couple of guys dealing with death by being flip would convice us all GI's are bad?????
Ever work in a hospital E.R.-there's gallows humor city. Ever laugh after almost dying to relieve stress? Understand how humans deal with things beyond the car won't start crisis?
You seem to have a big hardon for the military.
CT

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 11:25 PM
What's your point in posting this CNN/Michael Moore type stuff?
Oh- will a couple of guys dealing with death by being flip would convice us all GI's are bad?????
Ever work in a hospital E.R.-there's gallows humor city. Ever laugh after almost dying to relieve stress? Understand how humans deal with things beyond the car won't start crisis?
You seem to have a big hardon for the military.
CT
dont like it seeing guys acting like this?
too bad
its a video link below
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
i wasnt there shooting that guy want to give them medals for there behaviour?
if this was your son acting like this would ya be proud of it?
would ya be comfortable showing that to your clergyman if you were the one in that video?
would ya be showing your neighbors hey thats my son bubba shooting the dying A-rab and then doing high fives aint he the coolest
me thinks this will be another al qaeda recruiting video
again check out this video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
morally right or morally wrong you decide
heres the ucmj

U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself

if its ok to shoot wounded prisoners is it ok to rape there women too?
i mean seriously if we bend one law why cant we bend others

Kim
November 18, 2004, 11:54 PM
As a physician I can tell you medical humor would sound alwful to those outside the profession. Sig would never make it through Gross Anatomy without calling for an investigation done by some ethics committee. I remember when I was doing an ER rotation during my intern year. We had just run a code on a patient that died. A freshman student fainted. The Attending Physician went and got a boom box and slapped in a tape and out came screming the song " Boom, Boom, Boom-------Another one Bites the Dust------Boom, Boom Boom. That is just one such example. :evil:

DRZinn
November 19, 2004, 12:05 AM
i wasnt there shooting that guy want to give them medals for there (sic) behaviour (sic)?
Yep.

if this was your son acting like this would ya be proud of it?
A little.

would ya be comfortable showing that to your clergyman if you were the one in that video?
Nope. I don't have a clergyman. But I'd show it to Preacherman.

would ya be showing your neighbors hey thats my son bubba shooting the dying A-rab and then doing high fives aint he the coolest
If they were interested in such things, then yes.

me thinks this will be another al qaeda recruiting video
Well, every time a terrorist dies it serves their recruiting purpose. Should we stop killing terrorists?

if its ok to shoot wounded prisoners is it ok to rape there women too?
Again, sigmaman - they weren't prisoners. How many times must this be repeated?

Art Eatman
November 19, 2004, 12:08 AM
"Gallows Humor", "Black Humor", "Cop Humor", etc: Whatever label, "sick" humor has been around for centuries. It's merely a way to preserve some semblance of sanity in insane or horrible situations.

I'd have to say that being in the middle of shooting and explosions would qualify as a wee tad rough on the psyche...

But I'm not even gonna bother to speculate until after the investigation is done...

Art

Rich K
November 19, 2004, 12:30 AM
I will NOT play Monday morning quarterback,or try to second guess this soldier.I am not marching in his boots.

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 12:59 AM
tell me these guys werent having fun?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
see i think your making comments without seeing the video
go ahead click on the link it wont hurt ya
then come back and rationalise that behaviour

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 01:02 AM
Again, sigmaman - they weren't prisoners. How many times must this be repeated?

well if you keep repeating it then it must be true
al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11
al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11
al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11 al qaeda/ 9/11
ok we have established a link between saddam and 9/11

tooth fairy / santa claus tooth fairy / santa claus
tooth fairy / santa claus tooth fairy / santa claus
tooth fairy / santa claus tooth fairy / santa claus
tooth fairy / santa claus tooth fairy / santa claus
ok santa and the tooth fairy exist now

this is fun

Dbl0Kevin
November 19, 2004, 01:03 AM
tell me these guys werent having fun?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
see i think your making comments without seeing the video
go ahead click on the link it wont hurt ya
then come back and rationalise that behaviour

Since you obviously have trouble reading things and insist on posting that same video in every post I shall RE-post my response to it.

Yep, that's war alright. When you have an enemy in your sights you kill them. That's the way it is. Wounded soldiers have been used for bait to shoot other soldiers when they came to rescue ever since the beginning of war. Why let an enemy get away only to be healed up and come back to kill you another day?

intruder13
November 19, 2004, 01:07 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/as123/petition.html

To: U.S. Congress

Friday November 12 2004

U.S.Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.

They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.

The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded insurgents would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again.

Four of the insurgents appeared to have been shot again in Saturday's fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the insurgents appeared to be breathing.

A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."

The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the insurgents head, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."

The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another Iraqi insurgent lying motionless. But one of the Marines step back as the insurgent stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The other Marine stands his ground, but neither of them fires.

When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday's firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know."

"You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is saying, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded."

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.

NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the Iraqi insurgent had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.

About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.

