Posted on 11/16/2004 4:34:34 AM PST by 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?
I hate MSM
Tell that to the family of the Marine who was killed on Monday when an 'insurgent' playing dead suddenly jumped up and sprayed the squad.
This group in the mosque had been disarmed the day before, but never placed under guard. They had been unobserved all night long, and there was insurgent activity in the immediate area. It is fully possible that this group had been re-armed without our knowing about it until it was too late. There was no way to tell. Personally, I would have taken the same action. My squads safety comes before your comfort level. So sorry.
Freedom of the press does include reaching the liberal customer with some manipulative liberally biased news on a lower level than the sophisticated commercials. In that way, a certain percentage of liberals will buy those particular products promoted on t.v. Those advertisement funds can pay Dan Rather and Peter Jennings their big pay checks to give you the liberal slanted news.
Mark Williams is reporting the "imbedded reporter" vermin is an anti-war activist with his own anti-war web site. He had an agenda, don't you think?
Probably. But so what? Nobody can claim that the recording he made was not accurate.
He is probably thrilled that what he filmed might hurt the war effort. That doesn't change the fact that he filmed events as they happened.
He might as well have been working for OBL, Saddam or the UN. I wonder who allowed him to be imbedded?
The military.
I checked out Sites site and did find one very cool poem...
The Sheepdogs
Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon Life’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.
To the flock, sheepdog’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.
But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”
Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf pack’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.
And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
Seriously, the poem makes the point very effectively. The problem is, IMHO, there are those who don't care if the Dogs of War go on a rampage through the town--because there's a wolf out there. Let's not trash America to save it.
When Sites spoke into the recorder, "these are the wounded left behind", it was an aside, to the camera/recorder. He was not addressing it to the Marines.
My understanding is that he was addressing it to the lieutentant accompanying him into the building...the same lieutentant that had talked to the Marines who'd come out of the building after shooting the wounded inside. It seems that it was when Sites and the lieutenant went into the mosque together that the cameraman was able to tell (only then) that the re-shot insurgents were the ones wounded from the day before.
Note... if the building was being "re-cleared," Sites wouldn't have been inside while the building was stormed. He couldn't have known that the men on the floor (that the assaulting Marines found) were the ones from the previous day. It was after the building was cleared (and the Marines storming the place had just re-shot these wounded men left behind), and Sites went in with the officer, that anyone realized the men inside were the previously surrendered wounded.
People posting that the fog of war makes it okay for the Marine to shoot, while claiming that Sites (psychically, I guess) knew that the Marines had just popped some men who'd already surrendered and should have conveyed that before he even went into the place, is just wrong. In fact, if this reporter did try to tell the Marines (that the guys in there already surrendered yesterday), I'd bet there would be all kinds of howls that this guy was interfering and trying to tell the Marines how to do their job.
I didn't hear Hannity's show, so I don't know what was played, but I've seen transcripts of a Marine telling his lieutenant that after (re-)storming the mosque, they'd encountered (and shot) some people inside. When asked if they were armed, the Marine shrugged. That says to me that the timeline is:
F & G make it clear that this was a misunderstanding, as we agree. But I also don't think Sites could have stopped it...he wouldn't have been in the room-clearing assault and didn't know the problem until after he went in with the Lieutenant.
I'm bothered that people want to whitewash that something was wrong here. I thought we're on the side of decency. I will await the outcome of the investigation before clearing anyone.
I assume that, if indeed this second squad did not know as it now seems, it was because: first, the medics would have been informed about evac'ing the wounded, not another squad. Otherwise, chaos and tempo of the battle. That is understantable.
I think we're in agreement on this point. I just think this is the point we should be focusing on, not just the video'd part. The shooting we saw was only the last part of the incident.
The part that I still have a problem with is that the tape Hannity played, [ the stuff BEFORE Sites says in to the camera, "these are the wounded that were left behind" ] it sounds tactical.
There is banging and troops yelling. It sounds like they are storming/clearing, not just entering a just-secured bldg. And Sites is clearly there, because it is on the tape.
Not only banging and yelling: the impression made upon my military-mind by those voices and noises during that part of it was: tension, unknown situation, etc.
