No Court-Martial for Marine in Taped Shooting


PDA






Vernal45
May 4, 2005, 10:28 PM
GOOD NEWS, Common sense prevails.


No Court-Martial for Marine in Taped Shooting

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

SAN DIEGO — A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski (search), commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said that a review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions in the shooting were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict."

The corporal was not identified in a two-page statement issued by Camp Pendleton (search), the headquarters of the expeditionary force north of San Diego.

The Nov. 13 incident was videotaped by Kevin Sites (search), a freelance journalist on assignment for NBC.

The shooting occurred when a Marine unit entered the mosque and found five men wounded in fighting at the site the day before, when another Marine unit clashed with gunmen apparently using the mosque to fire from, according to Sites' broadcast.

In the video, as the cameraman moved into the mosque, a Marine in the background can be heard shouting obscenities and yelling that one of the men was only pretending to be dead. The Marine then raises his rifle toward an Iraqi lying on the floor of the mosque and shoots the man.

Before the opening of the Nov. 8 assault on rebel-held Fallujah, Marine commanders told infantrymen that the rules of engagement allowed for use of deadly force against men of military age deemed holding hostile intent, even if the enemy didn't fire on the Marines first.

If you enjoyed reading about "No Court-Martial for Marine in Taped Shooting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Firethorn
May 4, 2005, 10:44 PM
Don't forget to mention that just the day before the Marine in question had lost comrades due to 'wounded' insurgents/terrorists playing dead.

HighPingSniper
May 4, 2005, 11:41 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155540,00.html

Never been happier.

Bob F.
May 5, 2005, 12:15 AM
"good shoot", what else can I say?

bakert
May 5, 2005, 12:40 AM
in my opinion one worst enemies of the American Soldier, Marine or otherwise is our own American journalists. I'm still not convinced the prisoner abuse scandle wasn't blown out of proportion. Were those prisoners really treated that bad? Hell No!! Roughed up a bit? Yep but many of out service people go through worse in training!! And last but not least were those prisoners guilty of anything? Yep! They were arrested for a reason not just gathered up in the streets! Maybe some for nothing more than dancing in the streets with equipment and body parts from American GIs but to me that's a pretty good reason!!

Ezekiel
May 5, 2005, 01:05 AM
GOOD NEWS, Common sense prevails.

Yes, because outright bald-faced murder is justified during armed conflict: you're trying to "win", and winning means more of us living.

I cannot stand the fact that we've invaded another sovereign nation for grotesquely ridiculous reasons but, once the call is made, "play to win".

Preacherman
May 5, 2005, 01:18 AM
Duplicate threads merged.

Standing Wolf
May 5, 2005, 01:20 AM
Good. Our troops should never have to fear being stabbed in the back by leftist extremist self-styled "journalists." They face more than enough danger as it is.

Sean Smith
May 5, 2005, 10:59 AM
What? An enemy got shot after our assaulting an enemy strongpoint? Say it ain't so... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, this whole story was lame. It is normal for infantry to kill everybody when assaulting through an objective. Now, they don't wander around after the battle and randomly cap the wounded and prisoners... but in the course of the actual assault, it is pretty much normal practice to kill everything that moves on the way in. Historically, whenevery you don't do that, some scumbag playing dead shoots always you in the ass or sets off the grenade they were laying on.

That's what actual infantry guys will usually tell you when they aren't on CNN. But the marines didn't even do THAT. One marine shot some guy when another marine told him that he was faking being dead. He didn't just do it on his own initiative; another marine pointed out a threat, and it was dealt with. What do you think "faking being dead" means in "suicide bomber land" again? :scrutiny:

Waitone
May 5, 2005, 11:39 AM
It is a shame the military (all branches) deem it necessary to conduct the equivelent of grand juries in public. A lot of the charges being levelled against the military should never see daylight but for some reason the political handlers feel it necessary to publicize the investigation of fact.

HankB
May 5, 2005, 12:07 PM
in my opinion one worst enemies of the American Soldier, Marine or otherwise is our own American journalists. You're not alone in holding this opinion.

Back when Casper Weinberger was SecDef, right after the Grenada invasion he held a press conference which I hard broadcast live on the radio. A reporter pointed out that members of the press were with our troops in WWII at the Normandy invasions, across Europe, in the Pacific, etc. etc., and gave good service, so WHY were reporters kept in the dark about Grenada when there was such a long tradition of accompanying our troops in WWII?

A short pause, and then Weinberger stated, in the most matter-of-fact tone possible, "In those days, you were on OUR side." :D

Needless to say, if you didn't hear it live, you simply didn't hear it . . . which IMHO adds a lot of credibility to what he said.

Gordon Fink
May 5, 2005, 12:14 PM
in my opinion one worst enemies of the American Soldier, Marine or otherwise is our own American journalists.…

Yeah, somewhere after the dishonest politicians who sacrifice the lives of our troops for no good reason.

~G. Fink

30 cal slob
May 5, 2005, 12:34 PM
Somebody got Excedrin headache numba one.