Amnesty International has noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and have used white flags to lure Marines into ambushes.

The Marine who shot the insurgent has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of an investigation, the U.S. military said.

These terrorists do not follow the rules of war. These terrorists kill innocent women by disemboweling them, cut of the heads of innocent truck drivers, detonate car bombs in crowds full of innocent people, and fly planes into buildings filled with innocent Americans.

It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. We don't need our young men and women taking an extra second to decide if its right to shoot an enemy terrorist when that could mean that one of our soldiers could lose their life. The lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor in this war against terrorism. The rights of terrorists can come second.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Dbl0Kevin
November 19, 2004, 01:19 AM
Good deal Intruder. Signed away. :)

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 01:44 AM
check out this video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm


Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

1SG Perry D. Jefferies <pjefferies@hot.rr.com>
Copperas Cove, TX

www.jeffzed.org
...information wants to be free...

rationalise this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 01:46 AM
How would you feel
would it of been murder?
yes or no
i know this is useless cause your going to skirt the issue or just not post
ifthis had been an american and the roles reversed would it of been murder?

look at this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Sindawe
November 19, 2004, 02:03 AM
Thanks for the link Intruder13. Signed as well, and past onto email buddies.

Yep sigmaman, thats what happens in war. People shooting at other people, some of whom get killed. Shooting at the guys in uniform when there is a war going is just asking to get shot at in return, and sometimes treated none to politely when the shooting stops. Its one of the risks of participating in warfare.

Personally, I have no problems with the way this Marine performed his duties in time of war.ifthis had been an american and the roles reversed would it of been murder? Nope. If my enemy subdues me in combat, then runs off to contine the battle elsewhere, leaving me to my own devices, I'm gonna do what I can to continue the fight when he comes back, since our differences have not yet been resolved. One of the duties and risks of war one assumes when one chooses to participate.

RevDisk
November 19, 2004, 02:19 AM
I sincerely doubt the Marine will be convicted of murder. He might get busted for not following orders, unless he misunderstood an order from his chain of command. We're not supposed to shoot unarmed persons, period. There is an operative word "reasonable" in how we judge someone to be unarmed.

Do I think it was a good shoot? No, probably not. Things happen. I hope the guy doesn't get nailed to as political appeasement, I do hope the guy gets a fair investigation. If he was indeed a nutter executing people for amusement, he needs a long stay in a padded room. If he thought his platoon sergeant ordered him to shoot someone that possibly had a weapon, "oops" would be appropriate.

I sincerely worry about the people on this forum that advocated killing or "things happening" to reporters. Anyone advocating killing of reporters that bring further possible misconduct of government personnel need serious help. Same goes for people advocating killing anyone that brings to light "unpatriotic" information.

Leaky Waders
November 19, 2004, 06:25 AM
I am honored to be serving with the few and the proud right now. I am not in Fallujah, but these men are behaving honorably and well amidst difficut scenarios. Don't judge them too harshly or severly based upon a video tape. After all Moondoggie pointed out that the many video tapes of civilian beheadings hasn't prompted outrage from the Arab world - merely a quiet acceptance of 'win at all costs.'

Fyi...

This is one story of many that people normally don't hear, and one that everyone does.This is just one most don't hear: A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives. The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag. But no one hears these stories, except > those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.

This is the story everyone hears: A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insugent can be heard saying,"Mister,mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded.Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!" The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead. Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for commiting a war crime. Unlawful killing. And now, another Marine has the possibility of being burned at the stake for protecting the life of his brethren. His family now wrings their hands in grief, tears streaming down their face. Brother, should I have been in your boots, I too would have done the same. For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families. For those of you who sit on your couches in front of your television, and choose to condemn this man's actions, I have but one thing to say to you. Get out of you recliner, lace up your boots, pick up a rifle, leave your Family behind and join me. See what I've seen, walk where I have walked. To those of you who support us, my sincerest gratitude. You keep us alive. I am a Marine currently doing his second tour in Iraq. These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent those of the Marine Corps or of the
US military, or any other.

Sincerely,

LCPL (I have deleted his name)
USMC

Delmar
November 19, 2004, 06:42 AM
I don't know if the UCMJ has a charge equivalent to manslaughter

They don't award decorations from a courts martial, and if this marine is charged and goes to his courts martial, you can bet they are going to convict him of something.

If all else fails, conduct unbecoming is the original Catch-22. Even if he is not charged with anything at the courts martial, the record will follow that man for the rest of his military days. Very few people stay in the military after a courts martial, even the few who are found totally without blame. The military takes a very dim view of any serving person who brings unfavorable light on them-whether it is justified or not.

Only attended one courts martial-not mine, and from those proceedings, I'd say the situation is a flip-flop. More like you have to prove your innocence than something assumed until the evidence is weighed.

Ought to be pretty satisfying to some like Sigma-man, who already tried and convicted the man based on a few minutes of tape. Hopefully, the courts-martial proceedings will look just a bit deeper.

