Marine accused of wrongful shooting needs our help...

16 nov 04 | Atlanta

[Atlanta]

I'm going to start with a communication of support of this young Marine, to the Commandant of the Marine Corps himself. Then, President Bush and my Senator/Congressman.They are going to hear from me and I have all friggin day to do it. I am so livid about this that words cannot describe. As a former Marine myself, this young "Leather" was doing what he was trained to do, adapting to unreasonable circumstances (enemy tricks) and he did exactly what I would have done and what has always been done with a fanatical enemy. If authorities hang this Marine out to dry, I will never stop raising hell and will become a point man for pulling these guys out of theater entirely...MSM is SICK. Other suggestions?

[Gondring]

This is war - these people were trying to kill our guys.

No, they had previously been trying to kill our guys. These people were lying on the ground, inactive (indeed, too inactive, it seems!).

And, yes, there should be an inherent right to self defense in a war zone - to deny our soldiers that right is immoral.

Agreed, 100%.

The video CLEARS the Marine as the words prove it was done in self defense as he thought the guy was "faking death."

No, that doesn't. We can't go around shooting anyone whom we think is "faking death" and calling that "self-defense." (I.e., "Drop the gun or I'll fake death!" is a pretty absurd threat, obviously.) The problem is that the Marine treated this person as an active combatant, when it seems the man was actually wounded and considering himself hors de combat.

And errors are made in war - best to err on the side of caution when faced with a possible life and death decision.

Errors are easily made in war, because it is such a high-stress, poorly constrained environment! So let's call a spade a spade, and have military reporters and Pentagon commentators illustrate how difficult a position the troops are in, and show that we take responsibility for our actions and admit mistakes when they occur. Use this as an opportunity to point out the behaviour of the opposition and how it makes things difficult on them, while accepting that a misunderstanding might have occurred.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of first-order thinkers, those who don't look at secondary consequences, crying out that it is perfectly acceptable to act like low-life scum just because our opponents do.

Also, and I have not heard anyone comment on this, but I would be very curious to know the nature and extent of the young marine's head injury the day before and the circumstances around that incident - that might have great bearing on all this as that would be very traumatizing.

Again, this is something that might exonerate the Marine who pulled the trigger, but not the commander who allowed an unfit Marine into action. And that's my point...something went wrong, and kneejerk unconditional support without acknowledging that we MIGHT have blame, is a mistake, IMHO.

And you are right - this should be investigated and all the facts, all the extenuating circumstances should be revealed. Then I hope and pray this young marine is exonerated - he should be.

I hope and pray that this Marine is exonerated rightfully, and that the world sees it as the proper end result...and respects our honesty at investigating this without prejudice in either direction.

Reasoned and tentative support for this Marine is admirable. Blind support for shooting an unarmed prisoner--an act that shouldn't have occurred--is disturbing.

[Gondring]

Strawman?!?! He was criticized for providing footage to the media, which I pointed out is his client/employer. How is that a strawman? Or is that claim, itself, a strawman?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The Japanese of all people should talk.

[Texas Deb]

My support for this young marine is not blind support - it is reasoned and I have spelled out those reasons repeatedly. These terrorists were known to boobytrap bodies, to fake death and use other means of trickery to kill our marines - fact of the war that the marines deal with every moment they are in combat.

The audio of the tape proves the motive behind the shooting - the young marine PERCEIVED the guy to be a threat - that is a fact born out by the video which shows the motive behind the shooting - self defense. To assume anything otherwise it to attribute a malicious motive to the shooting and there is NOTHING that indicates in any way, shape or form that this was a malicious act - but EVERYTHING points to the marine seeing this as an act of self defense. Would it have been a mistake if the guy WAS faking death? And how do you know he wasn't? And how do we even know if he was alive when he was shot?