George S.
May 5, 2005, 09:12 PM
What the Marine did was certainly within the rules of engagement. He even said that there had been instances of insurgents "playing dead" and then shooting US troops after they had passed or were not paying attention to bodies. Some bodies may even have been booby-trapped.

What he did was no different that what US troops had to do against similar actions by the Japanese or German soldiers in WWII, the North Korean or Chinese soldiers in Korea or even the VC in the Vietnam war.

The problem with what happened in Iraq was that the media was along to see and film it. The reporters and cameramen are not trained for combat, they don't understand what it's all about (in spite of what Geraldo thinks or says he knows) or what can happen.

One of these days, the US military will wise up and figure out that the media should not tag along on combat operations. Let the soldiers do the job they were trained for and not have to worry about being on the 5 o'clock news.

San
May 5, 2005, 09:35 PM
Am I the only one who read the part that they were in a mosque?! Isn't that a place of worship for these people?! Maybe I missed something, but what were they doing there in the first place? I don't always see everything (like the obvious, heck, Im in highschool!) but, why were they in a mosque in the first place?

Warbow
May 5, 2005, 09:45 PM
Am I the only one who read the part that they were in a mosque?! Isn't that a place of worship for these people?! Maybe I missed something, but what were they doing there in the first place? I don't always see everything (like the obvious, heck, Im in highschool!) but, why were they in a mosque in the first place?

You don't bypass a building you've been taking fire from just because it's a mosque.

GSMD Fan
May 6, 2005, 01:27 AM
Okay, no charges to be filled. Good with me, I did not see the investigation.

But if I remember this correctly, these marines were follow on forces. The guy they shot was treated for wounds by other marines and left in the mosque to be captured by other marines. That was what was reported and was what the video certainly looked like. They were not assaulting through an objective firing into threats. They walked into a room and shot someone becasue he was "playing dead".

I was not there. I do find it hard to believe no charges will be filed. I guess the orginal reports differed from the outcome of the investigation.

Sean Smith
May 6, 2005, 10:53 AM
Am I the only one who read the part that they were in a mosque?! Isn't that a place of worship for these people?!

Not if they are shooting at you from it. Then it becomes a target.

ravinraven
May 6, 2005, 01:11 PM
"in my opinion one worst enemies of the American Soldier, Marine or otherwise is our own American journalists."

Amen.

The people who were behind even considering charges against this guy should have done to them what the mods don't want me to talk about. Drat!

rr

Sergeant Sabre
May 6, 2005, 02:20 PM
why were they in a mosque in the first place?

Because the bad guys where there.

The whole "hands tied because the bad guys are in a Mosque and we can't go there because it's a big magical shield and we just can't engage guys in a Mosque or call air in on it" doctrine is over . We smoke Mosques when there are bad guys there shooting out. Otherwise, we send other Muslims in to search the place if we think something fishy is going on.

Now forget about it and let us do what we do. :fire:

-Sgt. Bartlett, USMC

RealGun
May 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
It's very difficult to conduct politically correct wars. Every little burp becomes an antiwar scandal, and the press eats it up. Something to be said for controlling information from the front. Can we handle the truth of it? will always be the question.

lunaslide
May 6, 2005, 03:08 PM
But if I remember this correctly, these marines were follow on forces. The guy they shot was treated for wounds by other marines and left in the mosque to be captured by other marines. That was what was reported and was what the video certainly looked like. They were not assaulting through an objective firing into threats. They walked into a room and shot someone becasue he was "playing dead".

What you miss is that they went into that mosque after people started shooting at them from it again. They were in fact assaulting through an objective firing into threats, clearing out the terrorists who reestablished the mosque as a firing position after it was cleared the first time.

I'm still not convinced that the fast sweep method of taking over a city is the right tactic unless you kill everyone. Leaving behind injured enemy is just begging for more casualties and for this type of situation to occur. Just because someone is injured doesn't mean they aren't still willing and able to fight.

GSMD Fan
May 7, 2005, 06:36 PM
lunaslide,

Okay, I "missed" that. Like I said, the way it was reported it did not look good for the marines. Clearing them of wrongdoing is fine by me, I am not crying conspiracy.

I guess my point was how something was reported is not how the investigation turned out. Big surprise.

WT
May 7, 2005, 06:41 PM
Give that Marine another rifle, a full load of ammo, and let him guard the 'press club' in Baghdad.

Ezekiel
May 9, 2005, 12:45 AM
Opinion:

1. This was murder.
2. I'd have done the same.
3. It was "justified" politically.
4. "Morally" is not mine to judge.

I'm glad this individual was not prosecuted. It was not my first instinct -- to believe as such -- but everything must be taken in context.

Sean Smith
May 9, 2005, 10:56 AM
Killing and muder are not the same thing. There are different words for the two things for a reason.

RealGun
May 9, 2005, 11:29 AM
I'm glad this individual was not prosecuted.

Because it was not judged to be murder.

If you enjoyed reading about "No Court-Martial for Marine in Taped Shooting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!