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 07:55 AM
I don't know if the UCMJ has a charge equivalent to manslaughter

Ought to be pretty satisfying to some like Sigma-man, who already tried and convicted the man based on a few minutes of tape. Hopefully, the courts-martial proceedings will look just a bit deeper.

satisfying to me woould be the tape didnt air and the marine went about his job. good people have bad days and we are all capable of mistakes.

the marine made a mistake
and the reporter made a mistake
period.

Blackhawk 6
November 19, 2004, 08:03 AM
That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

Let us assume that the terrorist that was killed qualified for protected status(something that is still open to debate.) If your side abuses the protected status, you lose it. You can not wave a white flag and shoot me when I come out to accept your surrender and then complain when the next time you wave a white flag, I keep shooting. THAT is how the Law of Land Warfare works.

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 08:11 AM
U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself
BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF ABOVE NOT BEING FOLLOWED
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

cuchulainn
November 19, 2004, 08:18 AM
I voted "not enough info," although my bias sides with the marine. I hope with all my heart that he comes out of this with his career, reputation and life intact.

However, it is quite disheartening to see all the posts that essentially say that shooting unarmed and wounded prisoners is always OK or even a good thing. Thank God that the battle-tested veterans in charge of our field operations don't take the same postition -- they understand what damage that such a hypothetical loose cannon would do to discipline and unit cohesion.

But I guess it's easy to sit at your computer and thump your chest about "Kill them All, Whenever and However" when you don't have to worry about how such lack of discipline could lead to the unnecessary deaths of men under your command, not to mention hurting your mission. :barf:

That said, it's equally easy and wrong to attack this marine without all the facts :barf:

Warbow
November 19, 2004, 10:01 AM
sigmaman:

That video in the link you keep posting is edited to make it seem like the Marines in it just decided to shoot a random Iraqi. What the edited video doesn't tell you is that just before they shot him he raised up his AK and pointed it (which you can see laying on the ground beside him) at the Marines. You raise your weapon at Marines in a threatening manner and you get shot and killed. It's very simple.

Here's the full transcript (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/cp.00.html). Here's a piece of it, including the part that is in the video:

U.S. Marines, Sergeant Riddle's team, searching an industrial area near Baghdad. Along the road they encounter Iraqis who point their AK-47s at the Marines.

RIDDLE: One of my guys got up on his hood and took the first guy out, shot him right in the heart. And he dropped instantly.

CROWLEY: Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.

RIDDLE: Like, man, you guys are dead now, you know. But it was a good feeling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fire!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah!

CROWLEY: When the battle is over and you are still standing, the adrenalin rush is huge.

RIDDLE: I mean, afterwards you're like, hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let's do it again.

See the part I put in bold? Yeah, that's the part they edited out of the little video clip to make the Marines look like cold blooded murderers so people like you would fall for it and bleat about how awful they are. Anything else I'd like to say to you is not High Road material. :fire:

Baba Louie
November 19, 2004, 10:57 AM
Fog of War
War IS Hell
They are there. I am not.

Enemy Combatant, Insurgent, Terrorist, Freedom Fighter... whatever term you want to use from/for your particular point of view (either side) I am in no position to judge anyone over there.

Everyone was doing their job. From the camera crew to the Marine in question to the man defending and dying for his homeland.

I wish it all weren't happening... but it is. I hope that all of our guys and gals come home safe, relatively sane and to a warm welcome. I hope that whatever Courts Martial findings are found determine that this Marine was doing his job under extreme circumstances with an eye to proper military conduct.

It's cold, it's cruel. It's true. Better Him than Me.

My prayers are with them ALL. The eyes of the world are upon them and we may be our harshest critics as our ideals might very well be impossible to live up to at all times, tho' God knows we try. Our manner of fighting fair (if that's a realistic possibility with our technology vs. their fanaticism), by rules of conduct ignored by the other side, with camera crew in tow, (video subject to select editing by some news producer somewhere safe and cozy), certainly makes it more difficult to believe my lying eyes or my lying heart.

What and Who is right? Who and What is wrong? We've covered both sides in this thread and can never reach the exact right answer. We were not there that day. That week.

But I could be wrong.

The Rabbi
November 19, 2004, 11:07 AM
The CNN tape was obviously edited so nothing can be made of it.

The video of the Fallujah shooting was more disturbing. My knee jerk reaction is to support the troops because they're the ones there, on the ground etc. That said, the video is not pretty. From my poor German I understood the commentator to say that when they found the guy one marine said, this one's still moving. The other one shot him and said "he isnt anymore." I would be calling for an investigation. But I am certainly not ready to condemn the guy. The Army has every incentive to convict him but I am reasonably confident in their ability to sort this out themselves.

Master Blaster
November 19, 2004, 11:52 AM
The marines are being too caring and respectful of the mosque:

Here is what they should now do instead to avoid this problem in the future: call in an airstrike, or have a tank level the place. Then there will be no potential for this probelm to develop again. Not allow reporters to tag along and film the war as it happens.

