Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll

[Blackcloud6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Marines alive, terrorists dead. Sounds right to me.
Yes, they were terrorists. They became such when they started firing from the mosque......twice!!! :banghead:

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

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?

 

[Iain]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

Dangerous game to play.

The world is a dangerous playground.

 

[Sam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A SEAL's view

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]

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.