Posted on 04/15/2007 2:12:23 PM PDT by RedRover
How much force can a squad of Marines generate in self-defense before it is considered "excessive"?
That question is now out of the hands of Marine officers and noncoms in the field. The question will be decided in courts-martial.
This is absolutely unprecedented. Applying the concept of "excessive force" to men under fire is absurd enough. But turning "excessive force" into murder charges is the beginning of the end of our war against Islamofascism.
Seeing the President of the United States labeled a liar and a war criminal by the media for seven years ought to give the DoD a clue. The media cannot be placated. They openly root for America’s disgrace and defeat. Nonetheless, the DoD is succumbing to media pressure even though our media is entirely in sympathy with the enemy.
Allowing the media to dictate policy during wartime is insane. Here’s just one example of why. The media made something out of nothing in the Abu Ghraib Prison fiasco. Nonetheless, due to the outcry, the DoD changed its policy about detentions. For a captured prisoner to be considered a combatant, it became necessary to produce two signed affidavits from coalition or Iraqi forces attesting to that fact. No affidavits, no detention. The result was that half of the 2,500 muj captured during the battle of Fallujah were released within seventy-two hours. The most infamous released detainee was Safaa Mohammed Ali. Nearly a year, later he detonated a suicide vest and murdered 57 people attending a wedding party in Amman, Jordan.
Fortunately, no military court has (so far) convicted a Marine on the basis of "excessive force".
The first test was the Lieutenant Ilario Pantano case in April 2005. The defense played a television interview, with Stone Phillips of NBC’s Dateline. This is an excerpt of what was played for in the investigating officer in Lieutenant Pantano’s Article 32 hearing.
PANTANO: I give [two suspected insurgents] a command in Arabic to stop. They continue [to move] and then there was this moment of quiet. I felt, I could feel like the oxygen getting sucked out of my lungs. I could feel that this thing was happening. There was this beat and they both pivoted to me at the same time, moving towards me at the same time and, in that moment, of them, of them disobeying my command to stop and pivoting to me at the same time, I shot them.
Pantano's concern was that they might have grabbed a hidden weapon or were lunging for his. From just ten feet away, he emptied one magazine from his M-16 rifle, then reloaded and emptied a second, firing a total of fifty to sixty shots.
PANTANO: I didn't wait to see if there was a grenade. I didn't wait to see if there was a knife. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of dead soldiers and Marines who have waited, too long. And my men weren't going to be those dead soldiers or Marines and neither was I.
PHILLIPS: And the idea of maybe firing a warning shot?
PANTANO: There wasn't time for warning shots. There was time for action and I had to act. It becomes very personal. It stops being about war and moving blue arrows and little pieces and big pieces and hold this bridge and take this ground. These guys tried to kill me. That's what I'm feeling and the language that's going through my head at that point was no better friend, and no worse enemy.
But, even if Pantano did act in self-defense, the number of bullets he fired and his reason for doing so raised serious questions.
PHILLIPS: You emptied a magazine. And emptied a second magazine.
PANTANO: The speed it took me to wipe the sweat off my brow is how quickly you fire and reload a magazine. I shot them until they stopped moving.
PHILLIPS: Fifty rounds, sixty rounds to stop them?
PANTANO: Stone, unfortunately, combat is a pretty ugly business. What's the right number of rounds to save your life? I would say its until there is no more threat.
At the end of the hearing, the investigation officer, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Winn submitted a 16-page report to the Second Marine Division commander, Major General Richard Huck, recommending that all charges be withdrawn. Major General Huck concurred and Lieutenant Pantano was exonerated.
The Haditha case, and now the Afghan Highway case, is on the horizon. Sometime soon (maybe) the government will actually begin the Article 32 process. And, once again, our government will attempt to win a murder conviction based on an argument of "excessive force".
It should be a requirement that the investigating officer, and jury if any of these cases go to court martial, have served in Fallujah. It would put the concept of "excessive force" in its proper context.
Combat historian Patrick O’Donnell was there. Here is his description of what he saw during a house clearing. Before the Marines entered, the house was hit with a satchel charge, a bag filled with 20 pounds of explosives, that nearly tore the building in half.