The folks who are crying over this are just like the folks who would rather see a 767 full of passengers shot down by an F-15, rather than allow the pilots to carry a gun, because the gun is too scarry.

The marines are not responsible for the terrorists safety, only the safety of their fellow marines. The fact that there were other wounded in the room and the marine did not shoot them proves he was using a safe and justifiable level of force in the situation.

AhmuqGB
November 19, 2004, 12:56 PM
Why do we keep refering to these guys as prisoners?? The clip of the insurgent outside the building on the ground is from what I see clearly a clean shoot. As to an earlier post

if it was a US soldier I would not consider it murder, it would be one of the most unfortunate aspects of war but none the less a result of US forces acting in the defense of their country and making the ultimate sacrifice. We kit up and depart whatever base we may be at knowing that we may lose our lives as a result of the profession we chose. Why on earth would I let that guy on the ground get behind cover only to have him shooting at me again a few days or weeks later. The other video clip floating around is a bit more disturbing. Not enough about that one to say either way. I hope the Marine was doing the right thing, but that's what the investigation will determine.

Dbl0Kevin
November 19, 2004, 01:02 PM
Why do we keep refering to these guys as prisoners?? The clip of the insurgent outside the building on the ground is from what I see clearly a clean shoot. As to an earlier post

if it was a US soldier I would not consider it murder, it would be one of the most unfortunate aspects of war but none the less a result of US forces acting in the defense of their country and making the ultimate sacrifice. We kit up and depart whatever base we may be at knowing that we may lose our lives as a result of the profession we chose. Why on earth would I let that guy on the ground get behind cover only to have him shooting at me again a few days or weeks later. The other video clip floating around is a bit more disturbing. Not enough about that one to say either way. I hope the Marine was doing the right thing, but that's what the investigation will determine.


THANK YOU. I was just going to make a post very similar to this. In reference to:

However, it is quite disheartening to see all the posts that essentially say that shooting unarmed and wounded prisoners is always OK or even a good thing.

Why is it so hard to understand that this terrorist was NOT an prisoner. He was in an unsecured area of a combat zone and was STILL an enemy combatant. It is common practice for men in his condition to suicide bomb and kill marines and it would not have taken much for the same to happen with him.

cuchulainn
November 19, 2004, 01:55 PM
Why is it so hard to understand that this terrorist was NOT an prisoner. He was in an unsecured area of a combat zone and was STILL an enemy combatant. It is common practice for men in his condition to suicide bomb and kill marines and it would not have taken much for the same to happen with him. Actually, believe it or not, I tend to agree. If people left it at the facts of this case, I'd have no problem.

HOWEVER, we are seeing people make chest-thumping, armchair-corporal blanket statements that go far beyond the facts of this case.

It is WRONG to shoot unarmed and wounded people (regardless of their prisoner status). Yes, there can be understandible mistakes and extenuating circumstances in battle..

I tend to believe this marine DID NOT do that, or at least there are extenuating circumstances. Nonetheless, I reject and will oppose those who deny that such actions WOULD have been wrong if he did in fact take them (which, once again, I suspect he did not do, but we do not have all the facts).

Geez-o-friggin peeze. It's like someone is wrongly accused of rape and we have people arguing that rape is OK instead of simply pointing out the fact that support the guy's innocence.

Oh, and in case anyone didn't get it. I suspect the marine is innocent, but I maintain that his actions WOULD have been wrong if he in fact did it.

And another thing, in case someone missed it the many times I've said it before -- I suspect the marine is innocent, but I maintain that his actions WOULD have been wrong if he in fact did it.

Did I say that I suspect the marine is innocent, but I maintain that his actions WOULD have been wrong if he in fact did it?

homeka45
November 19, 2004, 04:42 PM
Why waste resources treating this wounded terrorist so he can get well and attack US troops in the future. Rest assured that any US Marine captured by terrorists would be exploited, tortured, and eventually beheaded, all in the name of their benevolent god.

The Rabbi
November 19, 2004, 04:59 PM
Why waste resources treating this wounded terrorist so he can get well and attack US troops in the future. Rest assured that any US Marine captured by terrorists would be exploited, tortured, and eventually beheaded, all in the name of their benevolent god.

Just because the enemy acts like animals shouldnt give us license to do likewise. If we get to that point then the terrorists really will be justified.

homeka45
November 19, 2004, 05:26 PM
Better to be hated and feared, than hated and held in contempt.

cuchulainn
November 19, 2004, 05:35 PM
Better to be hated and feared, than hated and held in contempt. 1) Our military is feared mightily right now. They don't need to become like the thugs they fight to be feared.

2) Our military's mission is to fight and kill terrorists. If they start acting just like those terrorists, do they have to fight and kill themselves? [/jack-handy]

mercedesrules
November 19, 2004, 05:50 PM
McCain Wants to Hide US War Crimes
McCain acknowledges that the Marine who shot the unarmed wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque committed a war crime.