As I said, I only heard it once. Hannity said he put it on his web site. I didn't try to get it again 'cause I have trouble getting things to play on my computer. When I can afford the time, I will try to listen to it again.
I appreciate your effort on the timeline. I was hoping some FReeper genius would post a complete transcript of the video, too, from beginning to end.
We don't know everything. But what stands out is the huge difference between the version we all first heard on TV and the complete tape: 1. The first time I heard the tape, the statement Sites made "these are the wounded left behind" is THE thing that conditions one's mind to think that the shooting was almost completely unjustified. This is the media version. After I heard it, knowing the rules of warfare, I thought this troop likely did wrongly overreact.
2. When I heard the complete tape on Hannity, it was clear that was not the case: the troop did NOT know they were wounded left behind, and the sounds preceding it were of tension and anxiety. You are with the troops going in, you sense the tension, and you are not conditioned by the "wounded left behind" statement which comes LATER. IOW: This version makes the troop look innocent almost completely.
So, the person who edited the tape for NBC had an agenda, no?
Site's other statements make it clear that he has an anti-war point-of-view. He and NBC did NOT have to make this tape into what it has become. Even if Sites did not set the scene, as you contend, he still constructed the STORY -- Marine shoots innocent man -- FROM what was on the tape. That is IMO -- PROPAGANDA. Because it is SELECTIVE use of facts to give a pre-ordained CONCLUSION. This is the clear use of the engagement in the press.
It is also PROPAGANDA because it does not give predominant time to the predominant atrocities of the enemy. It is the old media US Military BAAAAD; "freedom-fighters" GOOOOD mentality.
As for what Sites knew and when he knew it and where he was -- we need the complete details. However, it is totally consistent with his ethos that he "played dumb and acted smart". In order to advance what he says is his real job as a war correspondent in his quote: question the authority of those who run the war, and how it affects those on the ground who have to execute it
Conveniently, he was able to advance that agenda and "prove" that it conditions the troops on the ground to kill innocent wounded . . .
I have to respectfully suggest that you're getting one part mixed up, though.
It sounds like they are storming/clearing, not just entering a just-secured bldg.
Sites has made it clear that he was outside with the lieutenant while the Marines went into the room again on Saturday and shot the wounded (what I referred to as "the room-clearing assault"). You can see this at the beginning of the video I have--where there are shots coming from inside the building while the camera is outside. Then, he said a Marine reported they had shot people inside. The lieutenant asked if they were armed, and he shrugged.
Then, the lieutenant and Sites went inside the mosque...and that's when the Marine saw one moving and shot him--just after Sites tells the lieutenant the situation. Note that from the Marine's POV, this man was not an EPW, but an active combatant who might have been playing a trick. To Sites, however, this is an already surrendered, wounded detainee.
But I don't think that an important point is getting across... by the point of the video where the Marine shoots the wounded guy, the Marines have already shot four wounded captives! ...unless there's more to the story that comes out in the investigation. I think that one piece of info that we haven't heard is confirmation whether there was, indeed, hostile fire coming from this room on Saturday, or if it was just reported that there were some insurgents in there. This is key.
So, the person who edited the tape for NBC had an agenda, no?
Heck, does that surprise you?! While the video shows what it shows, that doesn't mean the network didn't try to make it worse! Just because they aren't ABC or CBS doesn't mean they're honest... ;-)
As for what Sites knew and when he knew it and where he was -- we need the complete details.
I strongly agree with this, as I've said. We can't clear the Marine or anyone until we know more about what happened. That makes my point clearly, thanks.
Conveniently, he was able to advance that agenda and "prove" that it conditions the troops on the ground to kill innocent wounded . . .
That could be one interpretation, but I would offer a different one... "The dirty tactics employed by our enemies have made the job more dangerous and have increased confusion, leading to incidents where even with our best intentions, misunderstandings will occur. Therefore, it's imperative that the insurgents understand that they are cutting their own throats, so to speak."
Note that before he went into his current silence, Sites made a statement supporting the professionalism and the behavior of our troops.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.
The tape Hannity played, however, showed a lot more tension and uncertainty than your chronology allows for.