Whether it was an actual threat is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as it was PERCEIVED as a real threat - and by the circumstances of the shooting, by the knowlege of how these terrorists fight - I believe the actions of the marine were justified. I think when all shakes out, every reasonable, fair-minded person will conclude that this was a justified act of self defense because the young marine PERCEIVED it as a threat. Hindsight is always perfect, and armchair quarterbacks always know the right moves - but dealing with the realities of war in real time is what these young marines are dealing with and we cannot begin to put ourselves in their shoes.

We may just have to agree to disagree on some things, but I do agree with you that I want the young marine exonerated, and I believe he will be, rightfully. There is no evidence of malice in this shooting. It was a reasoned judgement call that this young marine made and it is obvious he did it to save the lives of himself and those around him. We must tread very lightly when we begin to second guess his judgement in what could have been a life and death situation in a war zone. We owe it to him to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[bjcintennessee]

ping

[Gondring]

My support for this young marine is not blind support - it is reasoned and I have spelled out those reasons repeatedly

Without replying to your entire post at this hour :-) I want to comment on this first line. I didn't mean to imply that your support was blind; I was referring to some who I think were giving blind support, even stating they didn't know the facts but support regardless. Sorry for the confusion.

[Texas Deb]

One more thing on this young marine - his name has not been broadcast yet here - but it has been broadcast on Al Jazeera. How long before his family will be targeted by the terrorists?

[hawkiye]

When were you in combat? This Marine was protecting himself and his squad pure and simple. These animals are known to booby trap bodies and conceal weapons when wounded also. This Marine after being shot in the face and watching his buddy die from a booby trapped body the day before was taking no chances and did the right thing to protect himself and his squad. He had no idea the guys was not armed and took no chances and was right to do it.

This kind of Monday morning quarterbacking burns me up. I am sickened by liberals and even those who should know better second guessing our guys on the battlefield and applying domestic peacetime rules of engagement to the battlefield and making judgments they have no business making!

That reporter should be arrested and tried for treason for aiding and abetting the enemy!

[Texas Deb]

I was not sure if you were referring to me or not, but thank you for your kind words.

[SAMS]

Do we know what state this young Marine is from? We can start a massive e-mail/letter writing/phone call campaign to his Senator/Congressman. I have a son currently stationed in Iraq (USMC) and every time one of these kids gets slammed by the media, for just doing the job this administration sent them there to do, I just see my son's face. If I can in anyway help this Marine and his family, I'll do it!

[SAMS]

If it was the Army, the guy would already be sitting at Ft Bragg awaiting trial while everybody up the chain would be trying to figure out how to cover there sorry a$$e$

[MeekOneGOP]

Zackley! That cartoon is a bullseye.

[SAMS]

I just got off the phone with the PR office of the Commandant and was told by the SSG that answered the call that they ARE TRACKING the number of calls!! EVERYBODY, GET ON THE PHONE NOW!!

[SAMS]

So let's hit them where it hurst the most, the pocket book. Stop watching NBC, and I mean all of NBC, sit-coms, sports, whatever. Who are the sponsors of the news broadcasts? I am in Germany and we only get AFN, so no commercials. If somebody would make a list of all the sponsors of the NBC news programs & boycott them, with letters to those companies telling them we are boycotting, maybe that would shake them up.

[LakeLady]

PAJAMA PUPPIES PING!

Here's another thread to show your support.

We WILL mobilize if necessary. WOOF! WOOF!

LakeLady

[EarlyBird]

I didn't see a separate thread last night, and don't see one now. I'd post the story from the abcnews.com webpage, put it's a pay per view story.

It's still up on their World News Tonight page at:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/

It's a picture of Sean Hannity at his microphone, but to watch the story you have to pay $$. Maybe someone who's subscribed can post a separate thread.

[AmericanInTokyo]

'sins of the fathers on the sons?', i.e. the J. leftists who wrote that garbage, in all fairness, are two generations removed from the J's who did that kind of stuff 60 years ago, and who by and large are now dead....