Well, isn't that the logical conclusion? Why else be angry that the film is being aired? Either what that Marine did is OK or it isn't. If it's OK, why would you care that the footage is being broadcast? (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1468)

Satch
November 19, 2004, 06:14 PM
Talked to a friend who was in Veitnam about this and he said their thinking about something like that over there was." Better to be judged by twelve than be carried be six." :cool:

R.H. Lee
November 19, 2004, 06:20 PM
sigmaman seems to have disappeared, discredited, since Warbow debunked his link and allegations.

Shalako
November 19, 2004, 06:27 PM
With terrorists, you have two choices:
1. Kill them
2. Take them prisoner

If someone is a known terrorist, trying the prisoner in a court of law can only yield a guilty verdict.

What do you do with an incarcerated terrorist? Re-habilitate them? Lock them up forever? Let them out a while later?

I just don't see the point of incarcerating terrorists.

Its too bad the Marine was forced to be the judge and jury because some wimpy politician is too yellow to bomb the hell out of that city. They say you can bomb all you want, but you need soldiers on the ground to take real estate. Well, its a shame that we wanted that POS chunk of real estate. Once the civilians moved out, I'd rather have just left a crater and moved on.

DRZinn
November 19, 2004, 07:44 PM
My comment on that blog:

The Marine's actions were not wrong, but it angers me that the footage is being shown because the footage, especially in its edited version but even in the original, does not show the whole picture, such as the fact that that Marine was wounded the day before by a Jihadi "????in' fakin" death.

And that's the main motivation behind showing it.

And you quote McCain as apparently the ultimate authority on war? Pfft.

Rebar
November 19, 2004, 07:53 PM
McCain Wants to Hide US War Crimes
McCain acknowledges that the Marine who shot the unarmed wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque committed a war crime.

Well, isn't that the logical conclusion? Why else be angry that the film is being aired? Either what that Marine did is OK or it isn't. If it's OK, why would you care that the footage is being broadcast?

McCain said no such thing:
He said he didn't know, but is ``deeply, deeply troubled'' by the incident.

``We don't know what events led up to it,'' he said.

``All we saw was a flash picture.''
http://cbs4boston.com/nhnews/NH--McCain-Al-Jazeera-en/resources_news_html

And he also brings up a very important point, that they'll show the Marine footage over and over again, but won't show hostages being beheaded.

CannibalCrowley
November 19, 2004, 08:35 PM
such as the fact that that Marine was wounded the day before by a Jihadi "????in' fakin" death.Where did you see this? I've seen reports that he was wounded but none that he was wounded by someone who was faking death. Proof?

DRZinn
November 19, 2004, 10:34 PM
I don't remember where I saw it, so I won't back it up. But that's not the point anyway.

Tag
November 19, 2004, 11:53 PM
I do not know how any of you can pass judgement on this man. None of you were there.

Given the treacherous nature of the fighting in my opinion

it is better to err on the side of caution

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 03:40 AM
quote by riley
sigmaman seems to have disappeared, discredited, since Warbow debunked his link and allegations.

just got bored
offer still stands $20 dollars says he gets convicted of murder
rather by reason of insanity or premeditated or what ever
put up or go home
go on record here and put your money where your red white and blue mouth is
if that was an american on the ground you would all be over each other saying look that bastard murdered a defenseless wounded american soldier
what kind of animal would do that?

if you say other wise and you voted justified your a hypocrite and a liar

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 04:22 AM
they also have a neat power point presentation they give to all enlisted and officers going thru this point by point
the part in bold font is the part many of you have a problem with


U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself

Blackhawk 6
November 20, 2004, 07:42 PM
The information posted by Sigmaman is correct. However, it is not applicable to the situation.

First, whether or not the individulas in question were "detained or interned personnel" has yet to be answered.

Second, the section cited addresses how an individual must be treated after he has been taken into custody. It does not require me to attempt to take into my custody any member of a group of belligerants who have demonstrated an abuse of protected staus, i.e. pretending they are wounded.

Simply put, text quoted simply means that if I take Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden prisoner, I can not abuse or execute him and use the fact that he was a terrorist, war criminal, etc. as justification for my behavior.

Once again, under the Law of Land Warfare, if you abuse protected status, you lose it. If you wave a white flag or throw up your hands and then shoot at me, I no longer have to recognize that white flag or upraised hands as a signal of your intent to surrender. If you put a red cross/star/crescent on a vehicle and then use it to move troops (not wounded) or mount weapons on it, I no longer have to consider vehicles mounting the red cross/star/crescent as ambulances. And if you pretend to be wounded, only to sit up a shoot me in the face, I no longer have to consider wounded personnel as being non-combatants. (FYI, I just got off of the phone with JAG and they confirmed this.)

Once again, the question boils down to whether or not the insurgent in question was in the custody of the Marines.