The [Marines] failed to take into account the effect of muj drugs. Hearing footsteps coming from the shattered house, they assumed other members of the platoon had entered the building. Suddenly, two dusty, black-clad jihadis, hyped up on adrenaline, emerged from the rubble to engage the Marines. The men were bleeding from the eyeballs, but they managed to get a few rounds off before Hackett killed both of them with his M4, a shortened version of the M16.
Another muj wearing an explosive vest was attempting to escape through a mouse hole when he ran into Bryan and Vaquerano. "His face was filled with surprise when he saw us. I think he knew he was about to die," recalled Vaquerano.
The jihadist lunged at Vaquerano.
"Shoot him!" yelled Bryan to Vaquerano. "Shoot him!"
Vaquerano remained motionless. Bryan shot the man twice in the stomach.
Bryan shot him five more times.
"F*ck!"
The drug-crazed muj kept on coming. "As he reached up with his bloody arm and tried to choke us, Bryan put a ten-round burst into him," recalled Vaquerano.
Even after putting seventeen rounds into the muj's body, Bryan still had to shoot him in the head to prevent him from detonating his vest. As the muj's eyes rolled back and he finally expired, Bryan crouched down and put out his middle finger. "F*ck you!"
Stunned, Gunny Hackett turned to Bryan and Rosalez. "How the hell did they survive?"
Or this:
As Stokes tried to take [two muj fighters] prisoner, one of the terrorists made a desperate move. According to Stokes, "The other guy stood up and grabbed the muzzle of my weapon. I threw him against the wall. He landed next to the RPG and tried to grab it. I shot him point blank in the face." Grantham and Stokes walked out of the building, and Sojda and Hanks walked in.
Despite his horrible face wound, the fighter shot by Grantham was only playing dead. "Hey, this guy is alive!" Hanks shouted as the insurgent went for an AK lying across his stomach.
Sojda quickly took action. "I could see him breathing. Grantham had put a bullet in his head, his brains were out on the floor. As he went for the AK, I grabbed his bayonet and put it right in the center of his chest and twisted it. A normal person would have died with a bullet hole in their head and multiple stab wounds, but he wouldn't die. I figured he was meant to live, so I pulled the weapons away from him and left."
Drugs had given him superhuman ability to absorb punishment. Nearly all of the mujahideen 1st Platoon would encounter during the battle were high on a cocktail of drugs.
Do the JAG-happy boys in the DoD even know the nature of the enemy we're facing?
It is practically inconceivable for a Marine, or any soldier, to be convicted of murder based on the “excessive force” argument. But with anti-war political opportunists controlling military appropriation committees, perhaps the inconceivable will happen. With cases on the horizon, we’re all about to find out.
Absolutely, smooth. And there is no recourse, no way to know unless Gen. Mattis were to admit that Murtha was twisting his arm.
Thanks to you both for the insight and calm assessment of our military and the unjust way they are treated in some of their actions.
It’s easy for some to sit back and say how this or that should be handled when certain things happen in war. In my mind if a soldier or Marine is protecting himself or his buddy he should not be second guessed for acting in the way he was trained. This holds true whether that man is 18 or 38 and that 19 or 20 year old is no longer a kid when they finish their training. To refer to them as such is wrong.
Non combatants have always died in wars and always will and prosecuting our men for that collateral damage is wrong unless it is out and out murder. It’s clear to me that the Haditha Marines were not out to murder innocents.
I will not get into these debates because I wind up saying things I shouldn’t and sometimes regret it later. Thanks again.
Wouldn't that in large part depend on what actually happened at Haditha? What's clear is that, unless the soldiers acted objectively unreasonably, they should have little to worry about. In the case of Haditha, once all the facts are in, that will be decided. Neither you nor I have access to all the facts to decide if the Marines there acted reasonably. All that we know is from sources with agendas - on both sides.
Another thing about this manual, does it give direction/rules on how to deal with a free media or politicians who are increasingly hostile to the war effort, and thus the troops, and use them in their specific agendas
That's a political question the military does not (and should not) handle. Further, I would question if the media or politicians are hostile to the war itself - some clearly are, but I think most are simply frustrated at the desperate situation in which we find ourselves. Fewer still are actually hostile to the troops, even if their policies are misguided and shortsighted.