[Grampa Dave]

Beside pushing this non issue, John Nicholson has been pushing removing the age limit for homosexual activity for decades. So he appears to be anothe Fudge Packer against GW and our war in Iraq.

http://www.agenda.org.uk/html/agenda1802.htm

Fight it, or Forget it?

John Nicholson | first published: Februrary 1999 | Agenda18

John Nicholson says that we must not forget Section 28

Barring further disasters the homophobic unequal age of consent will be removed from the statute book this session. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 is still there and shows no signs of going away. Section 28 legally outlaws the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, but one of its worst effects has been to frighten schools from acknowledging lesbian and gay sexuality. Is it any wonder that HIV infections amongst young gay men have continued to rise if recognition of gay identity and provision of sex education is undermined in schools?

Back to the 1980s

The origins of Section 28 lie in the politics of the Thatcher governments in the 1980s. Section 28 was partly the outcome of dramatised conflict with so-called 'loony left' councils (as part of a strategy to undermine the independent powers of local authorities), and partly an expression of Right wing ideological preoccupations with issues around 'family' and sexuality.

Cutting local government funding and reducing local services reinforced the impact of wider economic and social 'market' changes, particularly the loss of jobs. The key changes were implemented during the first period of the Thatcher governments, from 1979-1987. There were marked increases in poverty and ill-health in the inner cities (and other areas of urban disadvantage), with growing populations of homeless people, people with drug using histories, and people with mental health problems. Metropolitan councils - with the greatest needs - suffered the greatest cuts.

One effect of this urban crisis, later compounded by the decline in electoral registration resulting from the poll tax, was to undermine commitment to participate in local electoral politics. Unsurprisingly many of the councils fighting economic disadvantage and championing poorer communities linked their struggle with those who were socially discriminated against as well (women, disabled people, and lesbians and gay men), which had the effect of opening up councils to new influences.

From the mid-1980s lesbians and gay men had an increasing impact in local government as they saw its scope to support lesbian and gay community organisations and to improve their access to employment and services. This effect was exaggerated by a new geographical and social mobility of gay men, who moved in large numbers to live in inner London and a few other urban centres, including Manchester. In the research study 'How far will you go?' (1996), Gay Men Fighting AIDS found that 'The overwhelming majority of the gay men in our sample who are currently resident in London did not grow up in London but moved there. This shows a massive influx of gay men into the capital'. This effect was very visible by the mid and late 1980s. This stronger lesbian and gay identity, particularly in London local government, was used directly as a campaign issue by the Conservatives in the 1987 General Election.

In the aftermath, Clause 28 - later Section 28 - was presented as an amendment to the Local Government Bill by Conservative MP Dame Jill Knight on 7 December 1987. Section 28 came into force on 24 May 1988.

Fight it, or forget it?

The response from the official opposition (a local government team which boasted the Two Jacks, Straw and Cunningham - during much of the 1980s) was instant approval. This should not be forgotten. The response behind the scenes was that the proposal was unworkable, and the eventual law was so toothless, in legal fact, that no prosecutions have taken place.

Real resistance to Section 28 came from elsewhere. The response from the lesbian and gay communities was tremendous, with huge public protests - including a demonstration of 20,000 people in Manchester (photo) - and other direct action. One effect was to draw large number of younger people into campaigning for lesbian and gay equality for the first time. Another effect was to achieve a Labour Party manifesto commitment to repeal.

No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 28. But that was never the real issue. The reality of Section 28 is a climate of self-denial and self-censorship within local government - including education and youth services - which represses recognition of lesbian and gay identities.

Making the connection with HIV

Sex education offered in schools fails for most young people growing up lesbian or gay.

At the most obvious level, Section 28's ban on 'promoting homosexuality' may encourage teachers to ignore lesbian and gay sexuality altogether in the sex education offered by schools. Estelle Morris MP, the Schools Standards Minister, confirmed in October 1997 that 'Although the responsibility for the detailed content and organisation of sex education lies with individual schools, there is no restriction on teaching about lesbian and gay issues in the classroom.. (Section 28) applies to the activities of the local authorities themselves, so does not apply to the activities of the governing bodies and staff of schools'.