Tag
November 20, 2004, 07:45 PM
if that was an american on the ground you would all be over each other saying look that bastard murdered a defenseless wounded american soldier

:banghead:

What are the chances that your hypothetical 'wounded American soldier' has an IED or a grenade under his coat? Make no comparison between our Marines and the cowards who hide in mosques and behead women on film. :fire:

R.H. Lee
November 20, 2004, 07:51 PM
if that was an american on the ground you would all be over each other saying look that bastard murdered a defenseless wounded american soldier
what kind of animal would do that?


Art's Grammaw removed an irrelevant insult.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 07:59 PM
Art's Grammaw removed insult.

Dbl0Kevin
November 20, 2004, 08:07 PM
cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

Wow and I thought your trailor park comment was bad. Just when I think you can't sink any lower.....you prove me wrong again. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:12 PM
the only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 08:14 PM
Well done gents. Closed in 3...2...1...

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:16 PM
its about time

gunsmith
November 20, 2004, 08:21 PM
My old friend just got back from nearly 2 years fighting over there with the FL NG infantry.
The problem here is armchair fighters and 20/20 hindsighters have all the answers.
Spend a year or so fighting the enemy & an incompetent bureaucracy then get back to me about it.

Dbl0Kevin
November 20, 2004, 08:22 PM
the only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. .

You sir, are way out of line. YOU were the one slinging insults and calling people stupid and trailer park folk, not I. If anyone has a manners problem it is you. Also I did not "attempt to construct a creative flame"...in fact I did not flame you at all. I simply debated the topic unlike you who have attacked anyone who disagreed with you and insulted their intelligence. That's fine though you have just shown the whole board your character.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:23 PM
tell your freind im taking bets the marine inquestion will get tried and convicted of murder
20 bucks
and thank him for me for his service

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:26 PM
this must be a compliment
Just when I think you can't sink any lower.....you prove me wrong again.

Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you any worse advice.

Dbl0Kevin
November 20, 2004, 08:28 PM
Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you any worse advice.

Your behaviour in this thread brings some real questions to mind about your behavior in that store when you claimed "BATF Harassment". Kind of starting to get the whole picture now. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:29 PM
kevin check all that apply to you

[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Lamer [ ] Flamer
[ ] Loser [ ] Spammer [ ] Troller
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek
[ ] Freak [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [ ] Freak
[ ] Fundamentalist [ ] Satanist [ ] Homeopath
[ ] Unbearably self-righteous person

CannibalCrowley
November 20, 2004, 08:38 PM
such as the fact that that Marine was wounded the day before by a Jihadi "????in' fakin" death.Where did you see this? I've seen reports that he was wounded but none that he was wounded by someone who was faking death. Proof?I don't remember where I saw it, so I won't back it up. But that's not the point anyway.The point is I'm trying to figure out whether or not your statement is correct. I believe you are mistaken about the Marine being wounded by someone who was faking death. I'm simply asking for either proof or an admittance of being wrong.

Delmar
November 20, 2004, 08:47 PM
Ya know-all this wrangling about what is legal and what is not concerning the conduct of battlefield soldiers is curious to me. What seems to be left out is the enviornment the soldiers find themselves in. In my day, we did not receive detailed briefings from JAG officers, and if it had happened, some loose lipped private would have handed said officer a rifle and requested he lead by example.........

Talk to some combat veterans of of WWII. Any in depth research will reveal there were times when the soldiers on both sides suspended operations to allow wounded to be evacuated from the battlefield, and other times when the wounded were left behind in the hopes they would be medically treated by the enemy. That would be from the European side of the war.

Take a look at the Pacific war, and it is altogether a different fur ball. With very, very few exceptions, there was no quarter asked nor given.

In the end, the conduct of the enemy helps to determine the ferocity of our troops. I would bet the farm that if the well known beheadings and other things-such as shooting from places considered "off limits" such as mosques were generally followed, the soldiers conduct in the field would be quite different. If the enemy combatants demonstrated any kind of mercy, it would be returned.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 08:54 PM
I agree Delmar. A certain battlefield reciprocity is attained. You guys don't pull this kind of stuff and we'll honor the white flag. It is NOT the place for tv crews or civilians who can't handle blood on their hands. Let's keep in mind here folks that some people would rather die than harm another person. They see death even via video and shut down & shudder. There is no way to do "right" by these people if it involves taking someone out. No way, no how. Beyond their ken.

If I destroy a vehicle attempting to leave a building that we are recieving fire from and it later proves to contain women & children, I'm a war criminal now? Please. Learn to surrender properly, the rest of the guys in that mosque did and our troops did not execute them offhand. If there is ANY doubt that you're surrendering or concealing a deadly weapon, you're going down. Too bad. Learn to surrender better in your next life.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 09:00 PM
i wish the camera man was not there
this stuff goes on all the time
and i have no love for the iraqi people or the terrorists
but it all boils down to the marine did the wrong thing from the legal point of view. it was a revenge killing btw 3 others were shot in the same room
it was only after they realised the cameraman was there one was spared
that is why i say he will be tried and convicted of murder
before deployment to iraq they have presentations on what is legally justified
specifically so this stuff doesnt happen

what do you think of this shooting

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
i would like to hear your thoughts on what is happening here

Intune
November 20, 2004, 09:12 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where do you get that three others were shot in that same room? I see no problem in your "poor insurgent writhing in the street" video. What was in the guys hands two seconds prior? RPG, AK? You think he was out rice shopping? Kill the enemy until they lose the will to fight.