You’re welcome, jaz. See you tomorrow!
OOPS...please pardon me...I got so caught up in the exchanges I never said GREAT to the article!
Good night.
Food for thought. Night, guys!
your comments are so incredibly idiotic that they must be part of /sarcasm or you want to get flamed
very few join the Armed Forces to "kill people"
I can tell you that completing the mission of defending our country,
-willing to die for our country
-willing to fight and place yourself between genuinely bad people in far away places at night or in foreign places and our country
-but above all willing to do your duty in spite of chicken sh#t liberal quislings questioning your motivation and honor make the Marine Corps front line troops the main target for the people like yourself that think combat is murder.
Combat is to murder like holy matrimony is to pornography. It's pathetic, uneducated cowards that label soldiers and Marines "killers".
I take pride in service, but above all else I take pride in the bravery I've seen and the brothers in arms that have honored me by allowing me to serve at their side when "so called men" like yourself are safe at home while they defended my life with their lives.
The drunken Politically Correct hippie holdovers are insisting on a P.C. war, just like Vietnam - so America will again have to retreat, tail tucked between legs - to the delight of the Hate America First P.C. crowd.
I agree, though, if this bunch is going to tie the hands of the American warriors so they can’t defend themselves without risking a murder conviction - then bring them home NOW and let the war hero, John Kerry and his crowd, defend themselves on their own turf. Then shooting the enemy in the back might even be acceptable if it threatened their vacations in the Hamptons.
Have some,Jaz, there'e plenty! :-)
Goodnight, Kansas. ;)
LOL! I’ll have some chips and talk to the barmaid, that’ll leave more beer for you guys. Nothin’ wrong with talkin’ is there? :-)
Certainly true - but at the end of the day, that is the purpose of the military. There is no point in blunting the truth. It's purpose is lethal.
It's pathetic, uneducated cowards that label soldiers and Marines "killers".
No one here - and certainly not I - did. I said they are sent out "to kill people." I didn't call them "killers," and certainly not "murderers."
Combat is to murder like holy matrimony is to pornography
A more accurate comparison would be to compare combat with sex. Within the proper bounds, both sex and combat are appropriate. It's when it is divorced from those bounds that it becomes immoral. For sex, it's the bounds of matrimony. For combat, it's the bounds of a war fought jus ad bellum and jus in bellum.
Taking offense at the concept that soldiers kill people is sort of like taking offense at the concept that married people have sex.
So, frankly, nuts to all the people taking offense at the thought that soldiers are sent out to kill. It's the plain and simple truth.
all because you did your duty during a firefight....going to "trial" isn't a big thing for a lawyer..that's what you or they do. It's in their nature to be in a court room. Most normal people avoid the legal system and find the company of lawyers and the legal machinery repulsive.
So before everyone thinks, "Hey, it's no big deal if you're not guilty, don't worry"... The year or two of twisting in the wind will sour the experience of survival. It will make warriors think, "why should I risk anything if all I'll get is JAG up my a## till I retire if things go Dixie".
I may have heard a little about anti-Guerrilla warfare in Indonesia and Central and South America..... most civilian casualties are from the guerrillas in order to pacify or recruit the populace. Kids, women, children, nuns, cripples, priests, monks, taxi drivers...etc... all are threats or friends.... you never know who the "threat" is till you die. If you find a "threat" and don't imprison or kill it, it will kill you later or one of your men, or so I've heard.
G’Night, all!
The Dems are trying to make this into Me Lie and can’t find enough Liars.
Pray for W and Our Troops
"so called men" like yourself are safe at home while they defended my life with their lives.
Don't make assumptions when you don't know anything about who I am, or where I am coming from.
or any of the others that those stamps show...
I wonder if "Manila Joe" used excessive force on Guadalcanal during the defense of Henderson Field.
From what I've read of the great legal minds on this thread he wouldn't have anything to worry about after he earned his MOH. In fact he would have missed Iwo Jima and the Navy Cross and Purple Heart he earned their for bravery.... oh yeah. He wouldn't have died on Iwo Jima either since he'd be up on charges for using excessive force on the Japanese.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.