I have wasted an hour trying to get it to play from Hannity.com
Drat, just as I expected. I don't know the filetype, but Windows Media player hops in to open it, and then gives an error, can't find proxy server. Went through everything, and nothing even HAS a proxy server. I wonder if that is the correct program, but I have been all over Windows and can't find how to make a default program for media files GO AWAY.
Sheesh, just as I feared, I wasted an hour and am NOWHERE!!
I agree what happened before should be investigated. I am sure the Marine Corps will thoroughly look into it -- just wonder what we will hear/see of it. E.g. the complete timeline!!
In the mean time, I would sure like to see a transcript of the tape on Hannity.com, since I can't even get it to play. :(
P.S. On one thread I got a video to pop open under Real Player. I did nothing, it just opened itself that way when I clicked on it.
BUT:
That version is NOT as long as the one Hannity had.
"There Marines in there?"
"Yeah, they're on the far, far right, far right."
"Coming around the back."
"Hey, who's in here?"
"Coming around."
"What the {expletive} are you doing in there?"
"{expletive}, you almost got shot by tanks"
"Huh..us?"
"Yeah, yeah."
"You guys almost got shot up by tanks."
"They told us to come in here."
"The tanks did?" {something else is said by someone else}
"Yeah, they're telling us [that] people are in here, and told us to come in here."
{unintelligible}
"Yeah, we had two in there."
"You shoot 'em?"
"Yeah, man."
"They have any weapons on 'em?"
{enter building}
"Same guys from yesterday?
"Yep."
{Other voices.}
"Alright."
"These are the ones from yesterday."
Sites, low voice: "These are the wounded that they never picked up."
{Camera shows two men against wall}
"He's {expletive} faking [that] he's dead!"
"Yeah, he's breathing." {Camera view moves up to show Marine pointing rifle at prone man.}
"He's faking [that] he's {expletive} dead!"
{rifle report(s)}
"Dead now."
{end of video}
Other video I've seen has the Marine saying "I didn't know" but I can't find that video now. Also, based on this version of the video, I now agree with you that it was a comment to the microphone that Sites made--that wasn't clear on the version I saw before.
Note, however, the highlighted section I put in maroon. It's clear that some of the Marines are aware these were previously captured enemy--they say it before Sites says it to the camera. I think that the Marine doing the shooting didn't realize that, though. I can imagine the lieutenant being appalled at what just happened...though I'm not sure it was his fault, either...as he just found out about the situation, and it's not even clear if the shooter was in his platoon.
"Other video I've seen has the Marine saying "I didn't know" but I can't find that video now. "
I know! Hannity said before he played the "complete tape" on the radio, that the context of the shooting was what happened BEFORE AND AFTER the portion that was being widely shown. I know I heard the AFTER part, too! But it is not on this video! I can only assume that they must not have put on hannity.com everything he played on the radio . . .
You did a good job on the transcript. Thanks!! I did manage to pull it up late last night on my husband's computer. I had given up, then I thought, maybe it would come up on his, and it did. (And I used to be a programmer! But I don't pretend to be able to keep up with everything these days).
It is in a sense more confusing than ever. The other unit they met, who went in because the tanks told them to, found and shot TWO guys, so it was apparently NOT the exact same place they next go into on the video. One of the written reports said Marines were clearing the mosque AND an adjacent bldg. So maybe those two enemy were found in the other bldg.
After all, if the other Marines had just cleared it, why would they go into the mosque right then? In fact, WHY DID they go into the mosque just then? We don't know what their orders were. So we still don't have the context.
The part about the Marines talking about "yesterday" does seem to refer to the wounded men, although I can't tell for sure. The one doing the shooting did not KNOW.
However, depending on why they went into that rooom, his assumption that the man was playing dead, could certainly justify his actions, even if HE had known they were previously disarmed wounded. Apparently THAT is not the room that had just been swept by the other Marines who spoke of 2 enemy being present where they just came from. SO under this scenario, not knowing if the wounded had been in the meantime boobytrapped, the entire episode would be so much ado about nothing; well, not nothing; if the young Marine were a bit skittish, his command would have judged that -- but the investigation and punishment, or combat rest, need not have gone out of the company or battalion level . . . Certainly not on world-wide TV.