Warbow
November 20, 2004, 09:12 PM
sigmaman:

Are you dense? I already explained what happened in that shooting.

I think you're just trolling.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 09:20 PM
Dang, I just read Warbow's previous response which seemed to put the matter to rest quite well. What exactly is the purpose of rehashing this Sig? Let me guess, you're against the war? Please, just answer that one simple question.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 09:27 PM
i think that guy lost the will to fight
looks like the only will he had left was the will to try to breath a couple more seconds
didnt seem like we were afraid of him anymore
was like a contest who could get the kill shot in

NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by insurgents to attack US forces last week.


Marines fought their way into the mosque on Friday. Sites said 10 militants had been killed and five wounded prisoners were left behind as the marines moved south.


Another group of marines was given the res- ponsibility of evacuating the prisoners.


The next day, there were reports that mosques in the area had been reoccupied, including the one with the five prisoners.


Two units not involved in Friday's fighting advanced on the mosque, one from the back and the second, which Sites was following, from the front. Sites heard gunfire inside. When he entered, he saw the five wounded men from Friday. Four had been shot again, apparently moments earlier, he said.

One appeared dead and three others severely wounded. A fifth man under a blanket appeared not to have been shot.


A marine noticed one of the unarmed men was still breathing. "He's f . . .ing faking he's dead. He faking he's f . . .ing dead," the marine said.


Sites said on an NBC broadcast: "The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast." Sites said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".


"Well, he's dead now," another marine said.


When told he had shot a wounded prisoner, the marine said: "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know."

warbow seriously im not going to flame ya
you didnt make a rational explanation in my opinion so just come off the i know better than you crap

yep i am against this war its kinda a diversion from the real war in afghansitan
see i answered a question. its easy
why dont you all do that?
here is a good one ill bold it in case your sight is weak

if that was an american on the ground and the roles reversed would you consider that murder?

if the man in this video were an american would you consider it barbaric and murder?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Tag
November 20, 2004, 09:43 PM
After this, you may not hear from me again for a while

one can only hope.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 09:45 PM
oh before i forget
ANSWER THE QUESTION POSTED PREVIOUSLY

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with me? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

Warbow
November 20, 2004, 09:46 PM
Rational explanation? I explained what happened. You're the one being irrational and trying to twist it into something it's not.

Way to stay on the High Road, by the way. :rolleyes:

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 09:58 PM
still didnt answer the question
and from your first post you flamed me so i say to you

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you ckoke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:04 PM
Sig, where do you get the idea that these men were pow's? Please tell me the point that they were taken into custody.
Two units not involved in Friday's fighting advanced on the mosque, one from the back and the second, which Sites was following, from the front. Sites heard gunfire inside. When he entered, he saw the five wounded men from Friday. Four had been shot again, apparently moments earlier, he said. So apparently, other marines saw these guys do something so grievious that they were considered a threat by them also.
yep i am against this war its kinda a diversion from the real war in afghansitan If your butt was on the front lines in Iraq I'd ask you what you consider a "diversion" as you were hunkered down with incoming. But, you're not. So I won't.

But I will answer your question. It doesn't matter which side of a conflict one may find themselves. If the odds are overwhelming one had better do everything possible to be considered a non-threat. Anything short of that will get you potentially killed.

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:04 PM
Sig, you are repeating yourself.

Personal attacks will accomplish nothing and have no place on THR.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:06 PM
here is official us policy

U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:08 PM
When were these people taken into custody?

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:12 PM
Sites said on an NBC broadcast: "The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast." Sites said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".

if you think this guy is anti marine go check out his web site

http://www.kevinsites.net/
awesome pictures

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:15 PM
When were these people taken into custody?

Never.

I don't understand how this 'rules of war' argument can be applied only to our troops and not theirs.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:21 PM
when they were wounded and were not a threat
being disarmed also has a bearing on if they are combatants
no weapons wounded yes they are either prisoners now are non combatants
not sheep to be slaughtered
The killing of a unarmed, injured man goes against the UCMJ, Geneva Convention and what this country stands for. There is no justification for what he did, and he should face the full consequences of his actions.

U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself.

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:21 PM
shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".

Fellows with explosives strapped to their chests do not 'appear' threatening.

You seek to slight our troops caution amidst a wave of suicide attacks.

If that was my brother over there I think the old adage "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" applies.

when they were wounded and were not a threat

Nonsense.

