Posted on 11/18/2004 3:13:18 PM PST by Robert Tracinski
Why, after a fierce urban battle, fought so discriminately and with so low a loss of innocent life, is any attention being paid at all to an old, wounded Iraqi militiaman, shot dead by a young Marine who mistakenly thought he was facing an attack from among a group of corpses? There is no doubt the shooting was an error, an error caused by the very nature of war. The video being used to damn the young man proves it. Why won't anyone in our government defend the young Marine? Why won't any one of them defend war?
(Excerpt) Read more at RobertTracinski.com ...
This was not an error. The man was playing dead and never surrendered. This was a righteous act be a soldier!
The Marine made no error. Why should he had risked walking up to the guy and seeing if he was clutching a button ready to push it?
As has been stated elsewhere in this forum quite clearly, the rules of engagement dealing with articls in the Geneva Convention, do not apply to insurgents, with no uniforms that out of routine lure soldiers and Marines close so that they can explode a attached bomb etc..
This Marine as stated the day before experienced on os his buddies getting blown up by a wounded insurgent when approaching him.
If a military tribune does not clear this Marine of all wrong doing then there is going to be a big outcry in his
behalf. I hope our Marine/Navy JAGS fully obsolve him from any wrong doing and in the process make a public statement for any winnie liberal press that dares print it, that no Marine or soldier will ever be viewed as doing wrong in these type cases. The only one that really should be tried convicted then shot after they are hanged is the clever manipulating Kevin Sites for not have taking the responsibilty of handing the tape over to Marine authorities to have it cleared. Truly he knew exactly what he planned on doing. It will piss me off to no ends if CENTCOM does not issue some new rules that embedded reportere must follow. They ahould not be allowed to just ship video out to the world without being first reviewed.
Tough shit. We are not dealing with freedom of the press in this kind of situation. We don't need more purseaved mistakes by servicemen further increasing hatred over there.
These guys have it tough enough as it is. They show mercy when it does not jeapordize their own. Often they have put themselves in harms way to protect innocent Iraqis.
Kevin Sites surely new he was in safe hands with these guys, they would have died to protect him if it came to that. That is the thanks they get from him!
The terrorist was wounded and may have been unable to surrender. If you think that servicemembers in Iraq are authorized to shoot wounded, unarmed terrorists who are not acting hostile, you're mistaken. This Marine is going to have to show that he felt threatened by the detainee, and that there was cause for him to feel that way. Otherwise, he's very likely going to face prosecution from the military.
Have you ever been in combat? Have you ever approached a group of bodies that are playing like they are dead? Have you ever been shot in the face? Have you ever had your best friend killed by a person playing dead?
I reject your statement and call you a liberal troll!
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
I hope there are some circumstances that show the Marine was justified, from a legal standpoint. There may be more going on than what's in the tape that could vindicate him. The military leadership is very strict about following the rules of engagement, regardless of how bad the enemy is cheating (which they do, constantly). They're also not big fans of bad publicity.
The President and DOD disagree. Enemy forces are to be treated as enemy soldiers under the CGs. The video shows the man's left hand exposed and empty. I assume the right hand was also. If it was not and their was a grenade, or button in that hidden hand, the Marine would have been killed. Killed, because he provided his own ruse and walked right up to him.
"This Marine as stated the day before experienced on os his buddies getting blown up by a wounded insurgent when approaching him. "
What lesson was learned?
"The only one that really should be tried convicted then shot after they are hanged is the clever manipulating Kevin Sites for not have taking the responsibilty of handing the tape over to Marine authorities to have it cleared."
Why deflect blame on someone else that was doing his job. It was his job to truthfully document the action. Do you suppose the USMC desires to cover up the truth? I don't think so. In fact I know so, because one of the core values of the Corps is honor.
"
The central subject of that flick was the Marine that did the shooting. He knows what honor is and displayed it immediately after the shooting in his own words. He also didn't go after the other obviously live wounded on the ground. He made no more than a mistake. Any charges require intent, and/or negligence and disregard. The Marine didn't display it and the reporter Sikes gave nothing to indicate it. In fact Sikes gave the truth of the story of all the young Marine had been through before the shooting.
There's nothing to bring charges on.
"The central subject of that flick was the Marine that did the shooting. He knows what honor is and displayed it immediately after the shooting in his own words. He also didn't go after the other obviously live wounded on the ground. He made no more than a mistake."
I whole heartly agree with what you say constitutes a United States Marine. I have nephew in the Marines that just returned from the sandpit and will be going back soon.
As for your comments copied above, not hearing what the Marine had to say nor understanding that BOTH the insurgents hands where clearly visible so that they would not have a grenade or "button" in either hand, I was not aware of that. The short piece I saw on the boob tube did not show what you describe. I will simply take your word as be true (no sacrasm I assure you).
What I saw on the boob tube, was they entered the room, walked forward as they viewed the four men laying on the floor. The man that got shot was clearly behind a column,
was he not? And I did not see exposed hands, to indicate it was safe to approach him and further check out his condition. I apparently did not see the full video coverage of this event. And perhaps that is why I responded as I have. That Marine has an obligation to make sure his buddies did not get blown up. That is his first obligation.
So it just appears the only thing he could do is make sure the man could not blow them up. Do you walk up to someone laying on the floor with only one hand visible and assume he is not holding a grenade with the pin pulled out, or perhaps a button wired to a IED? I would have shot him, without blinking an eye.
Concerning Sites. He had no business not getting that piece of film approved. He knows the very nature of what it was attended to do. As far as I am concerned he could have shown restraint, sensibiity, and respect to those Marines and all military serving in the theator of operation if he did not go off half cocked to deliver a video that ended up in the hands of the Against the War activist groups. What
possible good did that video produce?
Then again, if our military has not put any restrictions on sensitive news that can have an effect on the folks back home, and those that hate our military to have something more to use against them, then I guess Sites had no obligation to anyone other then who will pay him to show inflamatory footage.
As far as your comment, that the DOD and the CC have different opinions over the ROE during this SASO, I was not the slightest aware of that. Will have to search out more on that issue.
But I respect your opinions on this matter.
One of the biggest mistakes this young marine can make at this time is to believe that he doesn’t need the best attorney that he can get. He is now a pawn in a political conflict between the U.S. and its enemies, both domestic an foreign, and if he doesn’t get good legal defense, I am afraid he could find himself being sacrificed for political expediency.
If anyone on this net knows a good military attorney who would handle this marine’s case pro-bono, I highly recommend that he be contacted. If no one will take this pro-bono, then we need to start a defense fund for this marine. We owe him at least that much.
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.