That's quite a conclusion. You must be a mind-reader. You are assuming that he knew that this current group of Marines didn't know the situation in the mosque and that he also knew how the Marines would react. Sites must be an evil genius.
PLUS, if he thought a war crime was in the process of taking place, HE should have intervened, NOT stood there to record it on film, then LATER posture how UNFORTUNATE it was!!
The shooting took about two seconds. Even if he had lightning-fast reflexes, what do you propose that he should have done to stop a battle-hardened, armed Marine?
He needs to be charged.
With what?
"You are assuming that he knew that this current group of Marines didn't know the situation in the mosque and that he also knew how the Marines would react. "
See my recent post also.
Yes I am "assuming" it, but it is a rational possibility based upon the complete tape that Hannity played yest. -- in combination with what Sites has said before and after.
I would like to see a transcript and timeline. It is possible that he was as flumoxed as the Marine . . .
However, he should be investigated.
That is what I meant by "charged." When you contemplate charging someone with something, you investigate to see what specific charges, if any, are warranted. The Marine is being investigated. Sites should be, too. Maybe he will be in the context of that investigation. Do not know.
That is one reason I posted this. Tin foil hat in place. To get reactions about this.
"Charge with what?"
Well: HE knew that these were possibly disarmed wounded. He may have been the only one who knew that. Yet, he did nothing to stop it.
Look at the indignation in the world wide reaction to this film. It is all predicated on what the MARINE did. But he was right there, WITH more knowledge. Could it not be inferred that HE had information which could have saved the life of that terrorist on the ground? Shouldn't HE be considered as being an active or passive agent in the chain of events which led to that guy's demise?
IOW: look at the PR aspect of it. If the Marine is being "blamed", shouldn't Sites share in the "blame"?
Let the international press -- or at least the honest domestic ones -- give HIM and HIS motives the going over?
At the very least, he should be "charged" by the Marines with endangering the lives of Marines and wounded terrorists, by not sharing important battlefield information that he had privy to by virtue of his position as an embedded. I.E. investigated, and certainly not ever allowed in a position to endanger anyone's life in the future, friend or foe.
IMO ;) Subject to further information on time-line, etc.