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:25 PM
And somehow these terrorists taking pot shots at our troops out of a mosque does not enter into your Geneva Convention argument?

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:25 PM
if you think this guy is anti marine go check out his web site Do you always discuss things in this fashion? You are admittedly anti-Iraq war. Do you operate under the assumption that if you throw up enough flak it diverts the discussion?

I don't give a rats bottom if the guy was armed, unarmed, a beggar or a prince. He didn't show signs of surrender and got killed for it. Next building. Let's go.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:25 PM
just answer this question forget the semantics or anything else

if that was an american on the ground and the roles reversed would you consider that murder?

unless you can answer yes to that question you are a liar and a hypocrite
so answer the question
ya got 2 choices
YES OR NO
which one pick. dont skirt the issue
stop acting like john kerry
answer the question

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:30 PM
If the roles were reversed, and our soldiers were booby-trapping corpses and shooting from religous buildings, I would EXPECT nothing less.

You are compairing apples to oranges I'm afraid.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:33 PM
Are you blind? But I will answer your question. It doesn't matter which side of a conflict one may find themselves. If the odds are overwhelming one had better do everything possible to be considered a non-threat. Anything short of that will get you potentially killed.
NO! It was not murder. :banghead: You keep throwing the "liar" word around and I'm gonna take it personal. In fact, I already do. People are trying to engage you in discussion. Keep it civil. Jack.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:36 PM
Sites said on an NBC broadcast: "The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast." Sites said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".
for those who havent answered the question
and im not taking back the liar statement

if that was an american on the ground and the roles reversed would you consider it murder?
yes or no
answer the question and i dont give a good GD if your pissed or not

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:42 PM
If the roles were reversed, and our soldiers were booby-trapping corpses and shooting from religous buildings, I would EXPECT nothing less.

U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself.
Today 03:15 AM

any questions?

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:42 PM
We have answered your question several times over

:banghead:

Either way the shooting IMO was justified.

You can not reverse only part of the role, all or nothing sir.

Blackhawk 6
November 20, 2004, 10:43 PM
if that was an american on the ground and the roles reversed would you consider it murder?

No.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:46 PM
you didnt

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:49 PM
Who are you speaking to Sig?

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:50 PM
But I will answer your question. It doesn't matter which side of a conflict one may find themselves. If the odds are overwhelming one had better do everything possible to be considered a non-threat. Anything short of that will get you potentially killed.

exactly what does an unconcious person do to prove there not a threat?
you now

Blackhawk 6
November 20, 2004, 10:50 PM
This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category.

Apperently, in your haste to support your arguement, you missed this part of the text. Perhaps,with your broad understanding of the Law of Land Warfare, you could explain to us what exactly qualifies an individual as detained and/or interned? When, in the course of an attack, does an enemy combatant move from "fair game" to the protected status of a detained individual?

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:50 PM
If the terrorists and insurgents were acting as Americans, and the Americans were acting as terrorists and insurgents, NO, I would not consider it murder.

would you?

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:51 PM
U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:53 PM
back to my original point
he comitted a war crime in the least
and is guilty of murder
oh and before you start calling me a saddam terrorist lover and unpatriotic and all that other crap you have on your minds
i dont care if he killed him
we shouldnt be there in the first place but that is another topic

Dbl0Kevin
November 20, 2004, 10:53 PM
Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself.

That's about the 20th time you've posted that. STOP.....just stop.....we get it already. Stop asking the same question over and over again when people have already answered you.

Tag
November 20, 2004, 10:54 PM
exactly what does an unconcious person do to prove there not a threat?

Exactly how do you claim to know that the insurgent/terrorist in question was unconscious and no longer a thret given the pratice of rigging corpses with explosives and the history of suicide bombing?

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:54 PM
well it doesnt appear you get it
cause that is official us armed services policy and it clearly states what he did was wrong

Intune
November 20, 2004, 10:55 PM
How, pray tell, did you make this leap? exactly what does an unconcious person do to prove there not a threat? Show me the exact point in any of the footage or dialogue where you surmised this. Inquiring minds would like to know.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 10:56 PM
if he is a corpse how come he is breathing
why is it when police shoot some one you dont have a cop yelling
"hes faking hes dead"
then shoot thenm in the head?
arent armed criminals just as dangerous as armed terrorists?
what is it the cops do differently?

Blackhawk 6
November 20, 2004, 10:58 PM
Sigmaman,

You still have not explained at what point the terorist became a detained person and was therefore entitled to protection. Once again, at one point during the conduct of an offensive operation such as an attack, do enemy personnel cease to be combatants and become detained personnel?

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 11:00 PM
Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.

“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.

“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.

The second Marine shrugged in reply.

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

Intune
November 20, 2004, 11:01 PM
i dont care if he killed him Yet YOU want to throw the words "liar" and "hypocrite" around? Please. Do yourself a favor and take a breath.

Blackhawk 6
November 20, 2004, 11:01 PM
Still waiting..... :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!