This is hardly the point. The statement by the Minister has less impact in shaping public perception than the continued existence of Section 28 on the statute book and the absence of any positive proposal to repeal it.

Ministers are not alone in complacency. AVERT (AIDS Education and Research Trust) wrote in November 1998 that '(As) we all know, Section 28 does not apply to schools. Fortunately, thanks to the work of organisations like ourselves, many schools are now taking steps to address gay issues and tackle the problems of homophobia and bullying'.

The Terrence Higgins Trust and Stonewall report 'Playing It Safe' (1997), based on a survey of 300 schools by researchers at the London University Institute of Education, confirms how damaging this complacency is to the health of young people. 'Over half of schools said they had difficulty addressing the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils because of Section 28. Over 80% of the schools surveyed stated that they were aware of incidents of verbal homophobic bullying, and 26% were aware of physical homophobic bullying'. This highlights the real limits of sex education and on the possibilities of schools contributing to prevention of HIV infection amongst young men growing up gay.

Section 28 contributes to the continuing failure of schools to engage with the real lives of their lesbian and gay students. Sex education in schools cannot begin to address issues of good sexual health for all young people until it acknowledges lesbian and gay identities. In the meantime incidence of HIV amongst young gay men in the UK is not falling.

Simply providing young gay men with information about HIV transmission and about safer sex practices will not stop HIV. Schools and other agencies must support young gay men in taking responsibility for their own lives. This means promoting the self-esteem and confidence of gay men in their early sex lives. In turn, this must mean going beyond sex education classes, to providing safe space in schools for young men growing up gay (and including positive lesbian and gay images in the school curriculum).

Back to the future

Victorian values in the 1980s have been replaced by New Family Values, rooted in a distorted vision of life in 1950s England. These provide no place for lesbian and gay households, or family relationships not based on the model of heterosexual marriage. These contradict the warmer message of 'social exclusion'. Section 28 promotes social exclusion for lesbians and gay men.

The Government now says that it can't yet repeal Section 28 because the measure can be blocked by the House of Lords. Maybe. But that does not stop it trying. It did not stop it sending back a closed list voting system for European elections on five occasions (the age of consent was not sent back once). And it doesn't stop an individual back bencher putting a new amendment forward to cast the Section out into the deep dark pit of history where it belongs.

This is a victory we can win. And we must. Equality demands the repeal of Section 28, just as it demands the equal (not - and how many times must we say It - a 'lower') age of consent. Parliamentary surveys show there is no significant support in the House of Commons for maintaining this law. A one clause Bill could scrap it, but lesbian and gay campaigning organisations appear to have relegated the repeal of Section 28 to the back burner. Soldiers, marriages and concessionary train travel are, perhaps, more fun.

But Section 28 costs lives. People affected by HIV - and HIV organisations - must join in working for its immediate repeal. Contempt for Section 28 is not enough. Its repeal is an urgent priority. This is just the start. It must be followed by positive steps to address the real needs of young people growing up lesbian and gay.

John Nicholson is Director of George House Trust john@ght.org.uk

[MeekOneGOP]

I was talking with my step-dad about this. He is also outraged at the media for trashing our military. He is a big Nascar fan ......

< snip >

The race this weekend is supposed to be a BIG ratings getter for NBC. Maybe something can be done there? He said he won't watch, or if someone has a different idea-he'd go along. Nascar fans support our troops. How about contacting the drivers? Any ideas ? They media is completely out of control. They need a STRONG message. They are putting our troops in danger.

#874, folks .....

[Inwoodian]

The marine should get a medal, not an investigation. It is because of men like this that the rest of us sleep comfortably in our beds. Spare me the nuanced interpretation of the Geneva Convention. These beheaders deserve nothing but a mouthful of lead.