OTOH, at Command and General Staff College we read and discussed a study comparing the percent of Infantry who actually fired their rifles AT ALL during combat. It was really low . . . can't remember, as low as 10 or 20%? Anyway, they compared Viet Nam and WW II and tried to discover why so few combat soldiers were actually were able to shoot AT the enemy at all . . . Conclusion, it is NOT that easy to train soldiers to overcome their natural disinclination to shoot even AT another human being, even in battle. SO under that situation, maybe the quicker-acting Marine is what IS needed in that kind of situation, and not the dumb-founded reactions of everyone else who were caught by surprise and didn't even yell out -- "these are unarmed!" THAT would also be for the Marines to judge, NOT Sites, and NOT the world-wide TV audiences, many of whom use the video merely to justify their pre-conceived ideas about/hatred of, the American military.
So we have the luxury of arm-chair-quarterbacking, and STILL cannot tell . . .
About Sites: the way it came across to me, it was a confusing situation. SO since Sites knew they were wounded from before, and the Marine who shot did not, and it happened so quickly, who is HE to assume moral superiority and hand the video over to broadcast around the world to friend AND FOE alike?
I.E. the video being shown DOES cast blame on the Marine and his unit and the United States. Yet, it was a morally confusing situation, and if Sites could not manage to stop it, knowing what he knew, and being there, what right does he have to blame the others by sending out the tape?
You will say, how could he stop it? Maybe that is just the point. If it was so CLEARLY the wrong thing to have done, someone should have yelled out to the anxious Marine.
So it was NOT SO CLEARLY the wrong thing to have done, was it, Sites? So why did you take this ambiguous situation and allow it to be used to cast blame upon the Marine and our war effort?
My issue about Sites is in large part a PR point and issue of moral responsibility: if it is so CLEARLY wrong, why did Sites not do anything about it either, as by HIS releasing the video, HE apparently thought it was rather CLEARLY going to disparage the Marines because the video documented something CLEARLY wrong?
Sites should be considered no better than the Marines, IMO, because HE was there, too. Yes, he would have been accused of interfering; but it is the duty of ANYONE to intervene if a war crime is imminent. He didn't -- but he chose to release the video, anyway.
I am not explaining this well, need more coffee.
1. the video as shown strongly implies wrongdoing on the part of the Marine and more broadly, the way the US is conducting operations; that result is also the intention of its being released and replayed
2. the more strongly the video supports that conclusion, the more strongly the situation apparently was wrong in the opinion of the reporter who is documenting it.
3. and so the more horrible the incident is seen to have been because of the video, the more strongly Sites would have had a duty to intervene, too, as a human being present during the "documented" wrong-doing.
4. if he didn't/couldn't because of the situation itself, which was confusing and ambiguous, it wasn't really as obviously wrong at the time, on the ground, as the video now implies. So the event wasn't as unambiguously "wrong" as it is "documented" to be. So the entire reason for releasing the "documention" on video collapses, and Sites should not have released it.
Get my drift?
In fact, does he always have a video camera running when he is with the troops? If so, why haven't we seen something before this incident? or maybe we have, but of course it did not make such an impact as this -- which Sites knew this would.
If he doesn't always have a video camera, but sometimes a still camera, why did he this time? What was the mission as it was told to the Marines and to Sites before the video starts rolling? This part is missing.
So, I plan to give up trying to figure it out further! Unless we find out something new! I do appreciate your efforts. I am not in favor of shooting unarmed wounded, but this video should never have been released. Sites is the one who did that.
I already emailed Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw about five times. I said that unless they wanted the wrath or every veteran in the country, then they better back off.
I think the media is starting to back off a little bit, but if they continue to harrass this marine...all HELL will break loose.
You did a good job on the transcript. Thanks!! I did manage to pull it up late last night on my husband's computer.
If I were able to get it broadband, or capture the stream, I might have been able to catch some other comments. The on-screen text has most of it correct, though, I think.
The other unit they met, who went in because the tanks told them to, found and shot TWO guys, so it was apparently NOT the exact same place they next go into on the video. One of the written reports said Marines were clearing the mosque AND an adjacent bldg. So maybe those two enemy were found in the other bldg.
Exactly my point. It's unclear. :-/
Perhaps they meant two were active (those sitting against wall?), and they assumed the other three were dead--so when they re-entered, they were surprised to see the one "dead" one move. OR it could have been a different room/building. As you say, this unclear point shows that the Marines were confused about the situation.
