Blog powered by Typepad

News orgs

« Internationalist o | Main | Treasury confirm 67% Marginal tax on families under helengrad »

Nov 16, 2004

Comments

Kiwipete

Can't argue with any of that. Still, it doesn't change the fact that this kid is going to be sacrificed for the benefit of the handwringers.
Once a again, I am baffled at the 'outcry' over this when by comparison an insurgent? millitant? terrorist? killing dozens of unarmed civillians barely gets a second look. Ahhh but that is different eh?

sagenz

I don't think he will be sacrificed. If he followed the likely rules of engagement he was doing his job. What if the cameraman had discovered the "dead man" had actually been about to explode a suicide device. 99 times out of 100 he might be wrong. Better 99 dead enemy combatants than 1 dead Marine. That is the purpose of training and rules of engagement.

geniusnz

We are presupposing the result of an investigation here. Maybe he did the right thing maybe he did the wrong thing I see no need to either attack or defend him until the investigation tells us he obeyed the rules of engagement or not.

If he did not he should be dealt with appropriatly - after-all rules exist for a reason - if he did then people should stop bothering him.

Eric

I am a former Marine infantryman.

It appears that the Iraqi who was shot had his hands concealed and was perceived as faking death in an attempt to deceive the Marines.

Given previous incidents, the deception was perceived as a threat by the Marines.

Note that another Iraqi on the floor was not shot. He had both hands visible and was looking at the Marines who clearly did not perceive him as an immediate threat.

Finally, the area was designated "weapons free." That means that Marines are authorised to fire at will at any potentially hostile target.

The Marine perceived a threat and took it out.

That is what Marines are trained to do.

They don't always get it right.

Of course, if the Marine had hesitated a second too long, and the Iraqi had had a grenade and the moment to use it, then it would have been a very different story.

Among the dead or wounded would have been Kevin Sites of NBC. He would have been lauded as a hero journalist and the Marines blamed for not protecting him.

In short, the Iraqi didn't get the Marines, but Kevin Sites did.


Stephen Cooper

Helen Clark rides in a motorcade that went 30% past the speed limit and you call for her resignation.

American soldier shoots unarmed and injured enemy combatant in cold blood and its all contextual.

Or its actually a big wank by the extreme right. This young soldier was in a situation where they knew beforehand (on the recording, the CO is heard saying "this is where they left them yesterday, isn't it?") that they were in a situation involving unarmed and wounded men. It is pretty clear that the soldier had a good idea of what the situation was. If he was concerned the man was going to pull a gun on him, a non-lethal response was required.

This IS a clear war crime, black and white, and you are doing as much harm to image of the American armed forces by trying to defend him as he did by committing the war crime, if not more.

He needs to be given life imprisonment as a minimum, ad the trial needs to be public.

Donal Rumsfield needs to offer an apology that includes the word "sorry" and really accepts responsibility for the the inhuman actions taken by the US in Fallouja.

The American armed forces are burning away 90 years of world goodwill under the direction of an inept and arrogant administration.

sagenz

way off base stephen. the potential was not a gun, it was a suicide bomb. It is irrelevant they knew there were wounded soliders there. the point is the potential for booby traps/suicide bombs and the marines genuinely held belief that the combatant was faking.

Read my comments about clark. not calling for her resignation because of speeding. That is not the issue. Showing no leadership and letting people who were working for he take the rap is the issue. as with so many things regarding politicians it ius not the original event that causes the problem, it is the attempt to avoid responsibility.
Go read Power Line in the next post. Check out the other side. Where is your post/comment on the horrors of the jihadists. and read chrenkoff on afghanistan btw

90 years of world goodwill!??. France resented them from the start. It is a mostly thankless but welcome task that the US armed Forces provide.

There was no war crime committed on that tape. A miltary standard reaction under Rules of Engagement in a military situation. your armchair rules of morality with plenty of time to think do not apply. what if the dead man had been holding a bomb detonator. would you be crying so much. Yes or no?

robertp

NoRightTurn has written an article worthy of Al-Jazeera. He(?) suggests that the apparent executioner will get off, by spuriously questioning the integrity of US military justice.

He then smears the attack on Fallujah as a careless assault on civilians, even though the US has shown heroic restraint and respect for the wishes of the interim government, by delaying the invasion as long as possible. They warned civilians to leave for several weeks. What brilliant alternative does NRT suggest for the USA? It seems he would be happy to allow rampant murder, lawlessness, and terrorist recruiting to continue in that benighted city.

How about this for US moral superiority: THEIR TROOPS WEAR A UNIFORM, they do not hide behind innocents, using them as human shields. US forces aim for minimum civilian casualties, terrorists glorify death and rejoice in maximising mass murder.

NoRightTurn is blinded by rabid anti-Americanism.

The comments to this entry are closed.