The Marines (told by tank) were either a different unit, or they were the same unit simply re-entering now that the lieutenant was going in.
After all, if the other Marines had just cleared it, why would they go into the mosque right then?
Lieutenant was going in for first-hand look and they accompanied him?
The part about the Marines talking about "yesterday" does seem to refer to the wounded men, although I can't tell for sure. The one doing the shooting did not KNOW.
Right. That's my point... It seems many people think I'm a troll for saying that, when I think it is support of the shooting Marine's mindset. However, as you point out later, that doesn't exonerate us overall.
OTOH, at Command and General Staff College we read and discussed a study comparing the percent of Infantry who actually fired their rifles AT ALL during combat
That was the work of army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall. There's a lot of dispute about his work, but there's a lot of support, too.
Anyway, they compared Viet Nam and WW II and tried to discover why so few combat soldiers were actually were able to shoot AT the enemy at all . . .
Well, he looked at WWII numbers, and others, and then convinced the Army to implement training to raise these rates. They went up in Korea slightly, and were reportedly very high in Vietnam.
If you believe the jump by Vietnam, then it shows that densensitizing our troops worked very well.
SO under that situation, maybe the quicker-acting Marine is what IS needed in that kind of situation
The key is that training must be not only to desensitize, but also to react to non-kill situations. If this were a case of "Marine is trigger-happy since he's unreasonably worried about a gredade going off with an active combatant" then that's one thing. But I think we've established that he didn't know this man presented no threat.
... who is HE to assume moral superiority and hand the video over to broadcast around the world to friend AND FOE alike?
He documented something that actually happened and turned it over to his employer, in accordance with military's procedures. I don't think Sites was expecting the Marine to shoot, and he wasn't sitting there waiting to video him doing so. Note that Sites doesn't have the camera focused on the Marine who shoots until the shouting starts.
I think that at the point of "He's {expletive} faking..." Sites was just realizing that he already had a story (the Marines had already shot up unarmed men that had surrendered) and the shooting caught him by surprise, too.
About Sites: the way it came across to me, it was a confusing situation. SO since Sites knew they were wounded from before, and the Marine who shot did not, and it happened so quickly, who is HE to assume moral superiority and hand the video over to broadcast around the world to friend AND FOE alike?
I think we agree, except on the point of turning over the video. I don't think that he "asssumed moral superiority" in doing his job. He video'd something that happened, and illustrated the strength of America by demonstrating that we are not afraid of a Free Press. Oh wait...some people here seem to be... :-( I believe that by jumping to the Marines' (sic) defense without investigation, people have made the case that America is covering something up.
I don't like that...I'd rather people see that America will investigate first and not just blindly say we did nothing wrong. The current reaction fuels an international perception that we are covering up atrocities. (And to those who say "who cares" about the international perceptions--that it "doesn't matter what other people think, let's kill them all" how can you then justify attacking Sites for doing something that "doesn't matter"?!?)
I.E. the video being shown DOES cast blame on the Marine and his unit and the United States. Yet, it was a morally confusing situation, and if Sites could not manage to stop it, knowing what he knew, and being there, what right does he have to blame the others by sending out the tape?
This really concisely sets out your position, and I agree to a large extent. The exceptions are that (a) the video doesn't cast the blame, the viewers and the network editors do, and (b) sending out the raw, uncommented video is not "blaming" the others. It is documentation of something that really happened... (you don't think it was doctored, do you?) Sorta like saying to a cop, "You can't ticket me--it's not fair...I thought you were a manniquin in that car, so I didn't slow down!"
I am not in favor of shooting unarmed wounded, but this video should never have been released. Sites is the one who did that. (oh, and that "right" he has...it's one of the ones guaranteed by the First Amendment... ;-)
I disagree. We are better than the scum we fight, and if we aren't going to be willing to face our actions then we are slipping down the moral hill already and we should just get out of there.
Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for your integrity in not jumping to conclusions. (And for reading my long and poorly worded posts--even coffee isn't helping those!!) I wish all correspondents were so reasonable. :-)
And also, thank you for your service to this country. :-)
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.